Purpose: Although guidelines recommend in-person counseling before BRCA1/BRCA2 gene testing, genetic counseling is increasingly offered by telephone. As genomic testing becomes more common, evaluating alternative delivery approaches becomes increasingly salient. We tested whether telephone delivery of BRCA1/2 genetic counseling was noninferior to in-person delivery. Patients and Methods: Participants (women age 21 to 85 years who did not have newly diagnosed or metastatic cancer and lived within a study site catchment area) were randomly assigned to usual care (UC; n = 334) or telephone counseling (TC; n = 335). UC participants received in-person pre- and post-test counseling; TC participants completed all counseling by telephone. Primary outcomes were knowledge, satisfaction, decision conflict, distress, and quality of life; secondary outcomes were equivalence of BRCA1/2 test uptake and costs of delivering TC versus UC. Results: TC was noninferior to UC on all primary outcomes. At 2 weeks after pretest counseling, knowledge (d = 0.03; lower bound of 97.5% CI, −0.61), perceived stress (d = −0.12; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.21), and satisfaction (d = −0.16; lower bound of 97.5% CI, −0.70) had group differences and confidence intervals that did not cross their 1-point noninferiority limits. Decision conflict (d = 1.1; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 3.3) and cancer distress (d = −1.6; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.27) did not cross their 4-point noninferiority limit. Results were comparable at 3 months. TC was not equivalent to UC on BRCA1/2 test uptake (UC, 90.1%; TC, 84.2%). TC yielded cost savings of $114 per patient. Conclusion: Genetic counseling can be effectively and efficiently delivered via telephone to increase access and decrease costs.

Objective To characterize serum cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP) levels by age and gender for a radiographically defined population free of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), and to examine the potential utility of COMP as a diagnostic biomarker for knee OA. Methods Serum samples and knee and hip radiographs were obtained at a baseline evaluation as part of the Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project, a population‐based study of OA in rural North Carolina. A total of 291 Caucasian participants were randomly selected for COMP analysis, 143 patients with radiographic knee OA (Kellgren/Lawrence [K/L] grade ≥2) and 148 controls with neither hip nor knee OA (K/L grade 0), evenly distributed by age and gender. COMP was quantified by competitive enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay with monoclonal antibody 17‐C10. The natural log–transformed COMP data were analyzed using general linear models. Results Serum COMP levels were significantly elevated (P = 0.0001) in the age ≥65 group (mean ± SD 1,302.1 ± 496.7 ng/ml) versus the age 45–54 and age 55–64 groups (1,058.1 ± 432.4 and 1,038.6 ± 313.3, respectively). Serum COMP levels of the OA group were significantly higher than those of the control group (1,208.57 ± 487.47 ng/ml versus 1,061.83 ± 370.58 ng/ml; P = 0.0093). Serum COMP levels also increased significantly with knee OA K/L grade (P = 0.0047), knee OA laterality (P = 0.0043), and number of knee and hip joints involved (P = 0.0001). There was no significant difference in serum COMP levels by gender or obesity. Conclusion We demonstrate that in a population‐based sample, serum COMP levels can distinguish an OA‐affected subgroup from an unaffected subgroup and can reflect disease severity and multiple joint involvement in OA.

Purpose: To estimate cancer population-based reference values in the United States for eight PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) domains by age and stage of disease. Patients and Methods: For the Measuring Your Health (MY-Health) study, persons newly diagnosed with cancer (prostate, colorectal, non–small-cell lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, breast, uterine, or cervical) from 2010 to 2012 (N = 5,284) were recruited through the National Cancer Institute’s SEER Program. Participants were mailed surveys 6 to 13 months after diagnosis. Raking by race/ethnicity, age, and stage generated weighted average PROMIS scores for pain interference, fatigue, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, physical function, ability to participate in social roles, and cognitive function. PROMIS measures are standardized to a T-score metric, with a score of 50 representing the general US population mean. Clinically meaningful differences were defined as a 3-point difference in scores. Results: Several reference values (means) for patients with cancer were worse than the general United States population norms of 50. These include pain interference (52.4), fatigue (52.2), and physical function (44.1). Reference values were highest (ie, showed greatest symptom burden) in lung cancer (pain interference, 55.5; fatigue, 57.3; depression, 51.4) and cervical cancer (anxiety, 53.2; sleep disturbance, 53.4). Reference values for patients age 65 to 84 years reported lower sleep disturbance, anxiety, and depression, and better cognitive function than younger patients. Cancer reference values were poorer among those with advanced disease compared with patients with limited or no evidence of disease, specifically physical function (41.1 v 46.6, respectively), fatigue (55.8 v 50.2, respectively), and pain interference (55.2 v 50.9, respectively). Conclusion: In a large, population-based sample of patients with recently diagnosed cancer, we observed symptom severity and functional deficits by age, stage, and cancer type consistent with the expected impact of cancer diagnosis and treatment. These United States cancer reference values can help facilitate interpretation of the PROMIS domain scores in research studies or in clinical applications that measure and evaluate the symptom and functional burden patients with cancer experience after initial treatment.

Objective To perform a randomized, double‐blind, crossover clinical trial of diclofenac + misoprostol versus acetaminophen in ambulatory patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Methods Patients in 12 ambulatory care settings were eligible if they were age >40 years and if they had Kellgren/Lawrence radiographic grade 2–4 osteoarthritis of the knee or hip and a score of ≥30 mm on a 100‐mm visual analog pain scale. Patients were randomized to one of two groups, 75 mg diclofenac + 200 μg misoprostol twice daily or 1,000 mg acetaminophen 4 times daily (each for 6 weeks), and were then crossed over to the other treatment for 6 weeks. A placebo was included in each treatment regimen to enable double blinding. The primary outcome measures were the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and the visual analog pain scale of the Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire. Safety was assessed using a standard form to review adverse events. Results We enrolled 227 patients, of whom 218 provided data for the first treatment period and 181 provided data for both treatment periods. Significantly higher levels of improvement in the primary outcomes were seen for diclofenac + misoprostol than for acetaminophen (P < 0.001). Adverse events were more common when patients took diclofenac + misoprostol (P = 0.046). Diclofenac + misoprostol was rated as “better” or “much better” by 57% of the 174 patients who provided such ratings for both treatment periods, while acetaminophen was rated as “better” or “much better” by 20% of these patients, and 22% reported no difference (P < 0.001). Differences favoring diclofenac + misoprostol over acetaminophen were greater in patients with more severe osteoarthritis according to baseline pain scores, radiographs, or number of involved joints. Conclusion Patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee had significantly greater improvements in pain scores over 6 weeks with diclofenac + misoprostol than with acetaminophen, although patients with mild osteoarthritis had similar improvements with both drugs. Acetaminophen was associated with fewer adverse events.

Purpose: To determine treatment and aging-related effects on longitudinal cognitive function in older breast cancer survivors. Methods: Newly diagnosed nonmetastatic breast cancer survivors (n = 344) and matched controls without cancer (n = 347) 60 years of age and older without dementia or neurologic disease were recruited between August 2010 and December 2015. Data collection occurred during presystemic treatment/control enrollment and at 12 and 24 months through biospecimens; surveys; self-reported Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function; and neuropsychological tests that measured attention, processing speed, and executive function (APE) and learning and memory (LM). Linear mixed-effects models tested two-way interactions of treatment group (control, chemotherapy with or without hormonal therapy, and hormonal therapy) and time and explored three-way interactions of ApoE (ε4+ v not) by group by time; covariates included baseline age, frailty, race, and cognitive reserve. Results: Survivors and controls were 60 to 98 years of age, were well educated, and had similar baseline cognitive scores. Treatment was related to longitudinal cognition scores, with survivors who received chemotherapy having increasingly worse APE scores ( P = .05) and those initiating hormonal therapy having lower LM scores at 12 months ( P = .03) than other groups. These group-by-time differences varied by ApoE genotype, where only ε4+ survivors receiving hormone therapy had short-term decreases in adjusted LM scores (three-way interaction P = .03). For APE, the three-way interaction was not significant ( P = .14), but scores were significantly lower for ε4+ survivors exposed to chemotherapy (−0.40; 95% CI, −0.79 to −0.01) at 24 months than ε4+ controls (0.01; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.18; P < .05). Increasing age was associated with lower baseline scores on all cognitive measures ( P < .001); frailty was associated with baseline APE and self-reported decline ( P < .001). Conclusion: Breast cancer systemic treatment and aging-related phenotypes and genotypes are associated with longitudinal decreases in cognitive function scores in older survivors. These data could inform treatment decision making and survivorship care planning.