Real world study of sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for pre-treated patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) remain limited. This is the first study to assess the real-world safety and efficacy of sacituzumab govitecan (SG) in the UK. METHODS: Data was retrospectively collected from 16 tertiary UK cancer centres. Pts had a diagnosis of mTNBC, received at least two prior lines of treatment (with at least one being in the metastatic setting) and received at least one dose of SG. RESULTS: 132 pts were included. Median age was 56 years (28-91). All patients were ECOG performance status (PS) 0-3 (PS0; 39, PS1; 76, PS2; 16, PS3;1). 75% (99/132) of pts had visceral metastases including 18% (24/132) of pts with CNS disease. Median PFS (mPFS) was 5.2 months (95% CI 4.5-6.6) with a median OS (mOS) of 8.7 months (95% CI 6.8-NA). The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (all grade; 82%, G3/4; 14%), neutropenia (all grade; 55%, G3/4; 29%), diarrhoea (all grade; 58%, G3/4, 15%), and nausea (all grade; 38%, G3/4; 3%). SG dose reduction was required in 54% of pts. CONCLUSION: This study supports significant anti-tumour activity in heavily pre-treated pts with mTNBC. Toxicity data aligns with clinical trial experience.

Comparison of recommendations for surveillance of advanced colorectal polyps: A systematic review of guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Patients diagnosed with advanced colorectal lesions have a higher risk of developing colorectal cancer. International polyp surveillance guidelines have recently been updated. The aim of this systematic review was to assess surveillance recommendations for advanced colorectal polyps and compare the patient, polyp, and colonoscopy quality factors considered in their recommendations. METHODS: Guidelines with surveillance recommendations for colorectal polyps were identified. Databases searched included PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, TripPro, and guidelines identified by two blinded reviewers. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO and performed in line with PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Six guidelines from the US Multi-Society Task Force, British Society of Gastroenterology, Cancer Council Australia, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, and Asia-Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer Screening were included. The recommended surveillance interval of 3 years was consistent, but the criteria used for advanced polyps were variable. Polyp factors were the key determinant for when surveillance should be performed. Although all guidelines recognized their importance, the application of and evidence underlying patient characteristics and the quality of baseline colonoscopy were limited. All included guidelines were rated of average to high quality by the AGREE II instrument. CONCLUSION: Surveillance guidelines for advanced colorectal polyps are of good quality but limited by their underlying evidence. Standardization of definitions would be valuable for both research and clinical application. Better knowledge of colonoscopist quality indicators and patient factors is recommended to further economize surveillance recommendations, minimize patient risk, and achieve optimal outcomes without increasing pressure on services.

Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second largest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Current CRC screening in various countries involves stool-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, yet public uptake remains sub-optimal. This review assessed the literature regarding acceptability of alternative CRC screening modalities compared to standard care in average-risk adults. METHOD: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science were conducted up to February 3rd, 2022. The alternative interventions examined were computed tomography colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colon capsule endoscopy and blood-based biomarkers. Outcomes for acceptability were uptake, discomfort associated with bowel preparation, discomfort associated with screening procedure, screening preferences and willingness to repeat screening method. A narrative data synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Differences between intervention and comparison modalities in uptake did not reach statistical significance in most of the included studies. The findings do suggest FIT as being more acceptable as a screening modality than flexible sigmoidoscopy. There were no consistent significant differences in bowel preparation discomfort, screening procedure discomfort, screening preference and willingness to repeat screening between the standard care and alternative modalities. CONCLUSION: Current evidence comparing standard colonoscopy and stool-based CRC screening with novel modalities does not demonstrate any clear difference in acceptability. Due to the small number of studies available and included in each screening comparison and lack of observed differences, further research is needed to explore factors influencing acceptability of alternative CRC modalities that might result in improvement in population uptake within different contexts.

Multidisciplinary decision-making strategies may reduce the need for secondary surgery in complex colonic polyps - A systematic review and pooled analysis.

AIM: The recognition of complex colonic polyps is increasing. Management varies considerably and the impact of this on clinical outcomes is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the impact of group decision-making strategies and defined selection criteria on the treatment outcomes of complex colonic polyps. METHOD: A systematic literature review identified studies reporting complex polyp treatment outcomes and describing their decision-making strategies. Databases searched included PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and Scopus. Articles were identified by two blinded reviewers using defined inclusion criteria. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO and performed in line with PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: There were 303 identified articles describing treatment outcomes of complex colonic polyps. Only nine of these fully described the decision-making strategy and met the inclusion criteria. Adverse events ranged from 1.3% to 10% across the studies. Unsuspected malignancy and secondary surgery rates ranged from 2.4% to 15.4% and 3.3% to 43.9%, respectively. Grouping of articles into a hierarchy of decision-making strategies demonstrated a sequential reduction in secondary surgery rates with improving strategies. There were no differences in comparisons of adverse event or unsuspected malignancy rates. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited description of decision-making strategies and variability in reporting of studies describing complex polyp treatment outcomes. The use of multidisciplinary decision-making and defined selection criteria may reduce the need for secondary surgical intervention in complex colonic polyps, but further evidence is required to draw definite conclusions.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Dermatology: A Systematic Review.

By relying on data from existing patient-reported outcome measures of quality of life, the true impact of skin conditions on patients' lives may be underestimated. This study systematically reviewed all dermatology-specific (used across skin conditions) patient-reported outcome measures and makes evidence-based recommendations for their use. The study protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018108829). PubMed, PsycInfo and CINAHL were searched from inception to 25 June 2018. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria were used to assess the measurement properties and methodological quality of studies. A total of 12,925 abstracts were identified. Zero patient-reported outcome measures were assigned to category A (ready for use without further validation), 31 to category B (recommended for use, but only with further validation) and 5 to category C (not recommended for use). There is no gold-standard dermatology-specific patient-reported outcome measure that can be recommended or used without caution. A new measure that can comprehensively capture the impact of dermatological conditions on the patient's life is needed.