Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author: Kevin Stein x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

HSR19-100: CancerSupportSource®-15: Development and Evaluation of a Short Form of a Distress Screening Program for Cancer Survivors

Shauna McManus, Alexandra K. Zaleta, Melissa F. Miller, Joanne S. Buzaglo, Julie S. Olson, Sara Goldberger, and Kevin Stein

Background: CancerSupportSource (CSS) is a 25-item distress screening tool implemented at community-based cancer support organizations and hospitals nationwide. CSS assesses distress over 5 domains: (1) emotional concerns (including depression and anxiety risk screening subscales), (2) symptom burden, (3) body and healthy lifestyle, (4) healthcare team communication, and (5) relationships. This study developed a short form of CSS and examined its psychometric properties. Methods: 2,379 cancer survivors enrolled in the Cancer Support Community’s Cancer Experience Registry. Participants provided demographic and clinical background and completed CSS-25 and PROMIS-29, a measure of health-related quality of life. Item reduction was conducted with a subsample of 1,435 survivors and included external item quality (correlations between items and PROMIS-29 scales), internal item quality (inter-item and inter-factor correlations, factor loadings and structure, and item communalities from an exploratory factor analysis of CSS-25), and professional judgement (ranking/prioritization of items by CSS-25 developers, accounting for theoretical and practical implications). Pearson correlations and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted on a separate subsample of 944 survivors to corroborate psychometric properties and dimensionality of the shortened scale. Results: Scale refinement resulted in a 15-item short form of CSS (CSS-15). At least 1 item from each of the 5 CSS-25 domains was retained to preserve multidimensionality, including anxiety and depression risk screening subscale items. Additionally, 1 item about tobacco/substance use was kept due to clinical significance for risk assessment. In confirmatory factor analysis, the model explained 59% of the variance and demonstrated good fit (RMSEA=0.068, 90% CI=0.061–0.075; SRMR=0.033; CFI=0.959; χ 2(68)=334.75, P<.001). Correlation between CSS-15 and CSS-25 was 0.986, P<.001. Total distress was associated with PROMIS subscales (rs=−.65–.75, ps<.001); internal consistency reliability was excellent (α=.92). Conclusions: CSS-15 is a brief, reliable, and valid multidimensional measure of distress. The reduced measure retained excellent internal consistency and a stable factor structure, while correlating well with CSS-25 and PROMIS-29. CSS-15 can serve as a practical tool to efficiently screen for distress among cancer patients and survivors.

Full access

HSR19-113: Valued Outcomes in the Cancer Experience (VOICE™): Scale Development and Initial Validation

Alexandra K. Zaleta, Shauna McManus, Joanne S. Buzaglo, Eva Y. N. Yuen, Julie S. Olson, Melissa F. Miller, Karen Hurley, Lillie D. Shockney, Sara Goldberger, Mitch Golant, and Kevin Stein

Background: Despite growing recognition that patient preferences and values should inform cancer care, patients’ views continue to be under-represented. We developed a quantitative tool, Valued Outcomes in the Cancer Experience (VOICE), to measure patient priorities and to understand discrepancies between what matters most to patients and what patients believe they can control. This study presents VOICE development and initial validation. Methods: 459 cancer patients completed an online survey and rated level of importance and perceived control for 54 value items (0=not at all; 4=very much). Items were derived from patient and caregiver focus groups and included themes such as independence, functional abilities, planning for the future, symptom management, health knowledge, and social support. Participants also completed validated measures of hope, optimism, quality of life, financial toxicity, spiritual well-being, illness perceptions, social support, self-efficacy, intolerance of uncertainty, and cancer-related distress. Iterative exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with direct oblique rotation, magnitude of importance and control ratings, and Pearson correlations between items and validation measures were used to inform scale refinement. Results: Participants were 86% non-Hispanic white; mean age=60 years, SD=10; 38% breast cancer, 18% blood, 9% lung, 9% prostate; mean time since diagnosis=6.5 years, SD=6; 22% metastatic. Items that did not load in the EFA, or were not associated with conceptually relevant validation measures, were removed or reworded. The final EFA explained over half of the variance in the data and demonstrated good fit, with absolute and relative fit indices in established acceptable ranges (P<.001). The refined VOICE measure addresses diverse themes including access to care, maintaining independence, longevity, shared decision making, illness understanding, symptom management, emotional support, connection to illness community, spirituality, and end of life preparation. Conclusions: The study results demonstrate a framework for developing a quantitative, multidimensional measure of patient values. By understanding what matters most to patients, VOICE is positioned to bring patient preferences to the foreground of cancer care, contribute to shared decision making, and enhance care. Next steps include further validation of this tool in diverse settings, including oncology practices and community-based organizations.

Full access

Clinical Outcomes With Abemaciclib After Prior CDK4/6 Inhibitor Progression in Breast Cancer: A Multicenter Experience

Seth A. Wander, Hyo S. Han, Mark L. Zangardi, Andrzej Niemierko, Veronica Mariotti, Leslie S.L. Kim, Jing Xi, Apurva Pandey, Siobhan Dunne, Azadeh Nasrazadani, Avinash Kambadakone, Casey Stein, Maxwell R. Lloyd, Megan Yuen, Laura M. Spring, Dejan Juric, Irene Kuter, Ioannis Sanidas, Beverly Moy, Therese Mulvey, Neelima Vidula, Nicholas J. Dyson, Leif W. Ellisen, Steven Isakoff, Nikhil Wagle, Adam Brufsky, Kevin Kalinsky, Cynthia X. Ma, Joyce O’Shaughnessy, and Aditya Bardia

Background: Inhibitors of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6i) are widely used as first-line therapy for hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer (HR+ MBC). Although abemaciclib monotherapy is also FDA-approved for treatment of disease progression on endocrine therapy, there is limited insight into the clinical activity of abemaciclib after progression on prior CDK4/6i. Patients and Methods: We identified patients with HR+ MBC from 6 cancer centers in the United States who received abemaciclib after disease progression on prior CDK4/6i, and abstracted clinical features, outcomes, toxicity, and predictive biomarkers. Results: In the multicenter cohort, abemaciclib was well tolerated after a prior course of CDK4/6i (palbociclib)-based therapy; a minority of patients discontinued abemaciclib because of toxicity without progression (9.2%). After progression on palbociclib, most patients (71.3%) received nonsequential therapy with abemaciclib (with ≥1 intervening non-CDK4/6i regimens), with most receiving abemaciclib with an antiestrogen agent (fulvestrant, 47.1%; aromatase inhibitor, 27.6%), and the remainder receiving abemaciclib monotherapy (19.5%). Median progression-free survival for abemaciclib in this population was 5.3 months and median overall survival was 17.2 months, notably similar to results obtained in the MONARCH-1 study of abemaciclib monotherapy in heavily pretreated HR+/HER2-negative CDK4/6i-naïve patients. A total of 36.8% of patients received abemaciclib for ≥6 months. There was no relationship between the duration of clinical benefit while on palbociclib and the subsequent duration of treatment with abemaciclib. RB1, ERBB2, and CCNE1 alterations were noted among patients with rapid progression on abemaciclib. Conclusions: A subset of patients with HR+ MBC continue to derive clinical benefit from abemaciclib after progression on prior palbociclib. These results highlight the need for future studies to confirm molecular predictors of cross-resistance to CDK4/6i therapy and to better characterize the utility of abemaciclib after disease progression on prior CDK4/6i.