Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 19, Issue 10, pp 1065–1076 | Cite as

The Pathways Study: a prospective study of breast cancer survivorship within Kaiser Permanente Northern California

  • Marilyn L. Kwan
  • Christine B. Ambrosone
  • Marion M. Lee
  • Janice Barlow
  • Sarah E. Krathwohl
  • Isaac Joshua Ergas
  • Christine H. Ashley
  • Julie R. Bittner
  • Jeanne Darbinian
  • Keren Stronach
  • Bette J. Caan
  • Warren Davis
  • Susan E. Kutner
  • Charles P. Quesenberry
  • Carol P. Somkin
  • Barbara Sternfeld
  • John K. Wiencke
  • Shichun Zheng
  • Lawrence H. Kushi
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Objective

With 2.3 million breast cancer survivors in the US today, identification of modifiable factors associated with breast cancer recurrence and survival is increasingly important. Only recently new studies have been designed to examine the impact of lifestyle factors on prognosis, including Pathways, a prospective study of women with breast cancer in Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC).

Methods

Pathways aims to examine the effect on recurrence and survival of (1) lifestyle factors such as diet, physical activity, quality of life, and use of alternative therapies and (2) molecular factors such as genetic polymorphisms involved in metabolism of chemotherapeutic agents. Eligibility includes any woman diagnosed with invasive breast cancer within KPNC, no previous diagnosis of other invasive cancer, age 21 years or older, and ability to speak English, Spanish, Cantonese, or Mandarin. Newly diagnosed patients are identified daily from electronic pathology records and are enrolled within two months of diagnosis. An extensive baseline interview is conducted, blood and saliva samples are collected, and body measurements are taken. Women are followed for lifestyle updates, treatment, and outcomes by self-report and query of KPNC databases.

Results

Recruitment began in 9 January, 2006, and as of 16 January, 2008, 1,539 women have been enrolled along with collection of 1,323 blood samples (86%) and 1,398 saliva samples (91%).

Conclusions

The Pathways Study will become a rich resource to examine behavioral and molecular factors and breast cancer prognosis.

Keywords

Breast cancer Prognosis Prospective cohort study Diet Complementary and alternative therapy Quality of life 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all Pathways Study office and field staff, and most importantly, the participants. The Pathways Study is supported by the National Cancer Institute (R01 CA105274). The ancillary studies are supported by the U.S. Department of Defense (BC043120), American Cancer Society (RSG-06-209-01-LR), and National Cancer Institute (R01 CA124924). The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies.

References

  1. 1.
    http://www.cancer.org, American Cancer Society. 2006
  2. 2.
    Ambrosone CB, Rebbeck TR, Morgan GJ et al (2006) New developments in the epidemiology of cancer prognosis: traditional and molecular predictors of treatment response and survival. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15(11):2042–2046. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0827 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kushi LH, Kwan ML, Lee MM, Ambrosone CB (2007) Lifestyle factors and survival in women with breast cancer. J Nutr 137(1 Suppl):236S–242SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rock CL, Demark-Wahnefried W (2002) Can lifestyle modification increase survival in women diagnosed with breast cancer? J Nutr 132(11 Suppl):3504S–3507SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rock CL, Demark-Wahnefried W (2002) Nutrition and survival after the diagnosis of breast cancer: a review of the evidence. J Clin Oncol 20(15):3302–3316. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.03.008 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (2007) Food, nutrition, physical activity, and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. AICR, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(16):1233–1241. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022152 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fisher B, Jeong JH, Bryant J et al (2004) Treatment of lymph-node-negative, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer: long-term findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project randomised clinical trials. Lancet 364(9437):858–568. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16981-X PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carlson RW, Brown E, Burstein HJ et al (2006) NCCN Task Force Report: adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 4(Suppl 1):S1–S26Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buyse M, Loi S, van’t Veer L et al (2006) Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(17):1183–1192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al (2004) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351(27):2817–2826. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa041588 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Doyle C, Kushi LH, Byers T et al (2006) Nutrition and physical activity during and after cancer treatment: an American Cancer Society guide for informed choices. CA Cancer J Clin 56(6):323–353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NCfHS (1999–2000) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. NHANES 1999–2000 Public Data Release File Documentation, Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/gendoc.pdf
  14. 14.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NCfHS (2000–2001) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. NHANES 2001–2002 Public Data General Release File Documentation. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_01_02/general_data_release_doc.pdf
  15. 15.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture ARS (2006) USDA food and nutrient database for dietary studies 2.0Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schakel SF, Buzzard IM, Gebhardt SE (1997) Procedures for estimating nutrient values for food composition databases. J Food Composition Anal. 10:102–114. doi: 10.1006/jfca.1997.0527 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schakel SF, Sievert YA, Buzzard IM (1988) Sources of data for developing and maintaining a nutrient database. J Am Diet Assoc 88(10):1268–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bair YA, Gold EB, Greendale GA et al (2002) Ethnic differences in use of complementary and alternative medicine at midlife: longitudinal results from SWAN participants. Am J Public Health 92(11):1832–1840PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee MM, Lin SS, Wrensch MR, Adler SR, Eisenberg D (2000) Alternative therapies used by women with breast cancer in four ethnic populations. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(1):42–47. doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.1.42 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pierce JP, Faerber S, Wright FA et al (2002) A randomized trial of the effect of a plant-based dietary pattern on additional breast cancer events and survival: the Women’s Healthy Eating and Living (WHEL) Study. Control Clin Trials 23(6):728–756. doi: 10.1016/S0197-2456(02)00241-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gammon MD, Neugut AI, Santella RM et al (2002) The Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project: description of a multi-institutional collaboration to identify environmental risk factors for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 74(3):235–254. Medline doi :10.1023/A:1016387020854 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Caan B, Sternfeld B, Gunderson E, Coates A, Quesenberry C, Slattery ML (2005) Life After Cancer Epidemiology (LACE) Study: a cohort of early stage breast cancer survivors (United States). Cancer Causes Control 16(5):545–556. doi: 10.1007/s10552-004-8340-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Staten LK, Taren DL, Howell WH et al (2001) Validation of the Arizona activity frequency questionnaire using doubly labeled water. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33(11):1959–1967. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200111000-00024 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F et al (1997) Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol 15(3):974–986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cella D, Peterman A, Hudgens S, Webster K, Socinski MA (2003) Measuring the side effects of taxane therapy in oncology: the functional assesment of cancer therapy-taxane (FACT-taxane). Cancer 98(4):822–831. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11578 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Radloff LS (1977) The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas 1:385–401. doi: 10.1177/014662167700100306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Scheier MF, Carver CS (1985) Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychol 4(3):219–247. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.4.3.219 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Neighbors HW, Jackson JS, Bowman PJ, Gurin G (1983) Stress, coping, and Black mental health: preliminary findings from a national study. Prev Hum Serv 2(3):5–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Krieger N, Smith K, Naishadham D, Hartman C, Barbeau EM (2005) Experiences of discrimination: validity and reliability of a self-report measure for population health research on racism and health. Soc Sci Med 61(7):1576–1596. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.03.006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ (2004) Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med 36(8):588–594PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stewart AL, Napoles-Springer AM, Gregorich SE, Santoyo-Olsson J (2007) Interpersonal processes of care survey: patient-reported measures for diverse groups. Health Serv Res 42(3 Pt 1):1235–1256. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00637.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Llewellyn-Thomas HA, McGreal MJ, Thiel EC, Fine S, Erlichman C (1991) Patients’ willingness to enter clinical trials: measuring the association with perceived benefit and preference for decision participation. Soc Sci Med 32(1):35–42. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90124-U PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    O’Malley AS, Sheppard VB, Schwartz M, Mandelblatt J (2004) The role of trust in use of preventive services among low-income African-American women. Prev Med 38(6):777–785. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.01.018 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL (1991) The MOS social support survey. Soc Sci Med 32(6):705–714. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90150-B PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Oehrli MD, Quesenberry CP, Leyden W (2006) Annual report on trends, incidence, and outcomes. 2006, Kaiser Permanente, Northern California Cancer RegistryGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Irwin ML, McTiernan A, Bernstein L et al (2004) Physical activity levels among breast cancer survivors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36(9):1484–1491PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lu W, Cui Y, Zheng Y et al (2007) Impact of newly diagnosed breast cancer on quality of life among Chinese women. Breast Cancer Res Treat 102(2):201–210. doi: 10.1007/s10549-006-9318-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jacobson JS, Workman SB, Kronenberg F (2000) Research on complementary/alternative medicine for patients with breast cancer: a review of the biomedical literature. J Clin Oncol 18(3):668–683PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bloechl-Daum B, Deuson RR, Mavros P, Hansen M, Herrstedt J (2006) Delayed nausea and vomiting continue to reduce patients’ quality of life after highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy despite antiemetic treatment. J Clin Oncol 24(27):4472–4478. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.05.6382 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Macquart-Moulin G, Viens P, Bouscary ML et al (1997) Discordance between physicians’ estimations and breast cancer patients’ self-assessment of side-effects of chemotherapy: an issue for quality of care. Br J Cancer 76(12):1640–1645PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Miller M, Kearney N (2004) Chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting–past reflections, present practice and future management. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 13(1):71–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2004.00446.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    McWayne J, Heiney SP (2005) Psychologic and social sequelae of secondary lymphedema. Cancer 104(3):457–466. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21195 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marilyn L. Kwan
    • 1
  • Christine B. Ambrosone
    • 2
  • Marion M. Lee
    • 3
  • Janice Barlow
    • 4
  • Sarah E. Krathwohl
    • 1
  • Isaac Joshua Ergas
    • 1
  • Christine H. Ashley
    • 1
  • Julie R. Bittner
    • 1
  • Jeanne Darbinian
    • 1
  • Keren Stronach
    • 1
  • Bette J. Caan
    • 1
  • Warren Davis
    • 2
  • Susan E. Kutner
    • 5
  • Charles P. Quesenberry
    • 1
  • Carol P. Somkin
    • 1
  • Barbara Sternfeld
    • 1
  • John K. Wiencke
    • 6
  • Shichun Zheng
    • 6
  • Lawrence H. Kushi
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of ResearchKaiser PermanenteOaklandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Cancer Prevention and ControlRoswell Park Cancer InstituteBuffaloUSA
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  4. 4.Zero Breast CancerSan RafaelUSA
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryKaiser Permanente Santa TeresaSan JoseUSA
  6. 6.Department of Neurological SurgeryUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations