The Right Dose: Results of a Patient Advocate-Led Survey of Individuals With Metastatic Breast Cancer Regarding Treatment-Related Side Effects and Views About Dosage Assessment to Optimize Quality of Life.

PURPOSE: Although patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have been living longer with the advent of more effective treatments such as targeted therapy and immunotherapy, the disease remains incurable, and most patients will undergo therapy indefinitely. When beginning therapy, patients are typically prescribed dose often based upon the maximum tolerated dose identified in phase I clinical trials. However, patients' perspectives about tolerability and willingness to discuss individualized dosing of drugs upon initiation of a new regimen and throughout the course of treatment have not been comprehensively evaluated. METHODS: Patient advocates and medical oncologists from the Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative (PCDI) developed a survey to ascertain the prevalence and severity of MBC patients' treatment-related side effects, the level of patient-physician communication, mitigation strategies, perception about the relative efficacy of higher versus lower doses, and willingness to discuss alternative dosing. The PCDI distributed the anonymous confidential online survey in August 2020 to individuals with self-reported MBC. RESULTS: One thousand and two hundred twenty-one patients with MBC completed the survey. 86.1% (n = 1,051) reported experiencing at least one significant treatment-related side effect, and of these, 20.3% (n = 213) visited the emergency room/hospital and 43.2% (n = 454) missed at least one treatment. Nearly all patients with side effects (97.6%, n = 1,026) informed their doctor and 81.7% (n = 838) received assistance. Of the 556 patients given a dose reduction for side-effect mitigation, 82.6% (n = 459) reported relief. Notably, majority of patients (53.3%, n = 651) do not believe that higher dose is always more effective than lower dose, and 92.3% (n = 1,127) would be willing to discuss flexible dosing options with their physicians based upon personal characteristics to optimize quality of life. CONCLUSION: Given that the majority of patients with MBC experienced at least one substantial treatment-related side effect and most patients given a dose reduction reported improvement, innovative dosage-related strategies are warranted to sustain and improve patients' well-being. Patient-physician discussions in which the patient's unique attributes and circumstances are assessed upon initiation of new treatment and throughout the course of therapy may facilitate the identification of the most favorable dose for each patient, and the majority of patients would be receptive to this approach.

The patient perspective on dose optimization for anticancer treatments: A new era of cancer drug dosing-Challenging the "more is better" dogma.

The Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative, a patient-led effort advocating for a paradigm shift in determining cancer drug dosing strategies, pioneers a departure from traditional oncology drug dosing practices. Historically, oncology drug dosing relies on identifying the maximum tolerated dose through phase 1 dose escalation methodology, favoring higher dosing for greater efficacy, often leading to higher toxicity. However, this approach is not universally applicable, especially for newer treatments like targeted therapies and immunotherapies. Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative challenges this "more is better" ethos, particularly as metastatic breast cancer patients themselves, as they not only seek longevity but also a high quality of life since most metastatic breast cancer patients stay on treatment for the rest of their lives. Surveying 1221 metastatic breast cancer patients and 119 oncologists revealed an evident need for flexible dosing strategies, advocating personalized care discussions based on patient attributes. The survey results also demonstrated an openness toward flexible dosing and a willingness from both patients and clinicians to discuss dosing as part of their care. Patient-centered dosing emphasizes dialogue between clinicians and patients, delving into treatment efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Similarly, clinical trial advocacy for multiple dosing regimens encourages adaptive strategies, moving away from strict adherence to maximum tolerated dose, supported by recent research in optimizing drug dosages. Recognizing the efficacy-effectiveness gap between clinical trials and real-world practice, Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative underscores the necessity for patient-centered dosing strategies. A focus on individual patient attributes aligns with initiatives like Project Optimus and Project Renewal, aiming to optimize drug dosages for improved treatment outcomes at both the pre- and post-approval phases. Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative's efforts extend to patient education, providing tools to initiate dosage-related conversations with physicians. In addition, it emphasizes physician-patient dialogues and post-marketing studies as essential in determining optimal dosing and refining drug regimens. A dose-finding paradigm prioritizing drug safety, tolerability, and efficacy benefits all stakeholders, reducing emergency care needs and missed treatments for patients, aligning with oncologists' and patients' shared goals. Importantly, it represents a win-win scenario across healthcare sectors. In summary, the Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative drives transformative changes in cancer drug dosing, emphasizing patient well-being and personalized care, aiming to enhance treatment outcomes and optimize oncology drug delivery.

Patient-centered dosing: oncologists' perspectives about treatment-related side effects and individualized dosing for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

PURPOSE: Although metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is treatable, it is not curable and most patients remain on treatment indefinitely. While oncologists commonly prescribe the recommended starting dose (RSD) from the FDA-approved label, patient tolerance may differ from that seen in clinical trials. We report on a survey of medical oncologists' perspectives about treatment-related toxicity and willingness to discuss flexible dosing with patients. METHODS: We disseminated a confidential survey via social media/email in Spring 2021. Eligible respondents needed to be US-based medical oncologists with experience treating patients with MBC. RESULTS: Of 131 responses, 119 were eligible. Physicians estimated that 47% of their patients reported distressing treatment-related side effects; of these, 15% visited the Emergency Room/hospital and 37% missed treatment. 74% (n = 87) of doctors reported improvement of patient symptoms after dose reduction. 87% (n = 104) indicated that they had ever, if appropriate, initiated treatment at lower doses. Most (85%, n = 101) respondents did not believe that the RSD is always more effective than a lower dose and 97% (n = 115) were willing to discuss individualized dosing with patients. CONCLUSION: Treatment-related side effects are prevalent among patients with MBC, resulting in missed treatments and acute care visits. To help patients tolerate treatment, oncologists may decrease initial and/or subsequent doses. The majority of oncologists reject the premise that a higher dose is always superior and are willing to discuss individualized dosing with patients. Given potential improvements regarding quality of life and clinical care, dose modifications should be part of routine shared decision-making between patients and oncologists.

Moonshots and metastatic disease: the need for a multi-faceted approach when studying atypical responses.

Clinical research generally focuses on results involving a statistical mean with little attention in trial design to patients who respond considerably better or worse than average. Exploring the reasons underlying an "atypical response" will increase understanding of the mechanisms involved in cancer progression and treatment resistance, accelerate biomarker identification, and improve precision medicine by allowing clinicians to prospectively select optimal treatments. Based on our review, we suggest two ways to move this field forward. First, we suggest that clear categorization of "atypical responders" is needed. This encompasses three sub-categories of patients: "exceptional responders" (those with an unusually favorable treatment response), "rapid progressors" (patients demonstrating an unusually poor or no therapeutic response), and "exceptional survivors" (patients who have far outlived their initial prognosis). Such categorization may depend upon the clinical context and disease subtype. Second, we suggest that atypical responses may be due not only to somatic mutations in tumors, but also to inherited polymorphisms in non-tumor tissue, host and tumor environments, lifestyle factors, co-morbidities, use of complementary and integrative medicine, and the interaction among these components. Here, we summarize new research initiatives exploring atypical responses, the potential reasons for atypical responses, and a strategic call to action. Rigorous studies of normal and atypical responses to treatment will be needed to strengthen understanding of the role of non-tumor factors. Clinical trial design for targeted and other types of therapies should be enhanced to collect data in a standardized manner beyond tumor genetics, resulting in more thorough study of the whole patient.

[Closure of psychiatric hospitals and major regional disparities in Italy]. / Suppression des hôpitaux psychiatriques et grandes disparités régionales en Italie.

The history of psychiatry in Italy is rooted in the 1960s movement illustrated by the transformation of the Gorizia psychiatric hospital led by Franco Basaglia. The new law, referred to as the "law 180", which resulted from the movement, removed the concept of dangerousness and set out the modes of admission in the psychiatric sector. Today, the health system is based around the mental healthcare department and centre, responsible for the organisation of community care.