A randomised trial comparing 6-monthly adjuvant zoledronate with a single one-time dose in patients with early breast cancer.

PURPOSE: While adjuvant bisphosphonate use in early breast cancer (EBC) is associated with improvements in breast cancer-specific outcomes, questions remain around optimal bisphosphonate type, dose and scheduling. We evaluated a single zoledronate infusion in a prospective randomised trial. METHODS: Postmenopausal patients with EBC were randomised to receive a single infusion of zoledronate (4 mg IV) or 6-monthly treatment for 3 years. Outcomes measured were; Quality of Life (QoL; EQ-5D-5L), bisphosphonate-related toxicities, including acute phase reactions (APRs), recurrence-free survival (RFS), bone metastasis-free survival (BMFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 211 patients were randomized to either a single infusion (n = 107) or six-monthly treatment (n = 104). After 3 years of follow up there were no significant differences between the arms for QoL and most toxicity endpoints. APRs following zoledronate occurred in 81% (171/211) of patients (77.6% in single infusion arm and 84.6% in the 6-monthly group). While the frequency of APRs decreased over 3 years in the 6-monthly arm, they still remain common. Of 34/104 (32.7%) patients who discontinued zoledronate early in the 6-monthly treatment group, the most common reason was APRs (16/34, 47%). At the 3 year follow up, there were no differences between arms for RFS, BMFS or OS. CONCLUSION: A single infusion of zoledronate was associated with increased patient convenience, less toxicity, and lower rates of treatment discontinuation. Despite the common clinical impression that APRs decrease with time, this was not observed when patients were specifically questioned. While the study is not powered for non-inferiority, longer-term follow-up for confirmation of RFS and OS rates is ongoing.

Does Pre-Emptive Availability of PREDICT 2.1 Results Change Ordering Practices for Oncotype DX? A Multi-Center Prospective Cohort Study.

For early-stage hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer, tools to estimate treatment benefit include free and publicly available algorithms (e.g., PREDICT 2.1) and expensive molecular assays (e.g., Oncotype DX). There remains a need to identify patients who de-rive the most benefit from molecular assays and where this test may be of poor value. In this multicenter prospective cohort study, we evaluated whether use of PREDICT 2.1 would impact physician decision making. For the first 6 months of the study, data on physician use of both PREDICT 2.1 and Oncotype DX ordering were collected on all newly diagnosed patients eligible for molecular testing. After 6 months, an educational intervention was undertaken to see if providing physicians with PREDICT 2.1 results affects the frequency of Oncotype DX requests. A total of 602 patients across six cancer centers in Ontario, Canada were recruited between March 2020 and November 2021. Providing PREDICT 2.1 results and an educational intervention did not alter the ordering of an Oncotype DX. For patients with low clinical risk, either by clinico-pathologic features or by PREDICT 2.1, the probability of obtaining a high Oncotype DX recurrence score was substantially lower compared to patients with high-clinical-risk disease. The introduction of an educational intervention had no impact on molecular assay requests. However, routine ordering of molecular assays for patients with low-clinical-risk disease is of poor value.

The REthinking Clinical Trials Program Retreat 2023: Creating Partnerships to Optimize Quality Cancer Care.

Patients, families, healthcare providers and funders face multiple comparable treatment options without knowing which provides the best quality of care. As a step towards improving this, the REthinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) pragmatic trials program started in 2014 to break down many of the traditional barriers to performing clinical trials. However, until other innovative methodologies become widely used, the impact of this program will remain limited. These innovations include the incorporation of near equivalence analyses and the incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical trial design. Near equivalence analyses allow for the comparison of different treatments (drug and non-drug) using quality of life, toxicity, cost-effectiveness, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data. AI offers unique opportunities to maximize the information gleaned from clinical trials, reduces sample size estimates, and can potentially "rescue" poorly accruing trials. On 2 May 2023, the first REaCT international symposium took place to connect clinicians and scientists, set goals and identify future avenues for investigator-led clinical trials. Here, we summarize the topics presented at this meeting to promote sharing and support other similarly motivated groups to learn and share their experiences.

Third-line treatment patterns in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: a retrospective analysis of real-world data in Canada.

There is an increasing demand for real-world data pertaining to the usage of cancer treatments, especially in settings where no standard treatment is specifically recommended. This study presents the first real-world analysis of third-line treatment patterns in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients in Canada. The purpose was to assess evolution of clinical practice and identify unmet needs in post-second-line therapy. Retrospective data from medical records of 66 patients who received third-line treatment before 31st October 2018, and data from 56 patients who received third-line treatment after this date, extracted from the Personalize My Treatment (PMT) cancer patient registry, were analyzed. In the first cohort, the study revealed heterogeneity in the third-line setting, with trastuzumab, lapatinib, and T-DM1 being the main treatment options. Even though data were collected before the wide availability of tucatinib, neratinib and trastuzumab deruxtecan in Canada, the PMT cohort revealed the emergence of new therapeutic combinations and a shift from lapatinib usage to T-DM1 choice was observed. These findings underscore the evolving nature of third-line treatment strategies in Canada, a facet that is intrinsically tied to the availability of new drugs. The absence of a consensus on post-second-line treatment highlights the pressing need for more efficient therapeutic alternatives beyond the currently available options. This study not only offers valuable insights into the present landscape of third-line treatment in Canada but validates the significance and effectiveness of the PMT registry as a tool for generating pan-Canadian real-world evidence in oncology and its capacity to provide information on evolution of therapeutic practices.