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.

Family caregiver beliefs and barriers to effective pain management of cancer patients in home care settings.

PURPOSE: Pain is one of the most common symptoms in cancer patients, and its management is a significant goal in supportive care. Many barriers interfere with its effective control. Nowadays, with a shift in care from the hospital to the home, there is an increasing tendency to involve family caregivers in pain management. Their beliefs may act as barriers to effective pain management in these homecare settings. This study aimed to validate and explore these beliefs using Barriers Questionnaire II (BQ II). METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 202 individuals from a cohort of family caregivers in Greece. RESULTS: The reliability index Cronbach, a value for the translated version of the BQ II, calculated >0.9. Most participants reported worries about the side effects of analgesics. They often assumed these effects were irreversible, and equally, there were concerns about addiction to these drugs. They agreed on the effectiveness of analgesics in treating cancer pain but disagreed that reporting pain is a distracting factor in active cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first time BQ II has been used in this population. The results are consistent with the international academic studies in this area, but more research is needed. BQ II was found to be a valid and reliable scale for defining caregiver attitudes and barriers to effective pain management in homecare settings. Health professional training, interventions targeted to caregivers and trained home care teams may improve the quality of cancer care in these settings.

Breaking bad news in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: In a regional hospital, many patients are newly diagnosed with cancer. Breaking the bad news in these patients and their relatives is a tough task. Many doctors are not experienced in talking to patients about death or death-related diseases. In recent years, there have been great efforts to change the current situation. The aim of this study was to investigate the experience and education of medical personnel in breaking bad news in a secondary hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 59 doctors from General Hospital of Komotini, Greece were included in the study. All the doctors were in clinical specialties that treated cancer patients. A brief questionnaire was developed based on current guidelines such as Baile/SPIKES framework and the ABCDE mnemonic. RESULTS: Residents are involved in delivering bad news less frequently than specialists. Only 21 doctors (35.59%) had specific training on breaking bad news. 20 doctors (33.90%) were aware of the available techniques and protocols on breaking bad news. 47 doctors (79.66%) had a consistent plan for breaking bad news. 57 (96.61%) delivered bad news in a quiet place, 53 (89.83%) ensured no interruptions and enough time, 53 (89.83%) used simple words and 54 (91.53%) checked for understanding and did not rush through the news. 46 doctors (77.97%) allowed relatives to determine patient's knowledge about the disease. CONCLUSIONS: There were low rates of specific training in breaking bad news. However, the selected location, the physician's speech and their plan were according to current guidelines.