Roll-out of an educational workshop to improve knowledge and self-confidence of healthcare professionals engaged in mainstreaming of breast cancer genetics.

BACKGROUND: There are calls worldwide for the mainstreaming of genetic testing in breast cancer (BC) clinics, but health care professionals (HCPs) are not always familiar with nor confident about genetic counselling. TRUSTING (Talking about Risk & uncertainties of Testing in Genetics is an educational programme shown to significantly improve HCPs' knowledge, communication, self-confidence, and self-awareness. We rolled out TRUSTING workshops across the UK and probed their influence on mainstreaming within BC clinics. METHODS: 1 surgeon, 3 oncologists, and 1 nurse specialist who had attended the original TRUSTING evaluation project were trained to facilitate the 8-hour programme in pairs. The participants (all health care professionals) attending their workshops completed 3 questionnaires: - 1) the Intolerance to Uncertainty Scale, 2) an 18-item multiple choice knowledge questionnaire about BRCA 1/2 gene testing, incidence and risk reducing interventions and 3) a 10-item questionnaire exploring self-confidence when advising patients and their families about these issues. Both knowledge and self-confidence were re-tested post workshop together with evaluation of the facilitators' approach and overall satisfaction with the event. Follow-up questionnaires 3-12 months later examined impact of workshops on HCPs' own practice and how mainstreaming was working in their clinics. RESULTS: 120 HCPs (61 surgeons; 41 nurses; 9 oncologists; 9 other) attended 12 workshops. Knowledge scores (mean change = 6.58; 95% CI 6.00 to 7.17; p<0.001), and self-confidence (mean change = 2.64; 95% CI 2.33 to 2.95; p<0.001) improved significantly post workshop. Ratings for the facilitators' approach were uniformly high (mean range 9.6 to 9.9 /10). Most delegates found the workshops useful, enjoyable, and informative and 98% would definitively recommend them to colleagues. Follow-up data (n = 72/96) showed that 57% believed attendance had improved their own practice when discussing genetic testing with their patients. When asked about mainstreaming more generally, 78% reported it was working well, 18% had not yet started, and 3% thought it was problematic in their centre. CONCLUSIONS: Discussing the implications that having a pathogenic gene alteration has for patients' treatment and risk-reducing interventions is complex when patients are already coming to terms with a breast cancer diagnosis. Training facilitators enhanced the wider roll-out of the TRUSTING educational programme and is an effective means of helping HCPs now involved in the mainstreaming of genetic testing.

6th and 7th International consensus guidelines for the management of advanced breast cancer (ABC guidelines 6 and 7).

This manuscript describes the Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) international consensus guidelines updated at the last two ABC international consensus conferences (ABC 6 in 2021, virtual, and ABC 7 in 2023, in Lisbon, Portugal), organized by the ABC Global Alliance. It provides the main recommendations on how to best manage patients with advanced breast cancer (inoperable locally advanced or metastatic), of all breast cancer subtypes, as well as palliative and supportive care. These guidelines are based on available evidence or on expert opinion when a higher level of evidence is lacking. Each guideline is accompanied by the level of evidence (LoE), grade of recommendation (GoR) and percentage of consensus reached at the consensus conferences. Updated diagnostic and treatment algorithms are also provided. The guidelines represent the best management options for patients living with ABC globally, assuming accessibility to all available therapies. Their adaptation (i.e. resource-stratified guidelines) is often needed in settings where access to care is limited.

Endocrine and Targeted Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer-Capivasertib-Fulvestrant: ASCO Rapid Recommendation Update.

ASCO Rapid Recommendation Updates highlight revisions to select ASCO guideline recommendations as a response to the emergence of new and practice-changing data. The rapid updates are supported by an evidence review and follow the guideline development processes outlined in the ASCO Guideline Methodology Manual. The goal of these articles is to disseminate updated recommendations, in a timely manner, to better inform health practitioners and the public on the best available cancer care options. Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating provider and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information (Appendix 1 and Appendix 2, online only).

Ovarian cancer symptoms in pre-clinical invasive epithelial ovarian cancer - An exploratory analysis nested within the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).

OBJECTIVE: UKCTOCS provides an opportunity to explore symptoms in preclinical invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (iEOC). We report on symptoms in women with pre-clinical (screen-detected) cancers (PC) compared to clinically diagnosed (CD) cancers. METHODS: In UKCTOCS, 202638 postmenopausal women, aged 50-74 were randomly allocated (April 17, 2001-September 29, 2005) 2:1:1 to no screening or annual screening till Dec 31,2011, using a multimodal or ultrasound strategy. Follow-up was through national registries. An outcomes committee adjudicated on OC diagnosis, histotype, stage. Eligible women were those diagnosed with iEOC at primary censorship (Dec 31, 2014). Symptom details were extracted from trial clinical-assessment forms and medical records. Descriptive statistics were used to compare symptoms in PC versus CD women with early (I/II) and advanced (III/IV/unable to stage) stage high-grade-serous (HGSC) cancer. ISRCTN-22488978; ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT00058032. RESULTS: 1133 (286PC; 847CD) women developed iEOC. Median age (years) at diagnosis was earlier in PC compared to CD (66.8PC, 68.7CD, p = 0.0001) group. In the PC group, 48% (112/234; 90%, 660/730CD) reported symptoms when questioned. Half PC (50%, 13/26PC; 36%, 29/80CD; p = 0.213) women with symptomatic HGSC had >1symptom, with abdominal symptoms most common, both in early (62%, 16/26, PC; 53% 42/80, CD; p = 0.421) and advanced (57%, 49/86, PC; 74%, 431/580, CD; p = 0.001) stages. In symptomatic early-stage HGSC, compared to CD, PC women reported more gastrointestinal (change in bowel habits and dyspepsia) (35%, 9/26PC; 9%, 7/80CD; p = 0.001) and systemic (mostly lethargy/tiredness) (27%, 7/26PC; 9%, 7/80CD; p = 0.017) symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings, add to the growing evidence, that we should reconsider what constitutes alert symptoms for early tubo-ovarian cancer. We need a more nuanced complex of key symptoms which is then evaluated and refined in a prospective trial.

Insights from UKCTOCS for design, conduct and analyses of large randomised controlled trials.

Abstract: Randomised controlled trials are challenging to deliver. There is a constant need to review and refine recruitment and implementation strategies if they are to be completed on time and within budget. We present the strategies adopted in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, one of the largest individually randomised controlled trials in the world. The trial recruited over 202,000 women (2001-5) and delivered over 670,000 annual screens (2001-11) and over 3 million women-years of follow-up (2001-20). Key to the successful completion were the involvement of senior investigators in the day-to-day running of the trial, proactive trial management and willingness to innovate and use technology. Our underlying ethos was that trial participants should always be at the centre of all our processes. We ensured that they were able to contact either the site or the coordinating centre teams for clarifications about their results, for follow-up and for rescheduling of appointments. To facilitate this, we shared personal identifiers (with consent) with both teams and had dedicated reception staff at both site and coordinating centre. Key aspects were a comprehensive online trial management system which included an electronic data capture system (resulting in an almost paperless trial), biobanking, monitoring and project management modules. The automation of algorithms (to ascertain eligibility and classify results and ensuing actions) and processes (scheduling of appointments, printing of letters, etc.) ensured the protocol was closely followed and timelines were met. Significant engagement with participants ensured retention and low rates of complaints. Our solutions to the design, conduct and analyses issues we faced are highly relevant, given the renewed focus on trials for early detection of cancer. Future work: There is a pressing need to increase the evidence base to support decision making about all aspects of trial methodology. Trial registration: ISRCTN-22488978; ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT00058032. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 16/46/01. The long-term follow-up UKCTOCS (2015 20) was supported by National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR HTA grant 16/46/01), Cancer Research UK, and The Eve Appeal. UKCTOCS (2001-14) was funded by the MRC (G9901012 and G0801228), Cancer Research UK (C1479/A2884), and the UK Department of Health, with additional support from The Eve Appeal. Researchers at UCL were supported by the NIHR UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre and by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL core funding (MC_UU_00004/09, MC_UU_00004/08, MC_UU_00004/07). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the UK Department of Health and Social Care.

Randomised controlled trials help us decide whether new health-care approaches are better than those in current use. To successfully complete these on time and within budget, there is a constant need to review and revise the procedures used for delivering various aspects such as invitation, enrolment, follow-up of participants, delivery of the new test, data collection, and analysis. We report on the processes used in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, one of the largest such trials. The United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening enrolled over 202,000 women (2001­5), delivered over 670,000 yearly screens (2001­11) and followed all participants until 2020. Key to our successful completion were the involvement of senior investigators in day-to-day running of the trial, a pre-emptive approach to issues, a willingness to innovate, and the use of technology. Our underlying ethos was that trial participants should always be at the centre of all our processes. We ensured that they were able to always contact either their local or the central team for clarifications and rescheduling of appointments. To facilitate this, we shared participant contact details (with consent) with both teams. We built a comprehensive electronic system to manage all aspects of the trial. This included online forms that the teams completed in real time (resulting in an almost paperless trial) and systems to check and manage trial processes and track blood samples. We automated key steps such as checking whether participants were eligible, assigning correct action based on results of screening tests, scheduling appointments and printing letters. As a result, all participants were treated as set out in the trial plan. Our engagement with participants ensured that they continued participating and we had a low rate of complaints. We faced issues with regard to our initial trial design and the way we planned to analyse the data. We feel that our solutions are highly relevant, especially as there is a renewed focus on trials for early detection of cancer.

Recruiting women with ductal carcinoma in situ to a randomised controlled trial: lessons from the LORIS study.

BACKGROUND: The LOw RISk DCIS (LORIS) study was set up to compare conventional surgical treatment with active monitoring in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Recruitment to trials with a surveillance arm is known to be challenging, so strategies to maximise patient recruitment, aimed at both patients and recruiting centres, were implemented. METHODS: Women aged ≥ 46 years with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of non-high-grade DCIS were eligible for 1:1 randomisation to either surgery or active monitoring. Prior to randomisation, all eligible women were invited to complete: (1) the Clinical Trials Questionnaire (CTQ) examining reasons for or against participation, and (2) interviews exploring in depth opinions about the study information sheets and film. Women agreeing to randomisation completed validated questionnaires assessing health status, physical and mental health, and anxiety levels. Hospital site staff were invited to communication workshops and refresher site initiation visits to support recruitment. Their perspectives on LORIS recruitment were collected via surveys and interviews. RESULTS: Eighty percent (181/227) of eligible women agreed to be randomised. Over 40% of participants had high anxiety levels at baseline. On the CTQ, the most frequent most important reasons for accepting randomisation were altruism and belief that the trial offered the best treatment, whilst worries about randomisation and the influences of others were the most frequent most important reasons for declining. Most women found the study information provided clear and useful. Communication workshops for site staff improved knowledge and confidence but only about half said they themselves would join LORIS if eligible. The most common recruitment barriers identified by staff were low numbers of eligible patients and patient preference. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment to LORIS was challenging despite strategies aimed at both patients and site staff. Ensuring that recruiting staff support the study could improve recruitment in similar future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN27544579, prospectively registered on 22 May 2014.

Tumour stage, treatment, and survival of women with high-grade serous tubo-ovarian cancer in UKCTOCS: an exploratory analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In UKCTOCS, there was a decrease in the diagnosis of advanced stage tubo-ovarian cancer but no reduction in deaths in the multimodal screening group compared with the no screening group. Therefore, we did exploratory analyses of patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer to understand the reason for the discrepancy. METHODS: UKCTOCS was a 13-centre randomised controlled trial of screening postmenopausal women from the general population, aged 50-74 years, with intact ovaries. The trial management system randomly allocated (2:1:1) eligible participants (recruited from April 17, 2001, to Sept 29, 2005) in blocks of 32 using computer generated random numbers to no screening or annual screening (multimodal screening or ultrasound screening) until Dec 31, 2011. Follow-up was through national registries until June 30, 2020. An outcome review committee, masked to randomisation group, adjudicated on ovarian cancer diagnosis, histotype, stage, and cause of death. In this study, analyses were intention-to-screen comparisons of women with high-grade serous cancer at censorship (Dec 31, 2014) in multimodal screening versus no screening, using descriptive statistics for stage and treatment endpoints, and the Versatile test for survival from randomisation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, 22488978, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00058032. FINDINGS: 202 562 eligible women were recruited (50 625 multimodal screening; 50 623 ultrasound screening; 101 314 no screening). 259 (0·5%) of 50 625 participants in the multimodal screening group and 520 (0·5%) of 101 314 in the no screening group were diagnosed with high-grade serous cancer. In the multimodal screening group compared with the no screening group, fewer were diagnosed with advanced stage disease (195 [75%] of 259 vs 446 [86%] of 520; p=0·0003), more had primary surgery (158 [61%] vs 219 [42%]; p<0·0001), more had zero residual disease following debulking surgery (119 [46%] vs 157 [30%]; p<0·0001), and more received treatment including both surgery and chemotherapy (192 [74%] vs 331 [64%]; p=0·0032). There was no difference in the first-line combination chemotherapy rate (142 [55%] vs 293 [56%]; p=0·69). Median follow-up from randomisation of 779 women with high-grade serous cancer in the multimodal and no screening groups was 9·51 years (IQR 6·04-13·00). At censorship (June 30, 2020), survival from randomisation was longer in women with high-grade serous cancer in the multimodal screening group than in the no screening group with absolute difference in survival of 6·9% (95% CI 0·4-13·0; p=0·042) at 18 years (21% [95% CI 15·6-26·2] vs 14% [95% CI 10·5-17·4]). INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first evidence that screening can detect high-grade serous cancer earlier and lead to improved short-term treatment outcomes compared with no screening. The potential survival benefit for women with high-grade serous cancer was small, most likely due to only modest gains in early detection and treatment improvement, and tumour biology. The cumulative results of the trial suggest that surrogate endpoints for disease-specific mortality should not currently be used in screening trials for ovarian cancer. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, The Eve Appeal.

Mortality impact, risks, and benefits of general population screening for ovarian cancer: the UKCTOCS randomised controlled trial.

Background: Ovarian and tubal cancers are lethal gynaecological cancers, with over 50% of the patients diagnosed at advanced stage. Trial design: Randomised controlled trial involving 27 primary care trusts adjacent to 13 trial centres based at NHS Trusts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Methods: Postmenopausal average-risk women, aged 50-74, with intact ovaries and no previous ovarian or current non-ovarian cancer. Interventions: One of two annual screening strategies: (1) multimodal screening (MMS) using a longitudinal CA125 algorithm with repeat CA125 testing and transvaginal scan (TVS) as second line test (2) ultrasound screening (USS) using TVS alone with repeat scan to confirm any abnormality. The control (C) group had no screening. Follow-up was through linkage to national registries, postal follow-up questionnaires and direct communication with trial centres and participants. Objective: To assess comprehensively risks and benefits of ovarian cancer screening in the general population. Outcome: Primary outcome was death due to ovarian or tubal cancer as assigned by an independent outcomes review committee. Secondary outcomes included incidence and stage at diagnosis of ovarian and tubal cancer, compliance, performance characteristics, harms and cost-effectiveness of the two screening strategies and a bioresource for future research. Randomisation: The trial management system confirmed eligibility and randomly allocated participants using computer-generated random numbers to MMS, USS and C groups in a 1:1:2 ratio. Blinding: Investigators and participants were unblinded and outcomes review committee was masked to randomisation group. Analyses: Primary analyses were by intention to screen, comparing separately MMS and USS with C using the Versatile test. Results: 1,243,282 women were invited and 205,090 attended for recruitment between April 2001 and September 2005. Randomised: 202,638 women: 50,640 MMS, 50,639 USS and 101,359 C group. Numbers analysed for primary outcome: 202,562 (>99.9%): 50,625 (>99.9%) MMS, 50,623 (>99.9%) USS, and 101,314 (>99.9%) C group. Outcome: Women in MMS and USS groups underwent 345,570 and 327,775 annual screens between randomisation and 31 December 2011. At median follow-up of 16.3 (IQR 15.1-17.3) years, 2055 women developed ovarian or tubal cancer: 522 (1.0% of 50,625) MMS, 517 (1.0% of 50,623) USS, and 1016 (1.0% of 101314) in C group. Compared to the C group, in the MMS group, the incidence of Stage I/II disease was 39.2% (95% CI 16.1 to 66.9) higher and stage III/IV 10.2% (95% CI -21.3 to 2.4) lower. There was no difference in stage in the USS group. 1206 women died of the disease: 296 (0.6%) MMS, 291 (0.6%) USS, and 619 (0.6%) C group. There was no significant reduction in ovarian and tubal cancer deaths in either MMS (p = 0.580) or USS (p = 0.360) groups compared to the C group. Overall compliance with annual screening episode was 80.8% (345,570/420,047) in the MMS and 78.0% (327,775/420,047) in the USS group. For ovarian and tubal cancers diagnosed within one year of the last test in a screening episode, in the MMS group, the sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values were 83.8% (95% CI 78.7 to 88.1), 99.8% (95% CI 99.8 to 99.9), and 28.8% (95% CI 25.5 to 32.2) and in the USS group, 72.2% (95% CI 65.9 to 78.0), 99.5% (95% CI 99.5 to 99.5), and 9.1% (95% CI 7.8 to 10.5) respectively. The final within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was not undertaken as there was no mortality reduction. A bioresource (UKCTOCS Longitudinal Women's Cohort) of longitudinal outcome data and over 0.5 million serum samples including serial annual samples in women in the MMS group was established and to date has been used in many new studies, mainly focused on early detection of cancer. Harms: Both screening tests (venepuncture and TVS) were associated with minor complications with low (8.6/100,000 screens MMS; 18.6/100,000 screens USS) complication rates. Screening itself did not cause anxiety unless more intense repeat testing was required following abnormal screens. In the MMS group, for each screen-detected ovarian or tubal cancer, an additional 2.3 (489 false positives; 212 cancers) women in the MMS group had unnecessary false-positive (benign adnexal pathology or normal adnexa) surgery. Overall, 14 (489/345,572 annual screens) underwent unnecessary surgery per 10,000 screens. In the USS group, for each screen-detected ovarian or tubal cancer, an additional 10 (1630 false positives; 164 cancers) underwent unnecessary false-positive surgery. Overall, 50 (1630/327,775 annual screens) women underwent unnecessary surgery per 10,000 screens. Conclusions: Population screening for ovarian and tubal cancer for average-risk women using these strategies should not be undertaken. Decreased incidence of Stage III/IV cancers during multimodal screening did not translate to mortality reduction. Researchers should be cautious about using early stage as a surrogate outcome in screening trials. Meanwhile the bioresource provides a unique opportunity to evaluate early cancer detection tests. Funding: Long-term follow-up UKCTOCS (2015-2020) - National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR HTA grant 16/46/01), Cancer Research UK, and The Eve Appeal. UKCTOCS (2001-2014) - Medical Research Council (MRC) (G9901012/G0801228), Cancer Research UK (C1479/A2884), and the UK Department of Health, with additional support from The Eve Appeal. Researchers at UCL were supported by the NIHR UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre and by MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL core funding (MR_UU_12023).

Text: Most women with ovarian cancer are diagnosed after the disease has spread widely (advanced stage ­ III and IV) and more than half die within 5 years. We wanted to find out if testing women without symptoms could pick up ovarian cancer at an earlier stage before it has spread beyond the ovaries and tubes and reduce deaths. We also wanted to assess the risks and benefits of such screening. Text: We invited over 1.2 million women living near 13 centres in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Of them, 202,638 joined the trial. All women were between 50 and 74 and were no longer having periods. They had never been diagnosed with ovarian cancer or were not having treatment for any other cancer. They did not have many relatives with ovarian or breast cancer. The volunteers were placed into one of three groups at random. List: 1. The blood test group contained 50,640 women who had yearly CA125 blood tests. If these showed a moderate or high chance of ovarian cancer, they had repeat CA125 tests and a scan. List: 2. The scan group contained 50,639 women who had yearly internal scans of their ovaries and tubes which were repeated if they showed an abnormality. List: 3. The no-screening group contained 101,359 women. Text: Those in the blood and scan groups had screening every year until December 2011. We sent all women health questionnaires and also, with their permission, received information about them from the national cancer and death registries till mid-2020. Text: Women in the screened groups had an average of eight years of screening. We followed them for approximately 16 years after they had joined the trial. During this period, 2055 women were diagnosed with ovarian and tubal cancer. It was about 1 in 100 women (1%) in all three groups. List: • 522 of 50,625 in the blood group. List: • 517 of 50,623 in the scan group. List: • 1016 of 101,314 in the no-screening group. Text: More women were diagnosed with early-stage cancer and fewer were diagnosed with advanced cancer in the blood group compared to the no-screening group. There was no difference in the number diagnosed with early or advanced disease between the scan and no-screening group. Despite this difference, the number of women in each group who died from ovarian and tubal cancer was similar in all three groups: 296 of 50,625 (0.6%) in the blood group, 291 of 50,623 (0.6%) in the scan group and 619 of 101,314 (0.6%) in the no-screening group. Other results showed. List: • Overall, 81% women in the blood group and 78% in the scan group attended all of their annual screening appointments. List: • In the blood group, screening detected 84% of ovarian and tubal cancers diagnosed within one year of the test and correctly classified as normal 99.8% of women who did not have ovarian and tubal cancer. List: • In the scan group, screening detected 72% of ovarian and tubal cancers diagnosed within one year of the last test and correctly classified 99.5% of those who did not have ovarian and tubal cancer. List: • Both screening tests were associated with minor complications. List: • While screening did not increase anxiety, there was slightly increased worry in women who were asked to return for more intense repeat testing. List: • Both screening methods picked up changes that were in fact not ovarian cancer. This meant that women had unnecessary surgery together with the worry and risk of complications that go with it. List: ◦ In the blood group 14 women had unnecessary surgery for every 10,000 women screened annually. This means that for each woman found to have ovarian cancer, an additional 2 women had unnecessary surgery. List: ◦ In the scan group 50 women had unnecessary surgery for every 10,000 women screened annually. This means that for each woman found to have ovarian cancer, an additional 10 women had unnecessary surgery. List: • A biobank with all the donated data and over 0.5 million serum samples, including yearly samples from women in the blood group, was built and continues to be used in many new studies, mainly focused on early detection of cancer. Text: Screening using the CA125 blood test or transvaginal ultrasound scan to test for ovarian cancer did not save lives. Additionally, it was associated with some harm. Therefore, an ovarian cancer screening programme for most women cannot be currently recommended. The trial also showed for the first time that ovarian cancer can be detected earlier through screening. However, for screening to save lives, the test needs to pick up many more women earlier in the course of the disease so that available treatments are effective. The biobank provides an opportunity for scientists to see if newer tests for cancer can detect the disease earlier.

A digital pathway for genetic testing in UK NHS patients with cancer: BRCA-DIRECT randomised study internal pilot.

BACKGROUND: Germline genetic testing affords multiple opportunities for women with breast cancer, however, current UK NHS models for delivery of germline genetic testing are clinician-intensive and only a minority of breast cancer cases access testing. METHODS: We designed a rapid, digital pathway, supported by a genetics specialist hotline, for delivery of germline testing of BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 (BRCA-testing), integrated into routine UK NHS breast cancer care. We piloted the pathway, as part of the larger BRCA-DIRECT study, in 130 unselected patients with breast cancer and gathered preliminary data from a randomised comparison of delivery of pretest information digitally (fully digital pathway) or via telephone consultation with a genetics professional (partially digital pathway). RESULTS: Uptake of genetic testing was 98.4%, with good satisfaction reported for both the fully and partially digital pathways. Similar outcomes were observed in both arms regarding patient knowledge score and anxiety, with <5% of patients contacting the genetics specialist hotline. All progression criteria established for continuation of the study were met. CONCLUSION: Pilot data indicate preliminary demonstration of feasibility and acceptability of a fully digital pathway for BRCA-testing and support proceeding to a full powered study for evaluation of non-inferiority of the fully digital pathway, detailed quantitative assessment of outcomes and operational economic analyses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN87845055.

Talking about Risk, UncertaintieS of Testing IN Genetics (TRUSTING): development and evaluation of an educational programme for healthcare professionals about BRCA1 & BRCA2 testing.

BACKGROUND: Mainstreaming of germline testing demands that all healthcare professionals have good communication skills, but few have genetic testing and counselling experience. We developed and evaluated educational workshops-Talking about Risk & UncertaintieS of Testing IN Genetics (TRUSTING). Contents included: presentations and exercises, an interview with a geneticist about BRCA testing, screening and prevention implications, filmed interactions between surgeons, a genetic counsellor and geneticists with a fictitious family (proband had a BRCA2 pathogenic variant with triple-negative breast cancer, her older sister-BRCA2 heterozygous, and cousin-negative for BRCA2 variant). METHODS: Twenty-one surgeons, 5 oncologists, 18 nurses and 9 genetic counsellors participated. Knowledge (18 item MCQ), communication skills (responses to 6 questions from proband and relatives) and self-confidence (discussing 9 genetic testing issues) were assessed pre- and post workshop. RESULTS: Knowledge scores improved significantly post workshop (mean change = 7.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.37-7.74; P < 0.001), as did communication (mean change = 5.38; 95% CI 4.37-6.38; P < 0.001) and self-confidence (P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Healthcare professionals' knowledge and self-confidence when discussing the risks and uncertainties in genetics are often poor. TRUSTING workshops significantly enhanced attendees' navigation of communication difficulties encountered and will be rolled out more widely.

POSNOC-POsitive Sentinel NOde: adjuvant therapy alone versus adjuvant therapy plus Clearance or axillary radiotherapy: a randomised controlled trial of axillary treatment in women with early-stage breast cancer who have metastases in one or two sentinel nodes.

INTRODUCTION: ACOSOG-Z0011(Z11) trial showed that axillary node clearance (ANC) may be omitted in women with ≤2 positive nodes undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS) and whole breast radiotherapy (RT). A confirmatory study is needed to clarify the role of axillary treatment in women with ≤2 macrometastases undergoing BCS and groups that were not included in Z11 for example, mastectomy and those with microscopic extranodal invasion. The primary objective of POsitive Sentinel NOde: adjuvant therapy alone versus adjuvant therapy plus Clearance or axillary radiotherapy (POSNOC) is to evaluate whether for women with breast cancer and 1 or 2 macrometastases, adjuvant therapy alone is non-inferior to adjuvant therapy plus axillary treatment, in terms of 5-year axillary recurrence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: POSNOC is a pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority, international trial with participants randomised in a 1:1 ratio. Women are eligible if they have T1/T2, unifocal or multifocal invasive breast cancer, and 1 or 2 macrometastases at sentinel node biopsy, with or without extranodal extension. In the intervention group women receive adjuvant therapy alone, in the standard care group they receive ANC or axillary RT. In both groups women receive adjuvant therapy, according to local guidelines. This includes systemic therapy and, if indicated, RT to breast or chest wall. The UK Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group manages the in-built radiotherapy quality assurance programme. Primary endpoint is 5-year axillary recurrence. Secondary outcomes are arm morbidity assessed by Lymphoedema and Breast Cancer Questionnaire and QuickDASH questionnaires; quality of life and anxiety as assessed with FACT B+4 and State/Trait Anxiety Inventory questionnaires, respectively; other oncological outcomes; economic evaluation using EQ-5D-5L. Target sample size is 1900. Primary analysis is per protocol. Recruitment started on 1 August 2014 and as of 9 June 2021, 1866 participants have been randomised. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Protocol was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee East Midlands-Nottingham 2 (REC reference: 13/EM/0459). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN54765244; NCT0240168Cite Now.

Endocrine Treatment and Targeted Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update recommendations of the ASCO systemic therapy for hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) guideline. METHODS: An Expert Panel conducted a systematic review to identify new, potentially practice-changing data. RESULTS: Fifty-one articles met eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: Alpelisib in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) should be offered to postmenopausal patients, and to male patients, with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, PIK3CA-mutated, ABC, or MBC following prior endocrine therapy with or without a cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor. Clinicians should use next-generation sequencing in tumor tissue or cell-free DNA in plasma to detect PIK3CA mutations. If no mutation is found in cell-free DNA, testing in tumor tissue, if available, should be used as this will detect a small number of additional patients with PIK3CA mutations. There are insufficient data at present to recommend routine testing for ESR1 mutations to guide therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative MBC. For BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer, olaparib or talazoparib should be offered in the 1st-line through 3rd-line setting. A nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) and a CDK4/6 inhibitor should be offered to postmenopausal women with treatment-naïve HR-positive MBC. Fulvestrant and a CDK4/6 inhibitor should be offered to patients with progressive disease during treatment with AIs (or who develop a recurrence within 1 year of adjuvant AI therapy) with or without one line of prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, or as first-line therapy. Treatment should be limited to those without prior exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors in the metastatic setting.Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

The Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) burden of care study: Analysis of local treatments for lung metastases and systemic chemotherapy in 220 patients in the PulMiCC cohort.

AIM: The aim of this work was to examine the burden of further treatments in patients with colorectal cancer following a decision about lung metastasectomy. METHOD: Five teams participating in the Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) study provided details on subsequent local treatments for lung metastases, including the use of chemotherapy. For patients in three groups (no metastasectomy, one metastasectomy or multiple local interventions), baseline factors and selection criteria for additional treatments were examined. RESULTS: The five teams recruited 220 patients between October 2010 and January 2017. No lung metastasectomy was performed in 51 patients, 114 patients had one metastasectomy and 55 patients had multiple local interventions. Selection for initial metastasectomy was associated with nonelevated carcinoembryonic antigen, fewer metastases and no prior liver metastasectomy. These patients also had better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores and lung function at baseline. Four sites provided information on chemotherapy in 139 patients: 79 (57%) had one to five courses of chemotherapy, to a total of 179 courses. The patterns of survival after one or multiple metastasectomy interventions showed evidence of guarantee-time bias contributing to an impression of benefit over no metastasectomy. After repeated metastasectomy, a significantly higher risk of death was observed, with no apparent reduction in chemotherapy usage. CONCLUSION: Repeated metastasectomy is associated with a higher risk of death without reducing the use of chemotherapy. Continued monitoring without surgery might reassure patients with indolent disease or allow response assessment during systemic treatment. Overall, the carefully collected information from the PulMICC study provides no indication of an important survival benefit from metastasectomy.

Gaps in Care and Support for Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer: A Report From the Advanced Breast Cancer Global Alliance.

PURPOSE: Although new therapeutic options continue to improve disease-related outcomes in advanced breast cancer (ABC), enhanced focus is needed to improve quality of life for patients currently living with ABC. METHODS: In November 2019, a multidisciplinary workshop to explore patient perceptions of their information and support needs was held at the ABC Global Alliance Annual Meeting in Lisbon, Portugal. Ninety-two attendees from 27 countries participated in the workshop. RESULTS: Several key unmet needs were identified and discussed in the workshop, including the following: (1) Significant patient knowledge gaps exist related to the diagnosis and management of ABC, and the availability of patient-focused information to support these gaps in knowledge remains limited. (2) The development of meaningful relationships between patients and health care professionals, and the role of patients in decision making, is often overlooked for patients with ABC. (3) Multidisciplinary care approaches are crucial for patients with ABC; however, these often lack effective coordination. (4) Access to clinical trials for ABC also remains limited. (5) Caregivers, friends, and family members do not receive sufficient guidance to support patients with ABC and manage their own well-being. CONCLUSION: The variety of unmet needs explored in the workshop demonstrates that patients with ABC still face considerable challenges related to quality of care and support, which will not be resolved until tangible action is taken. Issues highlighted in the workshop should be prioritized by working groups to shape the development of community-based solutions. There is a need for the global community to act proactively to maximize awareness of these ongoing unmet needs and existing resources, while socializing and building new initiatives and resources that will help to close these gaps for patients.

Preference for the fixed-dose combination of pertuzumab and trastuzumab for subcutaneous injection in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PHranceSCa): A randomised, open-label phase II study.

AIM: The aim of the study was to assess patient preference for the fixed-dose combination of pertuzumab and trastuzumab for subcutaneous injection (PH FDC SC) in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer in PHranceSCa (NCT03674112). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who completed neoadjuvant P + H + chemotherapy + surgery were randomised 1:1 to three intravenous (IV) P + H cycles followed by three cycles of PH FDC SC or vice versa (crossover) and then chose subcutaneous (SC) injection or IV infusion to continue up to 18 cycles (continuation). Assessments were via patient and healthcare professional (HCP) questionnaires. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty patients were randomised (cut-off: 24 February 2020); 136 (85.0%, 95% confidence interval: 78.5-90.2%) preferred SC; 22 (13.8%) preferred IV; 2 (1.3%) had no preference. The main reasons for SC preference were reduced clinic time (n = 119) and comfort during administration (n = 73). One hundred and forty-one patients (88.1%) were very satisfied/satisfied with SC injection versus 108 (67.5%) with IV infusion; 86.9% chose PH FDC SC continuation. HCP perceptions of median patient treatment room time ranged from 33.0-50.0 min with SC and 130.0-300.0 min with IV. Most adverse events (AEs) were grade 1/2 (no 4/5s); serious AE rates were low. AE rates before and after switching were similar (cycles 1-3 IV → cycles 4-6 SC: 77.5% → 72.5%; cycles 1-3 SC → cycles 4-6 IV: 77.5% → 63.8%). CONCLUSION: Most patients strongly preferred PH FDC SC over P + H IV. PH FDC SC was generally well tolerated, with no new safety signals (even when switching), and offers a quicker alternative to IV infusion.

Ovarian cancer population screening and mortality after long-term follow-up in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer continues to have a poor prognosis with the majority of women diagnosed with advanced disease. Therefore, we undertook the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) to determine if population screening can reduce deaths due to the disease. We report on ovarian cancer mortality after long-term follow-up in UKCTOCS. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, postmenopausal women aged 50-74 years were recruited from 13 centres in National Health Service trusts in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Exclusion criteria were bilateral oophorectomy, previous ovarian or active non-ovarian malignancy, or increased familial ovarian cancer risk. The trial management system confirmed eligibility and randomly allocated participants in blocks of 32 using computer generated random numbers to annual multimodal screening (MMS), annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (USS), or no screening, in a 1:1:2 ratio. Follow-up was through national registries. The primary outcome was death due to ovarian or tubal cancer (WHO 2014 criteria) by June 30, 2020. Analyses were by intention to screen, comparing MMS and USS separately with no screening using the versatile test. Investigators and participants were aware of screening type, whereas the outcomes review committee were masked to randomisation group. This study is registered with ISRCTN, 22488978, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00058032. FINDINGS: Between April 17, 2001, and Sept 29, 2005, of 1 243 282 women invited, 202 638 were recruited and randomly assigned, and 202 562 were included in the analysis: 50 625 (25·0%) in the MMS group, 50 623 (25·0%) in the USS group, and 101 314 (50·0%) in the no screening group. At a median follow-up of 16·3 years (IQR 15·1-17·3), 2055 women were diagnosed with tubal or ovarian cancer: 522 (1·0%) of 50 625 in the MMS group, 517 (1·0%) of 50 623 in the USS group, and 1016 (1·0%) of 101 314 in the no screening group. Compared with no screening, there was a 47·2% (95% CI 19·7 to 81·1) increase in stage I and 24·5% (-41·8 to -2·0) decrease in stage IV disease incidence in the MMS group. Overall the incidence of stage I or II disease was 39·2% (95% CI 16·1 to 66·9) higher in the MMS group than in the no screening group, whereas the incidence of stage III or IV disease was 10·2% (-21·3 to 2·4) lower. 1206 women died of the disease: 296 (0·6%) of 50 625 in the MMS group, 291 (0·6%) of 50 623 in the USS group, and 619 (0·6%) of 101 314 in the no screening group. No significant reduction in ovarian and tubal cancer deaths was observed in the MMS (p=0·58) or USS (p=0·36) groups compared with the no screening group. INTERPRETATION: The reduction in stage III or IV disease incidence in the MMS group was not sufficient to translate into lives saved, illustrating the importance of specifying cancer mortality as the primary outcome in screening trials. Given that screening did not significantly reduce ovarian and tubal cancer deaths, general population screening cannot be recommended. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Cancer Research UK, and The Eve Appeal.