Factors Influencing the Decision of Individuals with Breast Cancer to Join an Exercise Oncology Trial.

Exercise has been found to have numerous benefits for individuals with cancer undergoing treatment. The primary objective of this study was to explore factors that influence the decision to join an exercise trial for individuals with a current diagnosis of breast cancer. A theory-informed survey was administered exploring factors (i.e., attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control) that influenced participants' decision to join the "NEXT-BRCA" exercise trial. Eligible participants included self-reported females over 18 years, diagnosed with stage 1-3 breast cancer undergoing treatment and cleared for exercise by their oncologist. Survey questions were analyzed using descriptive statistics and exploratory analysis was performed to determine if associations existed between personal characteristics (age, physical activity level, co-morbid conditions) and cancer characteristics (treatment received). Seventy-four participants completed the survey. Most participants (85% of respondents) were interested in increasing their level of physical activity. The most common attitudes contributing to participant's decision to participate in the trial included feelings that exercise was beneficial for improving physical (91%) and mental health (89%). Advice from the treating oncologist was ranked as the most important factor influencing their decision to join the trial (73%). Respondents hoped to gain exercise knowledge through educational materials (72%) and a structured exercise program (70%). Findings explore why individuals with breast cancer participate in exercise trials during treatment. This knowledge will enhance recruitment of future studies using similar interventions and assist clinicians to maximize education regarding exercise and access to exercise programs for individuals with breast cancer in the future.

Three-Year Outcomes Following Permissive Cardiotoxicity in Patients on Trastuzumab.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiotoxicity, manifest by reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), is the most common reason for the premature discontinuation of trastuzumab. While permissive cardiotoxicity (where mild cardiotoxicity is accepted to enable ongoing trastuzumab) has been shown feasible, the longer-term outcomes are unknown. We aimed to study the intermediate-term clinical outcomes of patients who underwent permissive cardiotoxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients referred to the cardio-oncology service at McMaster University from 2016 to 2021 for LV dysfunction following trastuzumab administration. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients underwent permissive cardiotoxicity. The median (25th-75th percentile) follow-up time from cardiotoxicity onset was 3 years (1.3-4 years). Forty-seven (92%) patients completed trastuzumab; 3 (6%) developed severe LV dysfunction or clinical heart failure (HF) while on trastuzumab and prematurely discontinued therapy. One discontinued trastuzumab by patient choice. At final follow-up after therapy completion, 7 (14%) patients still had mild cardiotoxicity, including 2 who had clinical heart failure and stopped trastuzumab early. Among those with recovered LV function, 50% had normalized LVEF or GLS by 6 and 3 months, respectively, after initial cardiotoxicity. There was no difference in characteristics between those who did or did not recover their LV function. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients exposed to permissive trastuzumab cardiotoxicity for HER2-positive breast cancer, 6% were unable to complete planned trastuzumab due to severe LV dysfunction or clinical HF. Although most patients recover their LV function after trastuzumab discontinuation or completion, 14% still have persistent cardiotoxicity by 3-year follow-up.

Low Serum Testosterone in Men with Newly Diagnosed Androgen-Deprivation Therapy-Naïve Prostate Cancer and Its Relationship to Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A RADICAL-PC Substudy.

PURPOSE: Cardiovascular disease is a common cause of death in prostate cancer patients. Low testosterone is associated with increased cardiovascular risk in the general male population. We investigated the relationship between serum testosterone, cardiovascular disease and risk factors in androgen-deprivation therapy-naïve prostate cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of a subgroup of 1,326 androgen-deprivation therapy-naïve men from RADICAL-PC (Role of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy In CArdiovascular Disease-A Longitudinal Prostate Cancer study) in whom serum testosterone was measured at baseline. RADICAL-PC is a prospective multicenter cohort study of men (2,565) enrolled within 1 year of prostate cancer diagnosis, or within 6 months of commencing androgen-deprivation therapy for the first time. Cardiovascular risk factors, cancer characteristics and total serum testosterone were collected at baseline. Low testosterone was defined as total serum testosterone <11 nmol/L (<320 ng/dL). A Framingham cardiovascular risk score ≥15 was considered high risk for future cardiovascular events. We performed logistic regression to calculate odds ratios for the association between testosterone and cardiovascular risk. RESULTS: Among 1,326 participants (median age 67 years, range 45-93), 553 (42%) had low testosterone. Low testosterone was associated with existing cardiovascular disease, diabetes, elevated hemoglobin A1c, obesity, hypertriglyceridemia, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, hypertension and Framingham score >15. Among patients with low testosterone, the odds ratio for high cardiovascular risk was 1.33 (1.02-1.73) after adjusting for ethnicity, education, alcohol use, cancer characteristics, physical activity and body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: Among androgen-deprivation therapy-naïve prostate cancer patients, low testosterone is common and associated with increased cardiovascular risk factors.

Impact of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in oligoprogressive metastatic disease.

PURPOSE: There is increasing interest in using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in areas of oligoprogressive metastatic disease (OPD). Our main objective was to investigate the impact of SBRT on overall survival (OS) and the incidence of systemic therapy treatment switches in this population. METHODS: A retrospective institutional review of patients treated with SBRT for OPD was performed. Patients were included if they received SBRT for 1-3 discrete progressing metastases, using a dose of at least 5 Gy per fraction. The study aimed to calculate progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and incidence of treatment switch (TS). PFS and OS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier methodology, while LC and TS were determined using cumulative incidence. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients with a total of 118 lesions were treated with SBRT from July 2014 to November 2020. The Median SBRT dose was 40 (18-60) Gy in 5 (2-8) fractions. Patients had primarily kidney, lung, or breast cancer. Most patients were treated with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (30.9%) or chemotherapy (29.6%) before OPD. The median follow-up post-SBRT was 14 months. Median OS and PFS were 25.1 (95% CI 11.2-39.1) months and 7.8 (95% CI 4.6-10.9) months, respectively. The cumulative incidence of local progression of treated lesions was 5% at 1 year and 7.3% at 2 years. Sixty patients progressed after SBRT and 17 underwent additional SBRT. Thirty-eight patients (47%) changed systemic therapy following SBRT; the cumulative incidence of TS was 28.5% at 6 months, 37.4% at 1 year, and 43.9% at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT effectively controls locally progressing lesions but distant progression still occurs frequently. A sizeable number of patients can be salvaged by further SBRT or have minimally progressing diseases that may not warrant an immediate initiation/switch in systemic therapy. Further prospective studies are needed to validate this benefit.

Effect of Metformin vs Placebo on Invasive Disease-Free Survival in Patients With Breast Cancer: The MA.32 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Metformin, a biguanide commonly used to treat type 2 diabetes, has been associated with potential beneficial effects across breast cancer subtypes in observational and preclinical studies. Objective: To determine whether the administration of adjuvant metformin (vs placebo) to patients with breast cancer without diabetes improves outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: MA.32, a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, conducted in Canada, Switzerland, US, and UK, enrolled 3649 patients with high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer receiving standard therapy between August 2010 and March 2013, with follow-up to October 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized (stratified for hormone receptor [estrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor {ER/PgR}] status, positive vs negative; body mass index, ≤30 vs >30; human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [ERBB2, formerly HER2 or HER2/neu], positive vs negative; and any vs no chemotherapy) to 850 mg of oral metformin twice a day (n = 1824) or oral placebo twice a day (n = 1825) for 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Of the 8 secondary outcomes, overall survival, distant relapse-free survival, and breast cancer-free interval were analyzed. Results: Of the 3649 randomized patients (mean age, 52.4 years; 3643 women [99.8%]), all (100%) were included in analyses. After a second interim analysis, futility was declared for patients who were ER/PgR-, so the primary analysis was conducted for 2533 patients who were ER/PgR+. The median duration of follow-up in the ER/PgR+ group was 96.2 months (range, 0.2-121 months). Invasive disease-free survival events occurred in 465 patients who were ER/PgR+. The incidence rates for invasive disease-free survival events were 2.78 per 100 patient-years in the metformin group vs 2.74 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.21; P = .93), and the incidence rates for death were 1.46 per 100 patient-years in the metformin group vs 1.32 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.86-1.41; P = .47). Among patients who were ER/PgR-, followed up for a median of 94.1 months, incidence of invasive disease-free survival events was 3.58 vs 3.60 per 100 patient-years, respectively (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30; P = .92). None of the 3 secondary outcomes analyzed in the ER/PgR+ group had statistically significant differences. Grade 3 nonhematological toxic events occurred more frequently in patients taking metformin than in patients taking placebo (21.5% vs 17.5%, respectively, P = .003). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events in the metformin vs placebo groups were hypertension (2.4% vs 1.9%), irregular menses (1.5% vs 1.4%), and diarrhea (1.9% vs 7.0%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with high-risk operable breast cancer without diabetes, the addition of metformin vs placebo to standard breast cancer treatment did not significantly improve invasive disease-free survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01101438.

The Cardiologist's Role in the Management of Patients with a Genitourinary Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Increased life expectancy due to improved cancer prognosis, shared determinants (e.g., tobacco use), and cardiovascular toxicities related to cancer therapies, including the adverse cardiometabolic effects of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer, make cardiovascular disease an frequent and important co-morbidity in patients with a genitourinary malignancy. Complex cardiovascular disease can pose significant challenges in the management of these patients given the uncertainties related to the best approach to reconcile ischemic and bleeding risks, and the role of invasive cardiovascular interventions in individuals with advanced cancer. In this review, we discuss the current evidence that informs decision-making in this clinical context.

The Hidden Curriculum in Postgraduate Medical Education: a Commentary.

The hidden curriculum is the set of implicit influences which occur within health care organizations. The hidden curriculum has a tremendous impact on medical trainees and practicing physicians alike due to its influence in the domains of policy development, evaluation, resource allocation and institutional slang. We explore and reflect on the various ways in which the hidden curriculum impacts medical trainees and professionals in academic medical institutions.

Durvalumab alone and durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (DANUBE): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Survival outcomes are poor for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who receive standard, first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. We assessed the overall survival of patients who received durvalumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor), with or without tremelimumab (a CTLA-4 inhibitor), as a first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: DANUBE is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial in patients with untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, conducted at 224 academic research centres, hospitals, and oncology clinics in 23 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to receive durvalumab monotherapy (1500 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks; durvalumab (1500 mg) plus tremelimumab (75 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks for up to four doses, followed by durvalumab maintenance (1500 mg) every 4 weeks; or standard-of-care chemotherapy (gemcitabine plus cisplatin or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, depending on cisplatin eligibility) administered intravenously for up to six cycles. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice-web response system, with stratification by cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status, and presence or absence of liver metastases, lung metastases, or both. The coprimary endpoints were overall survival compared between the durvalumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy groups in the population of patients with high PD-L1 expression (the high PD-L1 population) and between the durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy groups in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). The study has completed enrolment and the final analysis of overall survival is reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02516241, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2015-001633-24. FINDINGS: Between Nov 24, 2015, and March 21, 2017, we randomly assigned 1032 patients to receive durvalumab (n=346), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n=342), or chemotherapy (n=344). At data cutoff (Jan 27, 2020), median follow-up for survival was 41·2 months (IQR 37·9-43·2) for all patients. In the high PD-L1 population, median overall survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 10·4-17·3) in the durvalumab monotherapy group (n=209) versus 12·1 months (10·4-15·0) in the chemotherapy group (n=207; hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·71-1·11; p=0·30). In the intention-to-treat population, median overall survival was 15·1 months (13·1-18·0) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group versus 12·1 months (10·9-14·0) in the chemotherapy group (0·85, 95% CI 0·72-1·02; p=0·075). In the safety population, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 47 (14%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 93 (27%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and in 188 (60%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was increased lipase in the durvalumab group (seven [2%] of 345 patients) and in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (16 [5%] of 340 patients), and neutropenia in the chemotherapy group (66 [21%] of 313 patients). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 30 (9%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 78 (23%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 50 (16%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. Deaths due to study drug toxicity were reported in two (1%) patients in the durvalumab group (acute hepatic failure and hepatitis), two (1%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (septic shock and pneumonitis), and one (<1%) patient in the chemotherapy group (acute kidney injury). INTERPRETATION: This study did not meet either of its coprimary endpoints. Further research to identify the patients with previously untreated metastatic urothelial carcinoma who benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors, either alone or in combination regimens, is warranted. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Adjuvant Trastuzumab Therapy: Can We Balance Efficacy and Safety?

Trastuzumab is an effective treatment for HER2-positive breast cancer. Current guidelines recommend withholding trastuzumab in patients experiencing a significant asymptomatic decline in left ventricular function. In this commentary, we discuss the survival benefits afforded by trastuzumab juxtaposed against the risk of trastuzumab-mediated cardiotoxicity. It is not known whether the net benefit of continuing trastuzumab in the setting of mild cardiotoxicity outweighs the associated risks. We describe a potential approach undertaken by our group, and others, and call for a randomized trial.

Custirsen in combination with docetaxel and prednisone for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (SYNERGY trial): a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Clusterin is a chaperone protein associated with treatment resistance and upregulated by apoptotic stressors such as chemotherapy. Custirsen is a second-generation antisense oligonucleotide that inhibits clusterin production. The aim of the SYNERGY trial was to investigate the effect of custirsen in combination with docetaxel and prednisone on overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: SYNERGY was a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised trial set at 134 study centres in 12 countries. Patients were eligible for participation if they had: metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and had received no previous chemotherapy; prostate-specific antigen greater than 5 ng/mL; and a Karnofsky performance score of 70% or higher. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 centrally to either the docetaxel, prednisone, and custirsen combination or docetaxel and prednisone alone. Patients were not masked to treatment allocation. Randomisation was stratified by opioid use for cancer-related pain and radiographic evidence of progression. All patients received docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously with 5 mg of prednisone orally twice daily. Patients assigned docetaxel, prednisone, and custirsen received weekly doses of custirsen 640 mg intravenously after three loading doses of 640 mg. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Patients who received at least one study dose were included in the safety analysis set. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01188187. The trial is completed and final analyses are reported here. FINDINGS: Between Dec 10, 2010, and Nov 7, 2012, 1022 patients were enrolled to the trial, of whom 510 were assigned docetaxel, prednisone, and custirsen and 512 were allocated docetaxel and prednisone. No difference in overall survival was recorded between the two groups (median survival 23·4 months [95% CI 20·9-24·8] with docetaxel, prednisone, and custirsen vs 22·0 months [19·5-24·0] with docetaxel and prednisone; hazard ratio [HR] 0·93, 95% CI 0·79-1·10; p=0·415). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse in the docetaxel, prednisone and custirsen group (n=501) compared with the docetaxel and prednisone alone group (n=499) were neutropenia (grade 3, 63 [13%] vs 28 [6%]; grade 4, 98 [20%] vs 77 [15%]), febrile neutropenia (grade 3, 52 [10%] vs 31 [6%]; grade 4, four [1%] vs two [<1%]), and fatigue (grade 3, 53 [11%] vs 41 [8%]; grade 4, three [1%] vs one [<1%]). One or more serious adverse events were reported for 214 (43%) of 501 patients treated with docetaxel, prednisone, and custirsen and 181 (36%) of 499 receiving docetaxel and prednisone alone. Adverse events were attributable to 23 (5%) deaths in the docetaxel, prednisone, and custirsen group and 24 (5%) deaths in the docetaxel and prednisone alone group. INTERPRETATION: Addition of custirsen to first-line docetaxel and prednisone was reasonably well tolerated, but overall survival was not significantly longer for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with this combination, compared with patients treated with docetaxel and prednisone alone. FUNDING: OncoGenex Technologies.

Effects of metformin versus placebo on vitamin B12 metabolism in non-diabetic breast cancer patients in CCTG MA.32.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is associated with low levels of vitamin B12 (VitB12) in patients with diabetes. The CCTG/MA.32 trial investigates the effects of metformin vs placebo on breast cancer (BC) outcomes in non-diabetic high-risk BC patients. We analyzed VitB12 at baseline and after 6 months of metformin (versus placebo) in the first 492 patients with paired blood samples. METHODS: VitB12 was analyzed centrally in baseline and 6-month fasting plasma. Levels <181 pmol/L were considered deficient, 181-221 pmol/L borderline, and ≥222 pmol/L sufficient. Methylmalonic acid (MMA) and homocysteine (HC) were assayed in those with VitB12 levels <222 pmol/L. Statistical analyses used Spearman's rank correlation coefficients and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous variables and Chi-square test for categorical variables. RESULTS: 237 patients received metformin and 255 received placebo; median (inter quartile range) baseline VitB12 levels were 390 (290, 552) and 370 (290, 552) pmol/L in the metformin and placebo arms, respectively (p = 0.97). At 6 months, the median levels were 320 (244, 419) in the metformin versus 380 (286, 546) pmol/L in the placebo arm (p = 0.0001). At baseline, 15 patients (11 metformin and 4 placebo) had VitB12 <181 pmol/L, and at 6 months, 18 patients (15 metformin and 3 placebo) (p = 0.004). Median hemoglobin was similar at baseline, metformin, 130 g/L (124-137), and placebo arms, 131 g/L (124-137) (p = 0.38), and at 6 months, metformin, 131 g/L (91-162), and 131 g/L (106-169) in placebo group (p = 0.11). Of the 74 subjects with vitamin B12 <222 pmol/L at either time point (45 metformin, 29 placebo), at baseline MMA was normal in all patients and two had elevated HC (>15µmol/L). At 6 months, one patient (metformin) had MMA >0.4µmol/L and 3 (2 metformin, 1 placebo) had HC > 15µmol/L. CONCLUSIONS: There was an increased rate of biochemical VitB12 deficiency after 6 months of metformin; this was not associated with anemia. Further research will investigate VitB12 levels in all subjects at baseline and at 6 and 60 months.

Abiraterone in metastatic prostate cancer without previous chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate, an androgen biosynthesis inhibitor, improves overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy. We evaluated this agent in patients who had not received previous chemotherapy. METHODS: In this double-blind study, we randomly assigned 1088 patients to receive abiraterone acetate (1000 mg) plus prednisone (5 mg twice daily) or placebo plus prednisone. The coprimary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: The study was unblinded after a planned interim analysis that was performed after 43% of the expected deaths had occurred. The median radiographic progression-free survival was 16.5 months with abiraterone-prednisone and 8.3 months with prednisone alone (hazard ratio for abiraterone-prednisone vs. prednisone alone, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.62; P<0.001). Over a median follow-up period of 22.2 months, overall survival was improved with abiraterone-prednisone (median not reached, vs. 27.2 months for prednisone alone; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93; P=0.01) but did not cross the efficacy boundary. Abiraterone-prednisone showed superiority over prednisone alone with respect to time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, opiate use for cancer-related pain, prostate-specific antigen progression, and decline in performance status. Grade 3 or 4 mineralocorticoid-related adverse events and abnormalities on liver-function testing were more common with abiraterone-prednisone. CONCLUSIONS: Abiraterone improved radiographic progression-free survival, showed a trend toward improved overall survival, and significantly delayed clinical decline and initiation of chemotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development, formerly Cougar Biotechnology; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00887198.).

A Population-Based Study of the Effects of a Regional Guideline for Completion Axillary Lymph Node Dissection on Axillary Surgery in Patients with Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 trial suggests completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (+SLNB) does not improve outcomes in select patients, leading to practice variation. A multidisciplinary group of surgeons, oncologists, and pathologists developed a regional guideline for cALND which was disseminated in August 2012. We assessed the impact of Z0011 and the regional guideline on cALND rates. METHODS: Consecutive invasive breast cancer cases undergoing SLNB were reviewed at 12 hospitals. Patient, tumor, and process measures were collected for three time periods: TP1, before publication of Z0011 (May 2009-August 2010); TP2, after publication of Z0011 (March 2011-June 2012); and TP3, after guideline dissemination (January 2013-April 2014). Cases were categorized by whether they met the guideline criteria for cALND (i.e. ≤50 years, mastectomy, T3 tumor, three or more positive sentinel lymph nodes [SLNs]) or not (e.g. age > 50 years, breast-conserving surgery, T1/T2 tumor, and one to two positive SLNs). RESULTS: The SLNB rate increased from 56 % (n = 620), to 70 % (n = 774), to 78 % (n = 844) in TP1, TP2, and TP3, respectively. Among cases not recommended for cALND using the guideline criteria, cALND rates decreased significantly over time (TP1, 71 %; TP2, 43 %; TP3, 17 %) [p < 0.001]. The cALND rate also decreased over time among cases recommended to have cALND using the guideline criteria (TP1, 92 %; TP2, 69 %; TP3, 58 %) [p < 0.001]. Based on multivariable analysis, age and nodal factors appeared to be significant factors for cALND decision making. CONCLUSION: Publication of ACOSOG Z0011 and regional guideline dissemination were associated with a marked decrease in cALND after +SLNB, even among several cases in which the guideline recommended cALND.

Safety of enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel: expanded access in North America.

BACKGROUND: The open-label, single-arm enzalutamide expanded access program (EAP) in the United States and Canada evaluated the safety of enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had previously received docetaxel. METHODS: Patients (n = 507) received enzalutamide 160 mg/day until disease progression, intolerable adverse events (AEs), or commercial availability occurred. AEs and other safety variables were assessed on day 1, weeks 4 and 12, and every 12 weeks thereafter. Data following transition to commercial drug were not collected. RESULTS: Median age was 71 years (range 43-97); 426 patients (83.9%) had a baseline ECOG score of ≤1. In addition to docetaxel, the majority of patients had received prior prostate cancer treatments such as abiraterone (76.1%) or cabazitaxel (28.6%). Median study treatment duration was 2.6 months (range 0.03-9.07). The most frequently reported reasons for discontinuation were commercial availability of enzalutamide (46.7%) and progressive disease (33.7%). A total of 88.2% of patients experienced AEs; 45.4% experienced AEs with a maximum grade of 1 or 2. Fatigue (39.1%), nausea (22.7%), and anorexia (14.8%) were the most commonly reported AEs. Seizure was reported in four patients (0.8%). The most commonly reported event leading to death was progression of metastatic prostate cancer (7.7%). CONCLUSION: In this heavily pretreated EAP population with progressive mCRPC, enzalutamide was well tolerated and the safety profile was consistent with that of the AFFIRM trial.

A randomized phase II efficacy and safety study of vandetanib (ZD6474) in combination with bicalutamide versus bicalutamide alone in patients with chemotherapy naïve castration-resistant prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of combining vandetanib, an orally available multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 (VEGFR-2) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), with bicalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized phase II multi-center study. Eligible patients had rising PSA on androgen deprivation therapy, minimal symptoms and were chemotherapy-naïve. Protocol therapy was either vandetanib 300 mg oral daily plus bicalutamide 50 mg oral daily (Arm A) or bicalutamide 50 mg oral daily alone (Arm B) with cross-over to vandetanib monotherapy at progression. The primary endpoint was PSA response (≥ 50 % decline from baseline). RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were recruited, 19 in Arm A and 20 in Arm B. PSA response was comparable in Arm A and Arm B (18 vs. 19 %). Time to PSA progression was 3.16 months (95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.09, not reached (NR)) for Arm A and 3.09 months (95 % CI: 1.22, NR) for Arm B. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was more common in Arm A compared to Arm B (42 vs. 5 %; p = 0.019). Treatment with vandetanib was associated with a reduction in soluble VEGFR-2 levels after two cycles but an increase in plasma VEGF levels. CONCLUSION: The combination of vandetanib and bicalutamide was associated with considerable toxicity and did not have superior efficacy over bicalutamide alone. Further evaluation of this combination is not warranted in mCRPC.

Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel for second-line treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a single group, multicentre, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: No standard treatment exists for patients with platinum-refractory urothelial cancer. Taxanes and vinflunine are commonly used, but response is less than 20% with no survival benefit. In this phase 2 study, we assessed efficacy and tolerability of nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel in platinum-refractory urothelial cancer. METHODS: We did an open-label, single-group, two-stage study at five centres in Canada. We enrolled patients aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, locally advanced, or metastatic measurable urothelial cancer, with documented progression on or within 12 months of treatment with one previous platinum-containing regimen. Patients received nab-paclitaxel at 260 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks. Treatment continued until disease progression or occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects. The primary endpoint was objective tumour response, defined by a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (version 1.0) criteria. Tumour response and safety were assessed in all patients who received at least one cycle of nab-paclitaxel. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00683059. FINDINGS: We enrolled 48 patients between Oct 16, 2008, and June 23, 2010. Patients received a median of six cycles (range one to 15). 47 patients were evaluable; one (2·1%) had a CR and 12 (25·5%) had PRs, resulting in an overall response of 27·7% (95% CI 17·3-44·4). The most frequently recorded adverse events of any grade were fatigue (38 of 48; 79%), pain (37 of 48; 77%), alopecia (34 of 48; 71%), and neuropathy (30 of 48; 77%). The most frequently recorded adverse events of grade 3 or higher were pain (11 of 48; 23%), fatigue (five of 48; 23%), hypertension (three of 48; 6%), neuropathy (three of 48, 6%), and joint stiffness or pain (two of 48; 4%). INTERPRETATION: Nab-paclitaxel was well tolerated in this population of patients with pretreated advanced urothelial cancer with an encouraging tumour response. These results warrant further study of nab-paclitaxel in second-line treatment of urothelial cancer. FUNDING: Abraxis Bioscience, Celgene.

Evaluating Wall-Mounted Prompts to Facilitate Physical Activity-Related Discussion between Individuals with Cancer and Oncology Health Care Providers: A Pre-post Survey Study.

Purpose: To evaluate the use of wall-mounted prompts in facilitating physical activity (PA)-related discussions between individuals with cancer and oncology care providers. Methods: Individuals with cancer were approached to participate in a survey-based pre-post study. Half of participants (n = 100) completed a survey prior to installation of wall-mounted prompts in clinic while the other half (n = 100) completed a survey following installation of the prompts. Survey questions included content of PA-related discussion, satisfaction with PA education across treatment, and current PA level. The post-prompt survey also asked questions related to the prompt. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Chi-squared tests were performed to determine significance between timepoints. Results: One hundred participants completed the survey at each timepoint. A significant difference was found pre and post-prompt in the number of PA discussions occurring overall during care (p = 0.03). Some participants (53%) were satisfied with the PA education received during treatment. There was no significant difference in occurrence of PA discussion (p = 0.36) pre and post-prompt and no difference in PA behaviour was observed (p = 0.130). Conclusions: Wall-mounted prompts may be effective in increasing the frequency of PA-related discussions between individuals with cancer and their oncology team across treatment. Additional strategies, such as easy referral to rehabilitation professionals, are also needed to facilitate safe and effective PA behaviour during and after cancer treatments.

Objectif: évaluer l'utilisation des messages muraux pour faciliter les discussions sur l'activité physique (AP) entre les personnes atteintes d'un cancer et les professionnels de la santé en oncologie. Méthodologie: des personnes cancéreuses ont été invitées à participer à une étude avant-après par sondage. La moitié (n = 100) a rempli un sondage avant l'installation de messages muraux en clinique, tandis que l'autre moitié (n = 100) l'a rempli après l'installation de ces messages. Les questions du sondage incluaient le contenu des discussions liées à l'AP, la satisfaction envers l'éducation à l'AP tout au long du traitement et le taux d'AP actuelle. Le sondage avant-après comportait aussi des questions au sujet des messages. Les chercheurs ont analysé les réponses au sondage au moyen de statistiques descriptives et ont procédé à des tests du chi carré pour déterminer le caractère significatif entre chaque sondage. Résultats: au total, 100 participants ont rempli chacun des sondages. Les chercheurs ont observé une différence significative avant et après les messages quant au nombre de discussions globales sur l'AP pendant les soins (p = 0,03). Certains participants (53 %) étaient satisfaits de l'éducation sur l'AP donnée pendant le traitement. Il n'y avait pas de différence significative quant à l'occurrence de discussions sur l'AP (p = 0,36) avant et après le message ni quant aux comportements relatifs à l'AP (p = 0,130). Conclusions: les messages muraux peuvent contribuer à accroître la fréquence des discussions sur l'AP entre les personnes atteintes du cancer et leur équipe d'oncologie tout au long du traitement. D'autres stratégies, comme une orientation facile vers des professionnels de la réadaptation, s'imposent également pour favoriser un comportement sécuritaire et efficace à l'égard de l'AP pendant et après les traitements en oncologie.

Access to Oncology Medicines in Canada: Consensus Forum for Recommendations for Improvement.

Patient access to new oncology drugs in Canada is only possible after navigating multiple sequential systemic checkpoints for national regulatory approval, health technology assessment (HTA) and collective government price negotiation. These steps delay access and prevent health care providers from being able to prescribe optimal therapy. Eighteen Canadian oncology clinicians from the medicine, nursing and pharmacy professions met to develop consensus recommendations for defining reasonable government performance standards around process and timeliness to improve Canadian cancer patients' access to best care. A modified Delphi methodology was used to identify consensus on 30 questions involving five themes: accountability, disparities, endpoints, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness. It was agreed that greater transparency is required across regulatory and HTA processes. Health professionals in oncology are frustrated for their patients because they are unable to deliver the modern guideline-supported therapies they want to provide due to delays in approval or funding. Canadian health care providers request improvements in timely access to life-saving therapeutics in line with other comparator countries. Clinicians expect urgent improvements in Canadian health systems to give our patients their best chance of survival.

A phase II study of cediranib (AZD 2171) in treatment naive patients with progressive unresectable recurrent or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. A trial of the PMH phase 2 consortium.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of angiogenesis has emerged as an effective therapeutic strategy in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). In this single arm phase 2 study, we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of cediranib (AZD2171) a potent angiogenesis inhibitor in first line mRCC. METHODS: Eligible patients who had no prior systemic therapy received cediranib 45 mg orally once daily continuously. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints were clinical benefit rate (ORR plus stable disease (SD) ≥ 4 months), duration of response, progression free survival (PFS), median overall survival (OS), safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Between January 2006 and April 2008, 44 patients were accrued. The median age was 62 (range 44-83) and performance status was either 0 (22 patients) or 1 (22 patients). Of the 39 evaluable patients there were 15 (38 %) partial responses (95 % CI: 23-55 %); 18 stable disease (SD) for a clinical benefit rate of 33/39 = 85 % (95 % CI: 69-94 %) and 6 progressive disease. Median PFS was 8.9 months (95 % CI: 5.1-12.9); and median OS was 28.6 months (95 % CI: 18.2-37.3 months). The most frequent grade 3 or higher AEs included hypertension, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Cediranib demonstrated significant anti-tumour activity in first line, treatment-naive mRCC, with efficacy parameters comparable to the other approved agents (sunitinib and pazopanib) in this setting. The main toxicities were fatigue, diarrhea and hypertension. Based on these encouraging results, further evaluation of cediranib in mRCC at a more tolerable dose of 30 mg daily appears warranted.