RFTP 003 - Breast Cancer.pdf

Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

(NCCD)

Division of Cancer Prevention and Control (DCPC) Atlanta, GA 30333

DATE ISSUED: April 14, 2008 DATE RESPONSE DUE: May 15, 2008

REQUEST FOR TASK ORDER PROPOSAL (RFTP) NO: 003

TITLE: Survivorship issues for young women (<40 years of age) with breast cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Contract Reference: This RFTP is consistent with the tasks in section C.4(1)(B) – Research Support contained in RFP 2008-N-10240.

Funding Range:

< than $100,000

A. BACKGROUND AND NEED

There are more than 250,000 women < 40 years of age in the U.S. living with breast cancer (ACS, 2008). More than 10,000 women between the ages of 20-39 years old were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2004 (USCS, 2007). Breast cancer is one of the five most commonly diagnosed cancers among young white (25-39 years old) and black (20-39 years old) women (Wu et al., 2005). Emerging evidence suggests that women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger often have biologically different forms of breast cancer than women diagnosed at older ages.

Younger women tend to have tumors that are larger, have more nodal involvement, are more poorly differentiated, and are most often estrogen (ER) negative than in older women (Winchester et al., 1996, Gajdos et al., 2000, Figueiredo et al, 2006, Klauber-DeMore, 2005; Zabicki et al., 2006). The five-year survival rate for young women with breast cancer is 82 percent, compared to postmenopausal women where >88% survive over 5 years (ACS, 2006).

Young women with breast cancer are also more likely to present with later stage than their older counterparts. Fowble et al demonstrated that young women with early stage breast cancer fared significantly worse when compared to older women in terms of relapse-free survival, cause-specific survival, distant metastasis and breast and regional node recurrence (1994). Recent advances in molecular biology have shown that lymph node negative, estrogen receptor-positive young women are more likely than older women to have a higher Recurrence Score and therefore have a worse prognosis (Klauber-DeMore, 2005).

When detected early and given appropriate treatment (e.g., adjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation), women survive longer (Berry et al., 2005). There are a variety of interventions and campaigns that have been developed to educate women about risk of developing breast cancer. Few have been targeted to the specific concerns of women. Young women with breast cancer struggle with many issues that their post-menopausal counterparts do not face, including: the possibility of early menopause and pregnancy after diagnosis

(YSC, 2007).

Although breast cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer death in American women, a majority of the research is focused on the breast cancers diagnosed in women over 40 years of age. Women under 40 represent a unique population of breast cancer survivors with unique needs. (Zabicki et al, 2006).

The public health issues that confront these women are multifaceted, including long-term quality of life, survivorship concerns, the impact of treatment on general health, the potential for recurrence of breast cancer or the development of a new primary cancer, to name a few. There has been little research or educational materials focused on issues unique to this younger population, such as fertility, pregnancy, genetic predisposition, treatment effects, psycho-social and long-term survivorship issues, and higher mortality rates for young women, particularly for African-Americans and Latinas (YSC, 2007). These issues, combined with the potential risk a breast cancer diagnosis in young women may pose for other female family members, make clear the need to investigate the psychosocial, emotional, functional, and information concerns of young women diagnosed with breast cancer.

Until recently, cancer care focused primarily on early detection and treatments to control the disease. As a consequence little is known about many of the issues affecting survivors such as, quality of follow-up medical care, quality of life during and after treatment, availability of support services, healthcare provider education and training, as well as primary risk reduction and cancer screening for early detection of second malignancies. This information gap may be exacerbated for younger cancer survivors. In 2004, The President’s Cancer Panel acknowledged this problem and recommended the implementation of activities to learn more about cancer treatment and survival among adolescent and young adult cancer survivors (http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp03- 04rpt/Survivorship.pdf).

Little is known about survivorship issues of young breast cancer survivors and the interventions that have been developed to target this population. The proposed literature review will provide the public health and cancer communities with a summary of research completed for use in the delivery of adequate http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp03-04rpt/Survivorship.pdf http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp03-04rpt/Survivorship.pdf clinical, psychosocial, functional, and informational services to young breast cancer survivors and their families. This review also will identify the gaps in the research which will allow scientists in the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control to identify public health questions and emerging concerns for this population.

B. OBJECTIVE

The objective of this project is to conduct a systematic review of the literature on the variety of issues affecting young breast cancer survivors (≤ 40 years of age) (including DCIS, LCIS and invasive breast cancer), including psychosocial, functional, and information needs of young breast cancer survivors. Information gleaned will be used to inform the development of future studies, interventions, and resources designed to promote long-term cancer-free survival and improved quality of life of among young women breast cancer survivors.

Measurable objectives:

1. Identification and documentation of pertinent literature regarding young female breast cancer survivors and the following topics: What are women being told about survivorship, family planning, treatment effects, risk for recurrence, prevention of recurrence (i.e., lifestyle/behavior change and others), risk for family members, follow-up care and screening, genetic testing, development of new primary cancers, overall health and health promotion, and control and treatment of current and future chronic disease(s);

2. Identification of interventions that have been developed to educate young women and their families about their specific health care issues as survivors of breast cancer.

3. Identification of information sources used by these women and their families to gather information about the effects of their treatment and their long-term health care;

4. Identification of research and information gaps.

C. SCOPE OF WORK

Individually, and not as an agent of the Government, the contractor shall provide all labor, materials, supplies, and supervision to perform a targeted literature review; to develop a documented summary of the reviewed literature, outlining relevant information from each article reviewed; and to develop a manuscript that summarizes the findings of the review. The primary aim of the literature review will be to identify and document the most current literature on issues affecting women diagnosed at ≤ 40 years of age with breast cancer (including DCIS, LCIS and invasive breast cancer). This review will explore psychosocial, treatment effects, functional, and information needs of young breast cancer survivors. The primary aim of the manuscript is to summarize the methods and findings of the review.

D. DESCRIPTION OF WORK

Specific tasks to be performed:

Task 1 – Within 1 week of the effective date of the task order, the Contractor shall arrange an initial conference call with the Project Officer to clarify the scope of work and delivery schedule, delineate roles and responsibilities, and establish communication protocols.

Task 2 – Within 3 weeks, the Contractor shall develop and submit plans for conducting 1 literature review (as described below). After receiving feedback from CDC project staff about the plans, the Contractor shall revise the plans as necessary. Specific details about the procedures that should be followed to conduct the search are as follows:

(1) Search terms & criteria. Before implementing each search, the Contractor shall submit for approval a list of terms and/or combination of terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria that will be used to perform each search. Inclusion criteria for both searches include: (1) articles written in English, and (2) publication dates of 1990 to the present. CDC project staff will revise the list of search terms and inclusion criteria as necessary before approving it for use.

(2) Literature search process. Using the designated search terms and criteria, literature searches will be conducted using combinations of the following databases: Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CancerLit, EMBASE (as necessary), and HAPI. A master list of all references retrieved should be checked for duplication and duplicate citations should be removed from the list.

Next, the Contractor shall review the list of titles and accompanying abstracts. Based on relevance to the literature search topic, each citation will be assigned to one of three categories: 1) citations that are definitely relevant (see descriptions below), 2) those that are peripherally relevant, and 3) articles that are not at all relevant. A list of citations falling into the first category will be recorded for further review. For each “peripherally relevant” article, citation information, a published abstract (if available electronically), and the reason the article was not classified as “definitely relevant” will be compiled and will be submitted to CDC. Citations of articles deemed “not relevant” to the search topic will be deleted from the working reference list.

(3) Retrieval and abstraction. After the list of relevant articles/sources has been finalized, the Contractor shall retrieve these articles from the library.

The Contractor shall read each article and abstract the content of each using the abstraction tool described below in Task 3.

The objective of the literature review is described below:

Summarize literature documenting psychosocial, treatment, functional, and information concerns of young breast cancer survivors. Information gleaned will be used to inform the development of future studies, interventions, and resources designed to promote long-term cancer-free survival and quality of life of young women diagnosed with breast cancer.

Task 3 – Within 3 weeks, the Contractor shall develop and submit for approval 1 data collection tool to be used to abstract relevant content from reviewed articles.

After receiving feedback from CDC project staff, the Contractor shall revise the form as necessary. At a minimum, the forms shall include the following:

(1) Citation information, names of authors and/or organizations, study and population characteristics, study design, source of information/intervention, and relevant outcomes.

Task 4 – Within 6 weeks, the Contractor shall begin conducting the literature reviews in accordance with the agreed upon search strategies and criteria and by using the approved data collection tool to abstract information from articles. The contractor shall obtain copies of articles deemed appropriate to the aims of the literature review and shall send copies of appropriate articles to CDC via email attachment or US Postal Service within one week of receiving the copies.

Task 5 – Within 7 weeks, the Contractor shall schedule and initiate weekly telephone calls with CDC to provide an update on the progress of the literature reviews (e.g., number of articles identified, number meeting criteria, number reviewed, and general summaries of findings) and to discuss any issues requiring guidance or input from the Project Officer.

Task 6 – Within 7 weeks, the Contractor shall submit to the Project Officer a working draft of the data abstraction tool and its contents for review and approval. The Contractor shall revise, if necessary, the format of the tool or its contents based upon the Project Officer’s comments.

Task 7 – Within 30 weeks, the Contractor shall provide to CDC draft results in both digital (i.e., CD) and hard-copy (i.e., notebook) formats.

Task 8 – Within 33 weeks, the Contractor shall provide to the Project Officer the final results of the literature review. Completion of this task will require submission of a five-section written summary adhering to the following guidelines:

(1) Literature search methods. The names of the database(s) used to conduct each search as well as the parameters for each search will be listed in this section. The total number of unique citations will be presented, as will the total number of articles deemed relevant for abstraction.

(2) Overview of key issues. An overview/summary of the key issues and/or patterns elucidated during the review (e.g., the cancer site for which the evidence is strongest) will be presented in the second section of the summary.

(3) Tabled results. The third section of the summary will include a table listing each of the articles deemed most relevant to the search and brief summaries of information from the articles (per the elements specified for the data collection tools).

(4) Annotated bibliography. The fourth section of the summary will include citation information, as well as a brief abstract for each journal article reviewed. A file using Reference Manager may be used for this section of the summary.

(5) Copies of articles. Copies of the most important articles from each literature search (i.e., those that were selected for abstraction and included in the annotated bibliography) shall be ordered alphabetically by the first author’s last name and included in this section.

Task 9 – Within 39 weeks of the award, the Contractor shall submit to the Project Officer a working draft of the manuscript for review and approval. The Contractor shall revise, if necessary, the format of the manuscript or the content based upon the Project Officer’s comments. At a minimum, the manuscript shall include the following sections:

(1) Abstract. Major purpose of the study, basic procedures, main findings, and principal conclusions.

(2) Background. Describe the gap in knowledge/limitations of previous studies, how your study fills the gap, and why filling the gap will be useful.

(3) Methods. Describe your search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and format for organizing data.

(4) Results. Shall include the tabled results.

(5) Discussion. Restate the key result. State the main conclusion. State limitations/caveats. Make recommendations (e.g., future research).

The Contractor and the Project Officer will discuss and select an appropriate peer-reviewed journal to which the manuscript will be submitted. A back-up journal will also be identified.

Task 10 – Within 45 weeks, the Contractor shall submit to the Project Officer a second draft of the manuscript for review and approval. The Contractor shall revise, if necessary, the format of the manuscript or the content based upon the Project Officer’s comments.

Task 11 – Within 52 weeks, the Contractor shall submit to the Project Officer a publication-ready manuscript for final review and approval. The Contractor shall revise, if necessary, the format of the manuscript or the content based upon the

Project Officer’s comments. After final review and approval by the Project Officer, the Contractor shall submit the manuscript to the primary peer-reviewed journal identified in Task 9.

E. DELIVERABLES

All documents listed as deliverables shall be submitted to the Technical Monitor and the Project Officer on paper (1 hard copy to each) and as electronic files (e.g., MS Word, Access, or Excel in a PC compatible format). All other deliverables shall be submitted in the format specified by the Project Officer or Technical Monitor.

Deliverable Due Date Contact CDC (kick-off meeting) (Task 1)

Within 1 week of award

Draft Work Plan (Task 2) Within 3 weeks of award Final Work Plan (Task 2) Within 1 week after receipt of Technical

Monitor comments Approval List of terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria (Task 2)(1))

Prior to beginning work on each search.

Peripherally relevant article information (Task 2(2))

Upon completion of each search

One data collection tool (Task 3) Within 3 weeks of award Final Data Collection Tool (Task 3) Within 5 weeks of award Articles (Task 4) Within 6 weeks of award Draft abstraction tool and contents (Task 8)

Within 7 weeks of award

Final abstraction tool and contents (Task 8)

Within 7 weeks of award

Drafts of literature review results (Task 7)

Within 30 weeks of award

Final literature review results (Task 8) Within 33 weeks of award Working draft of manuscript (Task 9) Within 39 weeks of award Second draft of manuscript (Task 10) Within 43 weeks of award.

Publication-ready manuscript (Task 11) Within 52 weeks of award Submit manuscript to journal (Task 11) Within 52 weeks of award

F. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The period of performance shall be 12 months from the effective date of task order award.

G. RIGHTS IN DATA

The following pre-award Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provisions apply to this request for task order proposal, and are hereby incorporated by reference:

Number Title Date

FAR 52.227-17 Rights in Data—Special Works Dec 2007

CDC will assume principal scientific leadership for the project. It is expected that at the completion of the project, data will remain within DCPC and will be available to CDC staff for data analyses and publications. All data generated under this task order shall become and remain the property of CDC. The contractor may not use or publish from this data without prior written consent of the contracting officer.

H. Performance Based Matrix

Deliverable or Service Required

Measure of Success

Standards – Criteria for Acceptance

Method of Surveillance

Incentive1

Task C.4 (1)

(A)(1) Planning and Coordinating External Peer Review activities

1. Work Quality

2. Compliance

3. Accuracy

4. Timeliness

1. 100% of work products are technically correct with no correction required by the government.

2. 100% of all work products adhere to respective CDC and Federal government regulatory and statutory guidelines

3. 100% of all work products are accurate in presentation and adherence to accepted elements of style with no errors.

4. 100% of work products are completed, in

Surveillance system will be primarily customer observations.

See QASP for details.

Payment of contract labor rate for satisfactory service.

Rating of “5” Outstanding, in the NIH Contractor Performance System (CPS) evaluation using annual Contractor Performance Report. The evaluation will be considered when future contract selections are made.

5. Business Relations ready state, on time as specified by CDC customer.

5. 100% of the time the contractor staffing demonstrates reasonable and cooperative behavior, a commitment to customer satisfaction, and a concern for the interest of the customer

Task C.4 (1)

(A)(2) Support Health Education Activities

1. 100% of work products are technically correct with no correction respective CDC and Federal government regulatory and statutory guidelines

3. 100% of all work products are accurate in presentation and adherence to accepted elements of style with no errors.

4. 100% of work products are completed, in ready state, on time as specified by CDC customer.

5. 100% of the time the contractor staffing demonstrates

Surveillance system will be primarily customer observations.

See QASP for details.

Payment of contract labor rate for satisfactory service.

Rating of “5” Outstanding, in the NIH Contractor Performance System (CPS) evaluation using annual Contractor Performance Report. The evaluation will be considered when future reasonable and cooperative behavior, a commitment to customer satisfaction, and a concern for the

(B)(1) Conduct Statistical Programming and Analysis

1. 100% of work products are technically correct with no correction respective CDC and Federal government regulatory and statutory guidelines

3. 100% of all work accurate in presentation and adherence to accepted elements of style with no errors.

4. 100% of work products are completed, in ready state, on time as specified by CDC customer.

5. 100% of the time the contractor staffing demonstrates reasonable and cooperative behavior, a commitment to

Surveillance system will be primarily customer observations.

See QASP for details.

Payment of contract labor rate for satisfactory service.

Rating of “5” Outstanding, in the NIH Contractor Performance System (CPS) evaluation using annual Contractor Performance Report. The evaluation will be considered when future satisfaction, and a concern for the

(B)(2) Scientific Publication Support

1. 100% of work products are technically correct with no correction respective CDC and Federal government accurate in presentation and adherence to accepted elements of style with no errors.

4. 100% of work completed, in ready state, on time as specified by CDC customer.

5. 100% of the time the contractor staffing demonstrates reasonable and cooperative behavior, a commitment to

Surveillance system will be primarily customer observations.

See QASP for details.

Payment of contract labor rate for satisfactory service.

Rating of “5” Outstanding, in the NIH Contractor Performance System (CPS) evaluation using annual Contractor Performance Report. The evaluation will be considered when future satisfaction, and a concern for the

(B)(3) Conduct Literature Reviews

1. 100% of work products are technically correct with no correction respective CDC and Federal government accurate in presentation and adherence to accepted elements of style with no errors.

4. 100% of work products are completed, in ready state, on time as specified by CDC customer.

5. 100% of the time the contractor staffing demonstrates reasonable and cooperative behavior, a commitment to customer satisfaction, and a concern for the interest of the customer

Surveillance system will be primarily customer observations.

See QASP for details.

Payment of contract labor rate for satisfactory service.

Rating of “5” Outstanding, in the NIH Contractor Performance System (CPS) evaluation using annual Contractor Performance Report. The evaluation will be considered when future

(C) Strategic Planning Services

1. 100% of work products are technically correct with no correction respective CDC and Federal government accurate in presentation and adherence to accepted elements of style with no errors.

4. 100% of work products are completed, in ready state, on time as specified by CDC customer.

5. 100% of the time staffing demonstrates reasonable and cooperative behavior, a commitment to customer satisfaction, and a concern for the interest of the customer

Surveillance system will be primarily customer observations.

See QASP for details.

Payment of contract labor rate for satisfactory service.

Rating of “5” Outstanding, in the NIH Contractor Performance System (CPS) evaluation using annual Contractor Performance Report. The evaluation will be considered when future

Task C.4 (2)

The Contractor shall Follow the Task Order Award Process

1. Timeliness

2. Work Quality

1. 100% of Task Order proposals are submitted on time

2. 100% of Task Order proposals are technically compete as required by the government

Surveillance system will be primarily customer observations.

See QASP for details

Failure to follow the Task Order Award Process may result in loss of winning Task Order

Task C.4 (3)

The Contractor shall provide a knowledgeable Project Director

1. Cost Control

2. Business

3. Management of Key Personnel

1. 100% of the time the contractor demonstrates attention to cost control, without sacrificing work quality

2. 100% of the time staffing demonstrates reasonable and cooperative behavior, a commitment to customer satisfaction, and a concern for the

3. 100% of the time, the contractor provided technical experts that were highly qualified and effective in performing the required services;

Surveillance system will be primarily customer observations.

Payment of contract labor rate for satisfactory service.

Rating of “5” Outstanding, in the NIH Contractor Performance System (CPS) evaluation using annual Contractor Performance Report. The evaluation will be considered when future the appropriate number of personnel were assigned to the project; and the delivered products reflected the skill and standardization

Task C.4 (4)

The contractor shall meet with the Government at start of each task order

2. Business

1. 100% of Task Order Award meetings are conducted within the specified time

2. 100% of the time staffing demonstrates reasonable and cooperative behavior, a commitment to customer satisfaction, and a concern for the interest of the customer

Surveillance system will be primarily customer observations.

service.

Rating of “5” Outstanding, in the NIH Contractor Performance System (CPS) evaluation using annual Contractor Performance Report. The evaluation will be considered when future

Task C.4 (5)

The contractor shall provide monthly status report

2. Work Quality

1. 100% of Monthly Status reports are submitted on time

2. 100% of Monthly Status reports are

Surveillance system will be primarily customer observations.

service.

Rating of “5” Outstanding, in the NIH Contractor Performance System (CPS) evaluation using annual Contractor Performance Report. The evaluation will be considered when future submitted on time

I. EVALUATION CRITERIA

This task order shall be awarded to the offeror whose proposal is considered to be the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors (identified below) considered. Technical Factors will be more important than price in this evaluation. The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to the Government to achieve only slightly technical superiority.

Technical Evaluation

Technical evaluations for this RFTP are as follows:

Criteria Value of Criteria

A. Staffing and Management ___30_ _____ B. Technical Approach ___25 ______ C. Similar or previous experience __ 45_ _

A. Staffing and Management

Contractors are to provide (1) a staffing plan that demonstrates an understanding of the labor requirements for this task order; and (2) a management plan that describes the approach for managing the work, to include subcontract management. Contractors should specify the Project Leader and Task Manager by name and indicate their degrees, areas of expertise and relevant experience. Contractors are to provide information reflecting experience of assigned staff that is appropriate to the complexity, size and subject matter of the proposed work and should include 1) planning and conducting a large-scale survey and recruiting study participants through cancer registries or similar population-based recruitment activities, 2) expertise in behavioral research and survey design, and 3) working with CDC and state cancer registries or other similar large organizations on collaborative behavioral research.

If the contractor plans to staff the Project Leader or Task Manager positions with new hires, letters of intent from new employees should be included. In addition, contractors are encouraged to retain outside consultants with special expertise relevant to this task order. If the contractor plans to exercise this option, letters of intent from outside investigators should also be included. The CVs of all key personnel who will be affiliated with this task order should be provided in the appendices.

The proposal should also describe the project’s organization including an organizational chart of staff assigned to the project. In addition, the proposal should also describe relationships and partnerships with other organizations which are relevant to this task.

This criterion will be evaluated according to the soundness, practicality, and feasibility of the offeror’s staffing and management plans for this task order.

The Contractor shall possess or provide staffing to demonstrate the following education, experience and capability requirements:

o A minimum of a Master’s degree in a behavioral health- or medical health-related field.

o Previous experience conducting research in the field of public health, preferably in cancer prevention and/or control o Previous experience conducting scientific literature review o Contractor must have access to a major medical/research library with privileges to borrow materials, access e-journals, and request unavailable materials via inter-library loan.

B. Technical Approach

Contractors are expected to demonstrate an understanding of the goals and steps necessary to carry out the task order requirements.. The Contractors are to provide a discussion of their technical approach to providing the services required for this task order including, but not limited to: the approach to completing each required task.. The contractor is to provide a detailed time line for the accomplishment of tasks.

This criterion will be evaluated according to the soundness, practicality, and feasibility of the contractor’s technical approach for providing the services required for this task order.

C. Similar or Previous Experience

The contractor should provide information reflecting experience that is similar in complexity and size to the anticipated project. The contractor must provide documented experience of literature reviews conducted and publications prepared, especially those completed on cancer-related projects.

Cost Evaluation:

A cost analysis of the business cost proposal shall be conducted to determine the reasonableness of the proposal.

TECHNICAL MONITOR: To be Determined

PROJECT OFFICER: Christine Dauer Public Health Advisor Division of Cancer Prevention and Control

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

4770 Buford Highway NE, MS K-55 Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724 Telephone: 770 488-3056

J. INSTRUCTIONS TO CONTRACTORS

As a contract holder of CDC/NCCD Multiple Award Contracts, this is considered your fair opportunity for consideration of the RFTP in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(1) and Section H of the basic contract.

The following pre-award Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provisions apply to this request for task order proposal, and are hereby incorporated by reference:

Number Revision Title 52.215-1 JAN 2004 Instructions to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition

Your response must be submitted in two parts: a Technical, and a Business proposal. Each part shall be separate and complete in itself so evaluation of one may be accomplished independently of the other.

Required Statements: Your proposal should indicate that the proposal is predicated on the terms and conditions of the NCCD Contract No.______________; is valid for a period of 60 days; and a brief statement indicating current or future commitments during the proposed performance period and what impact the commitments might have on performance if awarded.

Proposals are not to include any additional information regarding past performance, letters of reference, or corporate capability. This information was submitted previously when the contracts were awarded. The proposal is to reference only the proposed work and budget for the referenced RFTP.

Proposals containing information that is not specific to the proposed task will not be evaluated.

Awardees are not required to submit a proposal in response to this request for task proposal.

The Government shall not pay any cost for the preparation and submission of proposals submitted in response to this RFTP. All communications concerning this project prior to the award of a task order under this RFTP shall be with the Contracting Officer or the Project Officer. Communications with unauthorized individuals concerning a specific RFTP prior to award may jeopardize your eligibility for award.

K. REFERENCES

American Cancer Society (2006). Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2005-2006.

Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc.

Figueiredo JC, Ennis M, Knight JA, McLaughlin JR, Hood N, O'malley F, Andrulis IL, Goodwin PJ (2006). Influence of young age at diagnosis and family history of breast or ovarian cancer on breast cancer outcomes in a population-based cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. Nov 18. [Epub ahead of print]

Fowble BL, Schultz DJ, Overmoyer B, Solin LJ, Fox K, Jardines L, Orel S, Glick JH (1994). The influence of young age on outcome in early stage breast cancer.

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. Aug 30;30(1):23-33.

Gadjos D, Tartter PI, Bleiweiss IJ, Bodian C, Brower ST (2000). Stage 0 to stage III breast cancer in young women. J Am Coll Surg 190;523-529.

Klauber-DeMore N (2005). Tumor biology of breast cancer in young women.

Breast Dis. 23:9-15.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure (2001). Breast health and breast cancer informational needs of young women and women of color 40 and older.

http://cms.komen.org/komen/AboutBreastCancer/Resources/EducationalMaterial sPrograms/index.htm. Information cited from website on May 21, 2007.

U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 2003 Incidence and Mortality. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute; 2006.

Winchester DP, Osteen RT, Menck HR (1996). The National Cancer Data Base report on breast carcinoma characteristics and outcome in relation to age.

Cancer, 78;1838-1843.

Wu X, Groves F, McLaughlin C, Jemal A, Martin J, Chen V (2005). Cancer incidence patterns among adolescents and young adults in the United States.

Cancer Causes and Control 16:309-320/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Figueiredo+JC%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Ennis+M%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Knight+JA%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22McLaughlin+JR%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Hood+N%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22O%27malley+F%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Andrulis+IL%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Andrulis+IL%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Goodwin+PJ%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Fowble+BL%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Schultz+DJ%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Overmoyer+B%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Solin+LJ%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Fox+K%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Jardines+L%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Orel+S%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Glick+JH%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Glick+JH%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Klauber%2DDeMore+N%22%5BAuthor%5D http://cms.komen.org/komen/AboutBreastCancer/Resources/EducationalMaterialsPrograms/index.htm http://cms.komen.org/komen/AboutBreastCancer/Resources/EducationalMaterialsPrograms/index.htm

Young Survival Coalition (2007). Young Women and Breast Cancer.

(http://www.youngsurvival.org/young-women-and-bc/). Information cited from website on May 21, 2007.

Zabicki K, Colbert JA, Dominguez FJ, Gadd MA, Hughes KS, Jones JL, Specht MC, Michaelson JS, Smith BL (2006). Breast cancer diagnosis in women < or = 40 versus 50 to 60 years: increasing size and stage disparity compared with older women over time. Ann Surg Oncol. Aug;13(8):1072-7.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Zabicki+K%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Colbert+JA%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Dominguez+FJ%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Gadd+MA%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Hughes+KS%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Jones+JL%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Specht+MC%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Specht+MC%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Michaelson+JS%22%5BAuthor%5D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Smith+BL%22%5BAuthor%5D

Department of Health and Human Services