Enhancing global access to cancer medicines.

Globally, cancer is the second leading cause of death, with numbers greatly exceeding those for human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, tuberculosis, and malaria combined. Limited access to timely diagnosis, to affordable, effective treatment, and to high-quality care are just some of the factors that lead to disparities in cancer survival between countries and within countries. In this article, the authors consider various factors that prevent access to cancer medicines (particularly access to essential cancer medicines). Even if an essential cancer medicine is included on a national medicines list, cost might preclude its use, it might be prescribed or used inappropriately, weak infrastructure might prevent it being accessed by those who could benefit, or quality might not be guaranteed. Potential strategies to address the access problems are discussed, including universal health coverage for essential cancer medicines, fairer methods for pricing cancer medicines, reducing development costs, optimizing regulation, and improving reliability in the global supply chain. Optimizing schedules for cancer therapy could reduce not only costs, but also adverse events, and improve access. More and better biomarkers are required to target patients who are most likely to benefit from cancer medicines. The optimum use of cancer medicines depends on the effective delivery of several services allied to oncology (including laboratory, imaging, surgery, and radiotherapy). Investment is necessary in all aspects of cancer care, from these supportive services to technologies, and the training of health care workers and other staff.

Real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients treated with eribulin after prior phosphoinositide 3-Kinase inhibitor treatment for metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: In 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration approved eribulin for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Since then, the treatment landscape has evolved with many new therapy classes, a more recent one being the small molecule inhibitors of phosphoinositide 3 kinase (PI3K). We sought to characterize the treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of patients with MBC who received eribulin following prior treatment with a PI3K inhibitor. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study based on medical record review included MBC patients who initiated eribulin between March 2019 and September 2020 following prior treatment with a PI3K inhibitor was conducted. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, and clinical outcomes were analyzed descriptively. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated from the initiation of eribulin therapy using Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: 82 eligible patients were included. Patients' median age at eribulin initiation was 62 years; 86.5% had hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative tumors. Eribulin was most often administered in the second or third line (82.9%) in the metastatic setting. Best overall response on eribulin was reported as complete or partial response in 72% of the patients. The median rwPFS was 18.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.4-not estimable); median OS was not reached. The estimated rwPFS and OS rates at 12 months were 63.3% (95% CI, 50.5-73.7) and 82.6% (95% CI, 72.4-89.3), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our real-world study suggests that eribulin may be a potential treatment option for MBC patients who fail a prior PI3K inhibitor.

Imlunestrant, an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader, as monotherapy and combined with abemaciclib, in recurrent/advanced ER-positive endometrioid endometrial cancer: Results from the phase 1a/1b EMBER study.

OBJECTIVE: Imlunestrant is a next-generation oral selective estrogen receptor degrader designed to deliver continuous estrogen receptor (ER) target inhibition. EMBER is a phase 1a/b trial of imlunestrant, as monotherapy and combined with targeted therapy, in patients with ER+ advanced breast cancer or endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC). This report focuses on patients with ER+ EEC. METHODS: EMBER used an i3 + 3 dose-escalation design to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) followed by dose-expansion cohorts (1:1 randomization): imlunestrant monotherapy and imlunestrant plus abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily). Eligible patients had measurable disease and progression or recurrence after platinum-containing chemotherapy. Prior fulvestrant or aromatase inhibitor was not allowed. Secondary endpoints included safety, pharmacokinetics and antitumor activity. RESULTS: In total, 72 patients with a median of 2 prior anticancer therapies were treated. Among the 39 patients who received imlunestrant (400 mg [RP2D], n = 33; 800 mg, n = 6), the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were grade 1-2 nausea (35.9 %), diarrhea (25.6 %), urinary tract infection (25.6 %), and abdominal pain (20.5 %). Overall response rate (ORR) was 10.3 %, clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 33.3 %, and median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 3.8 months (95 % CI, 1.8-6.7). Among the 33 patients who received imlunestrant (400 mg [RP2D], n = 29; 800 mg, n = 4) plus abemaciclib, the most common TEAEs were diarrhea (87.9 %), nausea (66.7 %), fatigue (48.5 %), and anemia (45.5 %). ORR was 18.2 %, CBR was 42.4 %, and mPFS was 6.8 months (95 % CI, 2.1-12). CONCLUSION: Imlunestrant, as monotherapy and combined with abemaciclib, has a manageable safety profile with preliminary evidence of antitumor activity in patients with ER+ EEC.

Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer in premenopausal women: subgroup analysis from the MONARCH 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In MONARCH 2, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS, 16.4 vs 9.3 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.553) and overall survival (OS, 46.7 vs 37.3 months; HR 0.757) compared with placebo plus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive (HR-positive), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-negative) advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients who were endocrine therapy (ET) resistant, regardless of menopausal status. Here, we report findings in the premenopausal subgroup of the MONARCH 2 trial. METHODS: The premenopausal subgroup included patients with natural menstrual bleeding who received a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist at least 4 weeks prior to study treatment start date and for the entire study duration. Of the 669 patients enrolled in the MONARCH 2 trial, 114 were premenopausal (abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, n = 72; placebo plus fulvestrant, n = 42), and were included in this analysis. The primary objective was investigator-assessed PFS and secondary objectives were OS, objective response rate, and safety and tolerability. Exploratory analyses included time to second disease progression (PFS2), time to chemotherapy (TTC), and chemotherapy-free survival (CFS). RESULTS: At the primary objective cutoff (February 14, 2017), median PFS was not reached for the abemaciclib plus fulvestrant arm versus 10.52 months for the placebo plus fulvestrant arm (HR 0.415; 95% CI 0.246-0.698). At the pre-specified OS interim cutoff (20-June-2019), median PFS was 28.6 months in the abemaciclib plus fulvestrant arm compared with 10.26 months in the placebo plus fulvestrant arm (HR 0.477; 95% CI 0.302-0.755). A numerical OS benefit was observed with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant compared to fulvestrant alone (HR 0.689; 95% CI 0.379-1.252, median, not reached vs 47.3 months). Improvements were also observed for the exploratory outcomes of PFS2 (HR 0.599), TTC (HR 0.674), and CFS (HR 0.642) with the addition of abemaciclib to fulvestrant. The safety profile was generally consistent with results disclosed previously. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the premenopausal subgroup in the MONARCH 2 trial were consistent with the improved clinical outcomes observed in the intent-to-treat population. The analysis provides support for the use of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (with ovarian suppression) as an effective treatment option for premenopausal patients with HR+, HER2- ABC who are ET-resistant. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02107703. Registered April 08, 2014- Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02107703 .

Baseline characteristics and first-line treatment patterns in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the SystHERs registry.

BACKGROUND: Systemic Therapies for HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Study (SystHERs, NCT01615068) was a prospective, observational disease registry designed to identify treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in real-world treatment settings. METHODS: SystHERs enrolled patients aged ≥ 18 years with recently diagnosed HER2-positive MBC. Treatment regimens and clinical management were determined by the treating physician. In this analysis, patients were compared descriptively by first-line treatment, age, or race. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the associations between baseline variables and treatment selections. Clinical outcomes were assessed in patients treated with trastuzumab (Herceptin [H]) + pertuzumab (Perjeta [P]). RESULTS: Patients were enrolled from June 2012 to June 2016. As of February 22, 2018, 948 patients from 135 US treatment sites had received first-line treatment, including HP (n = 711), H without P (n = 175), or no H (n = 62) (with or without chemotherapy and/or hormonal therapy). Overall, 68.7% received HP + taxane and 9.3% received H without P + taxane. Patients aged < 50 years received HP (versus H without P) more commonly than those ≥ 70 years (odds ratio 4.20; 95% CI, 1.62-10.89). Chemotherapy was less common in patients ≥ 70 years (68.2%) versus those < 50 years (88.0%) or 50-69 years (87.4%). Patients treated with HP had median overall survival of 53.8 months and median progression-free survival of 15.8 months. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of real-world data shows that most patients with HER2-positive MBC received first-line treatment with HP + taxane. However, older patients were less likely to receive dual HER2-targeted therapy and chemotherapy.

Health-Related Quality of Life in MONARCH 2: Abemaciclib plus Fulvestrant in Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer After Endocrine Therapy.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III MONARCH 2 study (NCT02107703), abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study assessed patient-reported pain, global health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, and symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Abemaciclib or placebo (150 p.o. mg twice daily) plus fulvestrant (500 mg, per label) were randomly assigned (2:1). The modified Brief Pain Inventory, Short Form (mBPI-sf); European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL Core 30 (QLQ-C30); and Breast Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-BR23) assessed outcomes. Data were collected at baseline, cycle 2, every two cycles 3-13, thereafter at every three cycles, and 30 days postdiscontinuation. Longitudinal mixed regression and Cox proportional hazards models assessed postbaseline change and time to sustained deterioration (TTSD) by study arm. RESULTS: On-treatment HRQoL scores were consistently maintained from baseline and similar between arms. Patients in the abemaciclib arm (n = 446) experienced a 4.9-month delay in pain deterioration (mBPI-sf), compared with the control arm (n = 223), and significantly greater TTSD on the mBPI-sf and analgesic use (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and QLQ-C30 pain item (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.79). TTSD for functioning and most symptoms significantly favored the abemaciclib arm, including fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and cognitive and social functioning. Only diarrhea significantly favored the control arm (hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.20-2.10). CONCLUSION: HRQoL was maintained on abemaciclib plus fulvestrant. Alongside superior PFS and manageable safety profile, results support treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in a population of patients with endocrine-resistant HR+, HER2-negative ABC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In MONARCH 2, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant demonstrated superior efficacy and a manageable safety profile for patients with in hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important to consider, given the palliative nature of ABC treatment. In this study, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, compared with placebo plus fulvestrant, significantly delayed sustained deterioration of pain and other patient-reported symptoms (including fatigue, nausea, vomiting), and social and cognitive functioning. Combined with demonstrated clinical benefit and tolerability, the stabilization of patient-reported symptoms and HRQoL further supports abemaciclib plus fulvestrant as a desirable treatment option in endocrine resistant, HR+, HER2- ABC.

De Novo Versus Recurrent HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: Patient Characteristics, Treatment, and Survival from the SystHERs Registry.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist describing real-world treatment of de novo and recurrent HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Systemic Therapies for HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Study (SystHERs) was a fully enrolled (2012-2016), observational, prospective registry of patients with HER2-positive MBC. Patients aged ≥18 years and ≤6 months from HER2-positive MBC diagnosis were treated and assessed per their physician's standard practice. The primary endpoint was to characterize treatment patterns by de novo versus recurrent MBC status, compared descriptively. Secondary endpoints included patient characteristics, progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS, by Kaplan-Meier method; hazard ratio [HR] and 95% confidence interval [CI] by Cox regression), and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Among 977 eligible patients, 49.8% (n = 487) had de novo and 50.2% (n = 490) had recurrent disease. A higher proportion of de novo patients had hormone receptor-negative disease (34.9% vs. 24.9%), bone metastasis (57.1% vs. 45.9%), and/or liver metastasis (41.9% vs. 33.1%), and a lower proportion had central nervous system metastasis (4.3% vs. 13.5%). De novo patients received first-line regimens containing chemotherapy (89.7%), trastuzumab (95.7%), and pertuzumab (77.8%) more commonly than recurrent patients (80.0%, 85.9%, and 68.6%, respectively). De novo patients had longer median PFS (17.7 vs. 11.9 months; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59-0.80; p < .0001) and OS (not estimable vs. 44.5 months; HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44-0.69; p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Patients with de novo versus recurrent HER2-positive MBC exhibit different disease characteristics and survival durations, suggesting these groups have distinct outcomes. These differences may affect future clinical trial design. Clinical trial identification number. NCT01615068 (clinicaltrials.gov). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: SystHERs was an observational registry of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC), which is a large, modern, real-world data set for this population and, thereby, provides a unique opportunity to study patients with de novo and recurrent HER2-positive MBC. In SystHERs, patients with de novo disease had different baseline demographics and disease characteristics, had superior clinical outcomes, and more commonly received first-line chemotherapy and/or trastuzumab versus those with recurrent disease. Data from this and other studies suggest that de novo and recurrent MBC have distinct outcomes, which may have implications for disease management strategies and future clinical study design.

Overall survival analysis in patients with metastatic breast cancer and liver or lung metastases treated with eribulin, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the overall survival (OS) in real-world clinical practice in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and visceral metastases (liver or lung) treated in the third-line setting with eribulin, gemcitabine or capecitabine overall and in the major clinical categories of MBC (TNBC, HR+/HER2-, and HER2+). METHODS: A retrospective, observational study was conducted with de-identified patient electronic health records from the Cancer Treatment Centers of America (CTCA). Patients with a diagnosis of metastatic breast with lung or liver metastases, and treated with eribulin, gemcitabine, or capecitabine as third-line therapy were included in the analysis. Landmark survival was calculated as percentage of patients alive at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Overall survival was compared between treatment arms within TNBC and HR+/HER2- using log-rank analysis. Cox regression analyses was performed to estimate hazard ratios for comparison of treatments within TNBC and HR+/HER2- subtype. RESULTS: 443 patients with liver or lung metastases received third-line therapy with eribulin (n = 229), gemcitabine (n = 134), or capecitabine (n = 80). Eribulin patients had a higher percentage of patients alive at all landmark timepoints vs. gemcitabine, and a higher percentage of patients alive until 36 months vs. capecitabine. Median survival times showed that overall, and within the TNBC and HR+/HER2- subtype, patients receiving eribulin had a numerically higher median overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world evidence study is consistent with randomized clinical trial data and demonstrates consistency of eribulin effectiveness in MBC patients with lung or liver metastases overall and in TNBC and HR+/HER2- disease.

Plasma DNA as a "liquid biopsy" incompletely complements tumor biopsy for identification of mutations in a case series of four patients with oligometastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Circulating tumor DNA in plasma may present a minimally invasive opportunity to identify tumor-derived mutations to inform selection of targeted therapies for individual patients, particularly in cases of oligometastatic disease where biopsy of multiple tumors is impractical. To assess the utility of plasma DNA as a "liquid biopsy" for precision oncology, we tested whether sequencing of plasma DNA is a reliable surrogate for sequencing of tumor DNA to identify targetable genetic alterations. METHODS: Blood and biopsies of 1-3 tumors were obtained from 4 evaluable patients with advanced breast cancer. One patient provided samples from an additional 7 tumors post-mortem. DNA extracted from plasma, tumor tissues, and buffy coat of blood were used for probe-directed capture of all exons in 149 cancer-related genes and massively parallel sequencing. Somatic mutations in DNA from plasma and tumors were identified by comparison to buffy coat DNA. RESULTS: Sequencing of plasma DNA identified 27.94 ± 11.81% (mean ± SD) of mutations detected in a tumor(s) from the same patient; such mutations tended to be present at high allelic frequency. The majority of mutations found in plasma DNA were not found in tumor samples. Mutations were also found in plasma that matched clinically undetectable tumors found post-mortem. CONCLUSIONS: The incomplete overlap of genetic alteration profiles of plasma and tumors warrants caution in the sole reliance of plasma DNA to identify therapeutically targetable alterations in patients and indicates that analysis of plasma DNA complements, but does not replace, tumor DNA profiling. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Subjects were prospectively enrolled in trial NCT01836640 (registered April 22, 2013).

Health Through Activity: Initial Evaluation of an In-Home Intervention for Older Adults With Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a future full-scale trial to test the efficacy of an in-home occupational therapy intervention designed to reduce disability in older adult cancer survivors. METHOD: Participants reporting activity limitations during or after cancer treatment were enrolled in a Phase 1 pilot randomized controlled trial comparing the 6-wk intervention (n = 30) to usual care (n = 29). Descriptive data on retention rates were collected to assess feasibility of intervention and study procedures. Potential efficacy was explored through participants' self-reported disability, quality of life, activity level, and behavioral activation at 0, 8, and 16 wk after enrollment. RESULTS: Retention rates were high regarding completion of the intervention (90%) and outcome assessments (90% of usual-care participants and 80% of intervention participants). Outcomes consistently favored the intervention group, although group differences were small. CONCLUSION: The procedures were feasible to implement and acceptable to participants.

Balixafortide plus eribulin in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: a phase 1, single-arm, dose-escalation trial.

BACKGROUND: The C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4)-stromal cell-derived factor-1α (SDF-1α) axis regulates function and trafficking of immune cells and the tumour microenvironment. CXCR4 antagonists have been shown to enhance the activity of different anticancer treatments in preclinical models. We assessed the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary phase 1 activity of the CXCR4 antagonist, balixafortide, in combination with eribulin chemotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: This single-arm, dose-escalation, phase 1 trial enrolled patients at 11 sites in Spain and the USA. Eligible patients were women aged 18 years or older who had histologically confirmed HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, evidence of tumour cell CXCR4 expression, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had previously received between one and three chemotherapy regimens for metastatic breast cancer, and at least one endocrine therapy if they had hormone receptor-positive disease, unless they were considered unsuitable for endocrine therapy. A standard 3+3 dose-escalation design was used, followed by an expanded cohort at the established maximum tolerated dose or highest dose if no dose-limiting toxicity was observed for the combination. After a treatment-related fatal adverse event in the first cohort who received 21-day cycles of treatment with eribulin and balixafortide, a protocol amendment modified the study design to be done in two parts. Patients enrolled to part 1 received an initial 28-day run-in cycle, with some cohorts receiving de-escalated doses of eribulin plus balixafortide to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of the combination. The evaluation of part 1 did not confirm any dose-limiting toxicities or eribulin-balixafortide interactions, and therefore part 2 started enrolling patients to receive eribulin at the originally planned dose of 1·4 mg/m2 on days 2 and 9 of a 21-day cycle and balixafortide from a starting dose of 2 mg/kg with dose increments of 0·5 or 1 mg/kg on days 1-3 and 8-10 of the 21-day cycle. Both drugs were administered as intravenous infusions. All patients were to receive treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events, and the establishment of a maximum tolerated dose or recommended phase 2 dose, and pharmacokinetic parameters. Safety analysis was done in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Analysis of antitumour activity was done in all patients who received at least one full cycle of study treatment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01837095, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Jan 28, 2014, and Oct 4, 2016, 56 patients were enrolled into the trial. No dose-limiting toxicities were confirmed and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The highest dose was established as eribulin 1·4 mg/m2 on days 2 and 9, and balixafortide 5·5 mg/kg on days 1-3 and 8-10 of the 21-day cycle. Objective responses (all partial responses) were observed in 16 (30%; 95% CI 18-44) of 54 patients who were evaluable for antitumour activity. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were fatigue (44 [79%] of 56 patients), neutropenia (32 [57%]), infusion-related reactions (27 [48%]), alopecia (26 [46%]), constipation (26 [46%]), and nausea (25 [45%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 21 (38%) of 56 patients, including febrile neutropenia in five (9%) of 56 patients, neutrophil count decrease in two (4%) patients, constipation in two (4%) patients, pneumonia in two (4%) patients, and urinary tract infection in three (5%) patients. Two (4%) of 56 patients died while receiving study treatment; one from septic shock and one from pneumonia. INTERPRETATION: The safety and tolerability of balixafortide plus eribulin seems to be similar to that of eribulin or balixafortide monotherapy, and the preliminary activity of the combination seems promising in patients with HER-negative metastatic breast cancer. The results suggest that balixafortide plus eribulin has potential to provide a new therapeutic option in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer and warrants further investigation in randomised trials. FUNDING: Polyphor.

Incongruence between women's survey- and interview-determined decision control preferences: A mixed methods study of decision-making in metastatic breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Women with metastatic breast cancer face numerous, complex treatment and advance care planning (ACP) decisions. Our aim was to develop a better understanding of women with metastatic breast cancer's decision-making preferences overtime and relative to specific types of decisions. METHODS: Convergent, parallel mixed-methods study. Participants completed the Control Preferences Scale (CPS) and a semi-structured interview of decision-making experiences at enrollment (T1; n = 22) and when facing a decision or 3 months later (T2; n = 19). We categorized women's decision-making experience descriptions into one of the CPS decisional styles and compared them to their CPS response. We constructed an analytic grid that aligned the interview-determined treatment and ACP decisional preferences with the CPS categories at T1 and T2 and calculated Cohen's kappa coefficient and congruence percentages. RESULTS: Participants (n = 22) were White (100%), averaged 62 years, married (54%), retired (45%), and had a bachelor's degree (45%). Congruence between CPS response and interview-determined treatment preferences at T1 was 32% (kappa = 0.083) and 33% (kappa = 0.120) at T2. Congruence between CPS survey response and interview-determined ACP preferences at T1 was 22.7% (kappa =0.092) at T1 and 11% (kappa = 0.011) at T2. CONCLUSIONS: Although women selected a "shared" treatment decision-making style using the CPS validated tool, when interviewed their descriptions generally reflected a passive process in which they followed the oncologists' treatment suggestions. Future research should explore whether the incongruence between stated and actual decision-making style is a function of misinterpreting the CPS choices or a true inconsistency that could lead to adverse consequences such as decisional regret.

Goal Attainment and Goal Adjustment of Older Adults During Person-Directed Cancer Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: In this pilot study of a home-based occupational therapy intervention intended to reduce disability and improve quality of life, our objective was to identify rates of goal attainment and patterns of goal adjustment of participants. METHOD: Thirty older adults with cancer were randomized to the intervention arm, and 24 participants identified goals and completed the six-session intervention. An exploratory content analysis of qualitative and quantitative session data was performed. RESULTS: Participants set 63 6-wk goals and attained 62% of them. Most of the goals addressed walking (28%), sedentary leisure (24%), exercising (16%), or instrumental activities of daily living (14%). When 6-wk goals were not attained (n = 24), there were 10 instances of goal disengagement and 14 instances of goal reengagement. CONCLUSION: Although most participants were able to meet their goals, many also changed their goals and priorities after reflection and attempts to resume or initiate meaningful activities.

"New" metastases are associated with a poorer prognosis than growth of pre-existing metastases in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) endpoints often only weakly correlate. This analysis investigates how different progression events impact on OS, using data from two phase 3 studies with eribulin in women with advanced/metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: In Study 301, 1102 women with ≤2 prior chemotherapies for advanced/MBC were randomized to eribulin mesylate (1.4 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days) or capecitabine (1.25 g/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 every 21 days). Study 305/EMBRACE enrolled 762 patients following two to five prior chemotherapies for advanced/MBC, randomized to eribulin (as above) or treatment of physician's choice. We analyzed OS and PFS post hoc for patients whose disease progressed due to development of "new" metastases, growth of pre-existing lesions, and patients with no reported disease progression. RESULTS: In both clinical studies, development of new metastases was associated with an increased risk of death (p < 0.0001). The time to development of new metastasis or death was significantly longer with eribulin than the comparator in Study 305 (p = 0.0017), but not in Study 301 (p = 0.46). Significantly longer OS was observed in the eribulin compared with the comparator arm for the new metastases subgroup in Study 301 (p = 0.008), but not in Study 305 (p = 0.16), compared with other progression subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MBC progressing with new metastases have a worse prognosis than those whose disease progresses due to growth of existing lesions or patients with no reported disease progression. These findings have potentially important implications for the interpretation of clinical study data and clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration IDs: Study 301: NCT00337103 ; Study 305: NCT00388726 .

The relationship between quantitative human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 gene expression by the 21-gene reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assay and adjuvant trastuzumab benefit in Alliance N9831.

INTRODUCTION: The N9831 trial demonstrated the efficacy of adjuvant trastuzumab for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) locally positive tumors by protein or gene analysis. We used the 21-gene assay to examine the association of quantitative HER2 messenger RNA (mRNA) gene expression and benefit from trastuzumab. METHODS: N9831 tested the addition of trastuzumab to chemotherapy in stage I-III HER2-positive breast cancer. For two of the arms of the trial, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel (AC-T) and doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel and trastuzumab concurrent chemotherapy-trastuzumab (AC-TH), recurrence score (RS) and HER2 mRNA expression were determined by the 21-gene assay (Oncotype DX®) (negative <10.7, equivocal 10.7 to <11.5, and positive ≥11.5 log2 expression units). Cox regression was used to assess the association of HER2 expression with trastuzumab benefit in preventing distant recurrence. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 7.4 years. Of 1,940 total patients, 901 had consent and sufficient tissue. HER2 by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was negative in 130 (14 %), equivocal in 85 (9 %), and positive in 686 (76 %) patients. Concordance between HER2 assessments was 95 % for RT-PCR versus central immunohistochemistry (IHC) (>10 % positive cells = positive), 91 % for RT-PCR versus central fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) (≥2.0 = positive) and 94 % for central IHC versus central FISH. In the primary analysis, the association of HER2 expression by 21-gene assay with trastuzumab benefit was marginally nonsignificant (nonlinear p = 0.057). In hormone receptor-positive patients (local IHC) the association was significant (p = 0.002). The association was nonlinear with the greatest estimated benefit at lower and higher HER2 expression levels. CONCLUSIONS: Concordance among HER2 assessments by central IHC, FISH, and RT-PCR were similar and high. Association of HER2 mRNA expression with trastuzumab benefit as measured by time to distant recurrence was nonsignificant. A consistent benefit of trastuzumab irrespective of mHER2 levels was observed in patients with either IHC-positive or FISH-positive tumors. Trend for benefit was observed also for the small groups of patients with negative results by any or all of the central assays. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00005970 . Registered 5 July 2000.

Quantitative measurement of HER2 expression in breast cancers: comparison with 'real-world' routine HER2 testing in a multicenter Collaborative Biomarker Study and correlation with overall survival.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate assessment of HER2 status is critical in determining appropriate therapy for breast cancer patients but the best HER2 testing methodology has yet to be defined. In this study, we compared quantitative HER2 expression by the HERmark™ Breast Cancer Assay (HERmark) with routine HER2 testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and correlated HER2 results with overall survival (OS) of breast cancer patients in a multicenter Collaborative Biomarker Study (CBS). METHODS: Two hundred and thirty-two formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded breast cancer tissues and local laboratory HER2 testing results were provided by 11 CBS sites. HERmark assay and central laboratory HER2 IHC retesting were retrospectively performed in a blinded fashion. HER2 results by all testing methods were obtained in 192 cases. RESULTS: HERmark yielded a continuum of total HER2 expression (H2T) ranging from 0.3 to 403 RF/mm2 (approximately 3 logs). The distribution of H2T levels correlated significantly (P<0.0001) with all routine HER2 testing results. The concordance of positive and negative values (equivocal cases excluded) between HERmark and routine HER2 testing was 84% for local IHC, 96% for central IHC, 85% for local FISH, and 84% for local HER2 status. OS analysis revealed a significant correlation of shorter OS with HER2 positivity by local IHC (HR=2.6, P=0.016), central IHC (HR=3.2, P=0.015), and HERmark (HR=5.1, P<0.0001) in this cohort of patients most of whom received no HER2-targeted therapy. The OS curve of discordant low (HER2 positive but H2T low, 10% of all cases) was aligned with concordant negative (HER2 negative and H2T low, HR=1.9, P=0.444), but showed a significantly longer OS than concordant positive (HER2 positive and H2T high, HR=0.31, P=0.024). Conversely, the OS curve of discordant high (HER2 negative but H2T high, 9% of all cases) was aligned with concordant positive (HR=0.41, P=0.105), but showed a significantly shorter OS than concordant negative (HR=41, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative HER2 measurement by HERmark is highly sensitive, accurately quantifies HER2 protein expression and correlates well with routine HER2 testing. When HERmark and local HER2 results were discordant, HERmark more accurately predicted overall survival.

Health-related quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer treated with eribulin mesylate or capecitabine in an open-label randomized phase 3 trial.

The clinical benefit of eribulin versus capecitabine was evaluated using health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data from a phase 3 randomized trial in patients with pretreated advanced/metastatic breast cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00337103). The study population has been described previously (Kaufman et al. in J Clin Oncol 33:594-601, 2015). Eligible patients received eribulin (1.4 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 8) or capecitabine (1.25 g/m(2) orally twice daily on days 1-14) per 21-day cycles. HRQoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-life Questionnaire-Core 30 questions (QLQ-C30) and breast module-23 questions (QLQ-BR23), administered at baseline through 24 months, until disease progression or other antitumor treatment initiation. Minimally important difference (MID) and time to symptom worsening (TSW) were investigated. 1062 (96.4 %) Patients completed the EORTC questionnaire at baseline; overall, compliance was ≥80 %. Patients receiving capecitabine versus eribulin had significantly worse symptoms (higher scores) for nausea/vomiting (MID 8; P < 0.05) and diarrhea (MID 7; P < 0.05). Treatment with eribulin versus capecitabine, led to worse systemic therapy side-effects (dry mouth, different tastes, irritated eyes, feeling ill, hot flushes, headaches, and hair loss; MID 10; P < 0.01). Clinically meaningful worsening was observed for future perspective (MID 10; P < 0.05) with capecitabine and for systemic therapy side-effects scale (MID 10; P < 0.01) with eribulin. Patients receiving capecitabine experienced more-rapid deterioration in body image (by 2.9 months) and future perspective (by 1.4 months; P < 0.05) compared with those on eribulin; the opposite was observed for systemic side-effects where patients receiving eribulin experienced more-rapid deterioration than those receiving capecitabine (by 2 months; P < 0.05). Eribulin and capecitabine were found to have similar impact on patient functioning with no overall difference in HRQoL. Patients receiving eribulin reported worse systemic side-effects of chemotherapy but reduced gastrointestinal toxicity compared with capecitabine.

Development and initial evaluation of a telephone-delivered, behavioral activation, and problem-solving treatment program to address functional goals of breast cancer survivors.

The purpose of this research was to develop and pilot test an intervention to optimize functional recovery for breast cancer survivors. Over two studies, 31 women enrolled in a goal-setting program via telephone. All eligible women enrolled (37% of those screened) and 66% completed all study activities. Completers were highly satisfied with the intervention, using it to address, on average, four different challenging activities. The longitudinal analysis showed a main effect of time for overall quality of life (F(5, 43.1) = 5.1, p = 0.001) and improvements in active coping (F (3, 31.7) = 4.9, p = 0.007), planning (F (3, 36.0) = 4.1, p = 0.01), reframing (F (3, 29.3) = 8.5, p < 0.001), and decreases in self-blame (F (3,31.6) = 4.3, p = 0.01). The intervention is feasible and warrants further study to determine its efficacy in fostering recovery and maximizing activity engagement after cancer treatment.

Assessing the discordance rate between local and central HER2 testing in women with locally determined HER2-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The importance of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) as a prognostic and predictive marker in invasive breast cancer is well established. Accurate assessment of HER2 status is essential to determine optimal treatment options. METHODS: Breast cancer tumor tissue samples from the VIRGO observational cohort tissue substudy that were locally HER2-negative were retested centrally with both US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays, using FDA-approved assay cutoffs; results were compared. RESULTS: Of the 552 unique patient samples centrally retested with local HER2-negative results recorded, tumor samples from 22 (4.0%) patients were determined to be HER2-positive (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5%-5.7%). Of these, 18 had been tested locally by only one testing methodology; 15 of 18 were HER2-positive after the central retesting, based on the testing methodology not performed locally. Compared with the 530 patients with centrally confirmed HER2-negative tumors, the 22 patients with centrally determined HER2-positive tumors were younger (median age 56.5 versus 60.0 years) and more likely to have ER/PR-negative tumors (27.3% versus 22.3%). These patients also had shorter median progression-free survival (6.4 months [95% CI = 3.8-15.9 months] versus 9.1 months [95% CI = 8.3-10.3 months]) and overall survival (25.9 months [95% CI = 13.8-not estimable] versus 27.9 months [95% CI = 25.0-32.9 months]). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the limitations of employing just one HER2 testing methodology in current clinical practice. It identifies a cohort of patients who did not receive potentially efficacious therapy because their tumor HER2-positivity was not determined by the test initially used. Because of inherent limitations in testing methodologies, it is inadvisable to rely on a single test to rule out potential benefit from HER2-targeted therapy.