Patients' considerations of time toxicity when assessing cancer treatments with marginal benefit.

BACKGROUND: Effective techniques for eliciting patients' preferences regarding their own care, when treatment options offer marginal gains and different risks, is an important clinical need. We sought to evaluate the association between patients' considerations of the time burdens of care ("time toxicity") with decisions about hypothetical treatment options. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter, mixed-methods study that evaluated patients' attitudes and preferences toward palliative-intent cancer treatments that delayed imaging progression-free survival (PFS) but did not improve overall survival (OS). We classified participants based on if they spontaneously volunteered one or more consideration of time burdens during qualitative interviews after treatment trade-off exercises. We compared the percentage of participants who opted for treatments with no PFS gain, some PFS gain, or who declined treatment regardless of PFS gain (in the absence of OS benefit). We conducted narrative analysis of themes related to time burdens. RESULTS: The study cohort included 100 participants with advanced cancer (55% women, 63% age > 60 years, 38% with gastrointestinal cancer, and 80% currently receiving cancer-directed treatment. Forty-six percent (46/100) spontaneously described time burdens as a factor they considered in making treatment decisions. Participants who mentioned time (vs not) had higher thresholds for PFS gains required for choosing additional treatments (P value .004). Participants who mentioned time were more likely to decline treatments with no OS benefit irrespective of the magnitude of PFS benefit (65%, vs 31%). On qualitative analysis, we found that time burdens are influenced by several treatment-related factors and have broad-ranging impact, and illustrate how patients' experiences with time burdens and their preferences regarding time influence their decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of participating patients spontaneously raised the issue of time burdens of cancer care when making hypothetical treatment decisions. These patients had notable differences in treatment preferences compared to those who did not mention considerations of time. Decision science researchers and clinicians should consider time burdens as an important attribute in research and in clinic.

Development and application of a weighted change score to evaluate interventions for vasomotor symptoms in patients with breast cancer using regression trees: a cohort study.

PURPOSE: Vasomotor symptoms (VMS) are common among individuals with breast cancer (BC) and poorly managed symptoms are associated with reduced quality of life, treatment discontinuation, and poorer breast cancer outcomes. Direct comparisons among therapies are limited, as prior studies evaluating VMS interventions have utilized heterogeneous change measures which may not fully assess the perceived impact of change in VMS severity. METHODS: We performed a prospective study where BC patients chose one of four categories of interventions to manage VMS. Change in VMS severity at 6 weeks was assessed using the validated Hot Flush Rating Scale (HFRS). A novel weighted change score integrating baseline symptom severity and directionality of change was computed to maximize the correlation between the change score and a perceived treatment effectiveness score. Variables influencing change in VMS severity were included in a regression tree to model factors influencing the weighted change score. RESULTS: 100 baseline and follow-up questionnaires assessing VMS were completed by 88 patients. Correlations between treatment effectiveness and VMS outcomes strengthened following adjustment for baseline symptoms. Patients with low VMS severity at baseline did not perceive change in treatment effectiveness. Intervention category was predictive of change in HFRS at 6 weeks. CONCLUSION: Baseline symptom severity and the directionality of change (improvement or deterioration of symptoms) influenced the perception of clinically meaningful change in VMS severity. Future interventional studies utilizing the weighted change score should target moderate-high baseline severity patients.

Perception of pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) prophylaxis in glioma patients receiving concurrent temozolomide and radiation- a patient and physician survey.

PURPOSE: Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) prophylaxis is required by provincial and national drug monographs during glioma treatment using temozolomide (TMZ) concurrently with radiation (TMZ-RT). However, real-world data suggest the potential benefits of PJP prophylaxis may not outweigh its potential harms in this population. METHODS: We conducted a single-center patient survey and a national physician survey to explore the role of PJP prophylaxis amongst glioma patients undergoing TMZ-RT. RESULTS: 23% (31/133) of physicians and 60% (44/73) of patients completed a survey. The median patient age was 42 (range 20-77); 85% (34/40) had completed adjuvant TMZ. Although only 2.4% (1/41) of patients received PJP prophylaxis, only one person (without PJP prophylaxis) was hospitalized for pneumonia. When presented with hypothetical PJP risks, 13.2% (5/38) of patients were concerned about PJP infection, while 26% (10/38) were concerned about potential side effects from prophylactic antibiotics. Most physicians (77%, 17/22) perceived the evidence for PJP prophylaxis as weak; 58% (11/19) did not routinely prescribe prophylaxis, and 73% (16/22) felt that PJP prophylaxis should be limited to patients with additional risk factors. Over 95% of physicians estimated that the incidence of PJP was < 1% in their last 5 years of practice regardless of PJP prophylaxis. For 73% (16/22) of physicians, to prescribe PJP prophylaxis, the risk of PJP infection needed to be 3-8%. CONCLUSION: The current recommendation to routinely prescribe PJP prophylaxis in patients receiving TMZ-RT in the absence of other risk factors warrants reconsideration.

2020 ASCO, 2023 NCCN, 2023 MASCC/ESMO, and 2019 CCO: a comparison of antiemetic guidelines for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common toxicity that may impair the quality of life of patients with various malignancies ranging from early to end stages. In light of frequent changes to the guidelines for optimal management of CINV, we undertook this narrative review to compare the most recent guidelines published by ASCO (2020), NCCN (2023), MASCC/ESMO (2023), and CCO (2019). The processes undertaken by each organization to evaluate existing literature were also described. Although ASCO, NCCN, MASCC/ESMO, and CCO guidelines for the treatment and prevention of CINV share many fundamental similarities, the literature surrounding low and minimal emetic risk regimens is lacking. Current data regarding adherence to these guidelines is poor and warrants further investigation to improve care.

Pre-medication protocols for the prevention of paclitaxel-induced infusion related reactions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prophylaxis against infusion-related reactions (IRR) from paclitaxel with steroids and antihistamines is a standard of care due to high rates of IRR. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively summarize the evidence behind various prophylaxis strategies. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched (1946 to May 14, 2021). The primary outcomes were Grade 3/4 IRR and any-grade IRR. Secondary outcomes included treatment delay or discontinuation and adverse events secondary to pre-medications. RESULTS: Of the 1285 unique citations, 26 studies were selected: 11 studies for quantitative analysis and 15 studies for qualitative analysis. Studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies (n = 25-281). There was a non-significant benefit in favour of oral steroids starting 12 h prior to paclitaxel administration versus intravenous steroids immediately prior to paclitaxel administration for grade 3/4 IRRs, with a risk difference (RD) of 2% [95%CI 0 to 5%], any-grade IRR with a RD of 4% [95%CI: -1% to 9%] and treatment discontinuation with a RD of 1% [95%CI -1% to 2%]. For de-escalation strategies, a point-estimate for any-grade IRR was 0.44% [95% CI, 0 to 0.02, p = 0.98] and for grade 3/4 IRR was 3.1% (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.07, p = 0.11). CONCLUSION: Although studies have high risk of bias and risk, differences between steroid routes of administration were small, there was a non-significant trend in favour of oral steroids. De-escalation strategies after two previous successful paclitaxel infusions have an overall low incidence rate of severe IRR and warrant further prospective clinical trials. Insufficient evidence remains to recommend for or against other interventions for the prevention of paclitaxel IRR.

Symptomatic skeletal-related events in patients receiving longer term bone-modifying agents for bone metastases from breast and castration resistant prostate cancers.

BACKGROUND: The effect of longer-term use of bone-modifying agent (BMA) on symptomatic skeletal event (SSE) rates in patients with bone metastases remains unclear. This retrospective study of a cohort of patients in a randomized controlled trial evaluated SSEs in patients receiving BMAs at a single cancer center. METHODS: Data from patients with metastatic breast and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) were interrogated to evaluate the effects of longer-term use of BMAs on incidence, type, and risk factors for SSEs. RESULTS: Of 162 patients, 109 (67%) had breast cancer (BC) and 53 (33%) CRPC. Median age at diagnosis of bone metastases was 61.9 years (range 27.5-97.2) for BC patients and 72.1 (range 37.0-92.2) for CRPC patients. Median duration of BMA use was 2.3 years (range 0.1-9.9 years) for BC and 3.8 years (range 1.5-9.4) for CRPC patients. The initial BMAs in BC patients were pamidronate (46.8%), denosumab (31.2%), and zoledronate (22%). All CRPC patients received denosumab. During follow-up, 59% of BC and 75% of CRPC patients had at least one SSE. The number of patients experiencing ≥ 1 SSE per year was higher in the first year after bone metastasis diagnosis (63/162; 38.9%) compared with that in the second (26/149; 17.5%) and third years (30/123; 24.4%). Neither age, visceral disease, multiple bone metastases, nor biological markers for BC had a significant impact on time to first SSE. CONCLUSIONS: The risk for SSEs was greatest in the first year after diagnosis of bone metastasis. Studies evaluating de-escalation and even stopping of BMAs with longer-term use may therefore be warranted.

Long-term impact of bone-modifying agents for the treatment of bone metastases: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) for bone metastases are commonly prescribed for many years even though randomized clinical trials are only 1-2 years in duration. A systematic review on the risk-benefit of BMA use for > 2 years in breast cancer or castrate-resistant prostate cancer was conducted. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched (1970-February 2019) for randomized and observational studies, and case series reporting on BMA efficacy (skeletal-related events and quality of life) and toxicity (osteonecrosis of the jaw, renal impairment, hypocalcemia, and atypical femoral fractures) beyond 2 years. RESULTS: Of 2107 citations, 64 studies were identified. Three prospective and 9 retrospective studies were eligible. Data beyond 2 years was limited to subgroup analyses in all studies. Only one study (n = 181) reported skeletal-related event rates based on bisphosphonate exposure, with decreased rates from 27.6% (0-24 months) to 15.5% (> 24 months). None reported on quality of life. All 12 studies (denosumab (n = 948), zoledronate (n = 1036), pamidronate (n = 163), pamidronate-zoledronate (n = 522), ibandronate (n = 118)) reported ≥ 1 toxicity outcome. Seven bisphosphonate studies (n = 1077) and one denosumab study (n = 948) reported on osteonecrosis of the jaw. Across three studies (n = 1236), osteonecrosis of the jaw incidence ranged from 1 to 4% in the first 2 years to 3.8-18% after 2 years. Clinically significant hypocalcemia ranged from 1 to 2%. Severe renal function decline was ≤ 3%. Atypical femoral fractures were rare. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence informing the use of BMA beyond 2 years is heterogeneous and based on retrospective analysis. Prospective randomized studies with greater emphasis on quality of life are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019126813.

Predictive value of oncogenic driver subtype, programmed death-1 ligand (PD-L1) score, and smoking status on the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in patients with oncogene-driven non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This multicenter, retrospective study explored the value of oncogene driver subtype, programmed death-1 ligand (PD-L1) status, and smoking status for predicting which patients with oncogene-driven non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) would benefit from treatment with programmed death-1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 inhibitors. METHODS: The clinical features, PD-L1 tumor proportion scores, and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor (PDi) outcomes (objective response rate and progression-free survival) of patients who had advanced NSCLC with Kirsten rat sarcoma 2 viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) mutations or common, actionable oncogenic drivers were captured. RESULTS: In total, 189 oncogene-positive patients were analyzed. Of these, 104 received a PDi, and 108 had undergone prior PD-L1 testing. The frequency of PD-L1 positivity (≥1%) was higher in patients who had KRAS mutations (P = .031), smokers (P = .006), and non-Asian patients (P = .002). Multivariable analysis indicated that smoking status (P < .001) was the only factor associated significantly with KRAS mutation. The objective response rate to PDi treatment was 16.9% (11 of 65 patients) among smokers (17.3% in the KRAS-mutant and 15.4% in the non-KRAS-mutant smoker subgroups), which was significantly higher than the 0% rate (0 of 26 patients; P = .019) among never-smokers. In subgroup analyses, progression-free survival was influenced by KRAS mutation status (median, 4.57 vs 1.63 months; P = .004), smoking status (4.07 vs 1.73 months; P = .004), PD-L1 positivity (3.8 vs 1.2 months; P = .040), and non-Asian race (3.0 vs 1.97 months; P = .046). In multivariable analysis, only smoking status (P = .008) remained a significant predictor when a PD-L1 level ≥1% was used. However, both smoking status (P = .001) and PD-L1 status (P = .028) were independent predictors when a PD-L1 level ≥50% was used. CONCLUSIONS: Among associated clinical features among patients who have NSCLC with oncogenic drivers, smoking status potentially was the most important, easily available predictor of single PDi efficacy.

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

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

A Randomized Trial Comparing Concurrent versus Sequential Radiation and Endocrine Therapy in Early-Stage, Hormone-Responsive Breast Cancer.

Concerns exist regarding increased toxicities, including endocrine therapy toxicity, with concurrent radiation and endocrine therapy in early breast cancer (EBC). We present a pragmatic, randomized trial comparing concurrent versus sequential endocrine and radiotherapy in hormone-responsive EBC. In this multicenter trial, patients were randomized to receive adjuvant endocrine therapy concurrent with, or sequential to, radiotherapy. The primary outcome was change in endocrine therapy toxicity from baseline to 3 months post radiotherapy using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endocrine Symptom (FACT-ES) score. From September 2019 to January 2021, 133 patients were randomized to concurrent endocrine and radiotherapy, and 127 to sequential treatment. Most patients were post-menopausal (72.7%, 189/260) with stage 1 disease (65.8%, 171/260). Tamoxifen was the endocrine therapy of choice for 69.6% (181/260) of patients, and an aromatase inhibitor for the remainder. The median total radiation dose and fractions were 40.1 Gray (range 26-50) and 15 fractions (range 5-25), respectively. For the primary outcome of change in endocrine therapy toxicity per FACT-ES scores from baseline to 3 months post radiotherapy, no significant difference was found between the groups (median [range] = -4.9 (-82, 38.8) for concurrent and -5.1 (-42, 40) for sequential, p = 0.87). This is the first trial to investigate the impact of concurrent versus sequential adjuvant endocrine and radiotherapy on endocrine therapy-related toxicities. The findings provide further support to allow the optimal timing of radiation and endocrine therapy to be tailored for the individual patient.

A narrative review from gut to lungs: non-small cell lung cancer and the gastrointestinal microbiome.

Background and Objective: The gut microbiome has emerged as an important gateway to improving therapeutic outcomes in lung cancer, especially for immunotherapy. Our objective is to review the impact of the bidirectional relationship between the gut microbiome, lung cancer, and the immune system, and to identify areas of future research. Methods: We conducted a search on PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov using the search terms non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), gut microbiome, and microbiota until July 11, 2022. The authors screened resulting studies independently. Results were synthesized and presented descriptively. Key Content and Findings: Sixty original published studies were identified from PubMed (n=24) and EMBASE (n=36), respectively. Twenty-five ongoing clinical studies were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov. Gut microbiota has been shown to influence tumorigenesis and modulate tumor immunity via local and neurohormonal mechanisms depending on the microbiome ecosystem that populates the gastrointestinal tract. Probiotics, antibiotics, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), amongst other medications, can impact gut microbiome health, leading either to improved or worsened therapeutic outcomes with immunotherapy. Most clinical studies assess the impact of the gut microbiome, but emerging data suggest microbiome composition in other host sites may be important. Conclusions: A strong relationship exists between gut microbiome, oncogenesis, and anticancer immunity. Although the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood, immunotherapy outcomes seem to depend on host-related factors such as gut microbiome alpha diversity, relative abundance of microbial genera/taxa, and extrinsic factors such as prior or concurrent exposure to probiotics, antibiotics, and other microbiome-modifying drugs.

Temozolomide Chronotherapy in Glioma: A Systematic Review.

Outcomes for patients with high-grade glioma remain poor. Temozolomide (TMZ) is the only drug approved for first-line treatment of glioblastoma multiforme, the most aggressive form of glioma. Chronotherapy highlights the potential benefit of timed TMZ administration. This is based on pre-clinical studies of enhanced TMZ-induced glioma cytotoxicity dependent on circadian, oscillating expression of key genes involved in apoptosis, DNA damage repair, and cell-cycle mediated cell death. The current systematic review's primary aim was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of TMZ chronotherapy. A systemic review of literature following PRISMA guidelines looking at clinical outcomes on TMZ chronotherapy on gliomas was performed. The search in the English language included three databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane) and five conferences from 1946 to April 2022. Two independent reviewers undertook screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. A descriptive analysis was conducted due to limited data. Of the 269 articles screened, two unique studies were eligible and underwent abstraction for survival and toxicity findings. Both studies-one a retrospective cohort study (n = 166) and the other a prospective randomized feasibility study (n = 35)-were conducted by the same academic group and suggested a trend for improved overall survival, but possibly increased toxicity when TMZ was administered in the morning (vs. evening). There was limited evidence suggesting possible therapeutic value from administering TMZ in the morning, which may be consistent with the pre-clinical observations of the importance of the timing of TMZ administration in vitro. Larger, pragmatic, prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to ascertain the value of TMZ chronotherapy to provide optimized and equitable care for this population.

A Multi-Centre Randomized Study Comparing Two Standard of Care Chemotherapy Regimens for Lower-Risk HER2-Positive Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neither paclitaxel plus trastuzumab (P-H) nor docetaxel-cyclophosphamide plus trastuzumab (TC-H) have been prospectively compared in HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer (EBC). A randomized trial was performed to assess the feasibility of a larger study. METHODS: Lower-risk HER2-positive EBC patients were randomized to either P-H or TC-H treatment arms. The co-primary feasibility outcomes were: ≥75% patient acceptability rate, active trial participation of ≥50% of medical oncologists, ≥75% and ≥90% treatment completion, and receipt rate of planned cycles of chemotherapy, respectively. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Febrile neutropenia (FN) rate, treatment-related hospitalizations, health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) questionnaires. Analyses were performed by per protocol and intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Between May 2019 and March 2021, 49 of 52 patients agreed to study participation (94% acceptability rate). Fifteen (65%) of 23 medical oncologists approached patients. Rates of FN were higher (8.3% vs. 0%) in the TC-H vs. P-H arm. Median (IQR) changes in scores from baseline in FACT-Taxane Trial Outcome Index at 24 weeks were -4 (-10, -1) vs. -6.5 (-15, -2) for TC-H and P-H arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A randomized trial comparing P-H and TC-H was feasible. Expansion to a larger trial would be feasible to explore patient-reported outcomes of these adjuvant HER2 chemotherapy regimens.

Association of anticoagulant use with clinical outcomes from crizotinib in ALK- and ROS1-rearranged advanced non-small cell lung cancers: A retrospective analysis of PROFILE 1001.

BACKGROUND: ROS1- and ALK-rearranged advanced NSCLCs are associated with increased thromboembolic risk. We hypothesized that a prothrombotic phenotype offers an evolutionary advantage to subsets of these cancers. The impact of this phenotype could alter outcomes from targeted therapy. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of ROS1- and ALK-rearranged NSCLCs treated with crizotinib in a phase 1 trial, we compared progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) based on the history of anticoagulation use (a possible surrogate of thromboembolism) at baseline (within 90 days before study enrollment) or within 90 days of study treatment. RESULTS: Twelve out of 53 (22.6%) ROS1- and 39 out of 153 (25.5%) ALK-rearranged NSCLCs received anticoagulation before or during the trial. Most ROS1 and ALK patients on anticoagulation received low-molecular-weight heparin (75% and 64.1%, respectively). In the ROS1-rearranged group, the median PFS (95% CI) values were 5.1 (4.4-14.4) and 29.0 (16.5-48.8) months, and the ORR values were 41.7% (95% CI: 15.2 to 72.3) and 80.5% (95% CI: 65.1 to 91.2) among those with and without anticoagulation treatment, respectively. In the ALK-rearranged group, the median PFS (95% CI) was 7.1 (5.4-7.7) and 12.0 (9.4-18.3) months, and the ORR was 41% (95% CI: 25.6 to 57.9) and 74.3% (95% CI: 65.3 to 82.1) among those with and without anticoagulation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation (as a potential surrogate of a prothrombotic subset) in ROS1- and ALK-rearranged NSCLCs may be associated with a lower PFS and ORR to crizotinib. CLINICALTRIAL: gov: NCT00585195.

The current landscape of systemic therapy for recurrent glioblastoma: A systematic review of randomized-controlled trials.

AIM: Conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness of systemic therapies for adult recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM). METHODS: We electronically searched for randomized controlled trials from three major databases and four conferences from 2009-Dec 2020. Two independent reviewers conducted screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. RESULTS: 48 randomized trials were identified. Outcome reporting was inconsistent: overall survival (OS) in 46 studies, progression free survival in 37 studies, 6-month PFS in 30 studies, objective response rate in 28 studies, and 6-month OS in 7 studies. Network meta-analysis was not feasible due to heterogeneity in outcome reporting and single-study linkages. Most studies compared lomustine (8 studies), bevacizumab (18), or temozolomide (8) with other treatments. The median OS across all studies ranged from 3 to 17.6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Based on level one evidence, there is no superior systemic regimen for rGBM. rGBM is a heterogeneous population with no single regimen demonstrating OS benefit. Registration number: CRD42020148512.

Real-world practice patterns and attitudes towards de-escalation of bone-modifying agents in patients with bone metastases from breast and prostate cancer: A physician survey.

BACKGROUND: There remain questions around the optimal use of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) in patients with bone metastases from breast and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). A physician survey was performed to identify current practices, as well as perceptions around long-term BMA use, BMA de-escalation, and further BMA de-escalation after 2 years of use. METHODS: Canadian oncologists treating breast cancer or CRPC were surveyed via an anonymized online survey. The survey collected physician demographics, current practice patterns, perception on risk of symptomatic skeletal events (SSE) and BMA-associated toxicities, and attitudes towards further de-escalation of BMAs after 2 years of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 334 physicians in Canada were contacted, of which 295 were eligible on initial screening, and 65 completed the survey (response rate 22%): 35 treated breast cancer, 25 treated prostate cancer and 5 treated both. The most common BMA regimens in patients with no limitation in drug coverage were denosumab q4wks for 3-4 months followed by a de-escalation to q12wks (breast cancer) and denosumab q4wks (prostate cancer). In patients with provincial health coverage only the common choices were zoledronate q4wks for 3-4 months followed by de-escalation to q12wks (breast cancer) and denosumab q4wks (prostate cancer). There was equipoise regarding the benefit of continuing BMA beyond 2 years and interest in further trials of de-escalation of BMA in both breast and prostate cancer. The most favored alternative primary study endpoints to SSE were BMA toxicity (67.2%), pain (46.9%), and physical function (48.4%). CONCLUSION: Despite their extensive use and costs, questions around optimal use of BMAs still exist. Practice varies according to patient insurance coverage. However, most physicians are de-escalating BMAs. There is interest amongst clinicians in performing trials of de-escalation, especially after 2 years of treatment.

Adjuvant bisphosphonate use in patients with early stage breast cancer: Patient perspectives on treatment acceptability and potential de-escalation.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing use of adjuvant bisphosphonates for early stage breast cancer (EBC), little is known about the patient experience with such treatments. A patient survey was performed to identify current prescribing practices, perceptions around the role of treatment, the impact of treatment on patients' quality of life, and future trial designs. METHODS: EBC patients who had either completed or were currently receiving adjuvant bisphosphonates were sent an anonymized survey. The survey collected information on patient and disease characteristics, bisphosphonate scheduling, compliance, and tolerance. Questions also assessed patient interest in trials of de-escalated bisphosphonate therapy. RESULTS: A total of 255 patients were contacted, with 164 eligible respondents (eligible response rate 164/255, 64.3%). Median patient age was 52 years (range 28 to 82 years). The majority (111/163, 68.1%) were postmenopausal at the time of diagnosis, 23.3% (38/163) were premenopausal, and 7.4% (12/163) were perimenopausal. Most patients (78%) had received chemotherapy. Zoledronate was the most commonly used bisphosphonate (92%), with the majority receiving treatment every 6 months for 3 years (73%). While 66% (107/161) of respondents had experienced side effects with treatment, most had, or expected to, complete treatment (154/163, 94%). Provided there was no detriment in breast cancer outcomes, there was strong interest in future studies of de-escalating adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy. CONCLUSION: While most patients tolerate their treatment, there is interest in performing trials of de-escalation of these agents.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 12-Versus 4-Weekly Administration of Bone-Targeted Agents in Patients with Bone Metastases from Breast and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

A cost-utility analysis was performed based on the Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) bone-targeted agents (BTA) clinical trial that compared 12-weekly (once every 12 weeks) (n = 130) versus 4-weekly (once every 4 weeks) (n = 133) BTA dosing for metastatic breast and castration-resistant prostate (CRPC) cancer. Using a decision tree model, we calculated treatment and symptomatic skeletal event (SSE) costs as well as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each treatment option. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the study findings. The total cost of BTA treatment in Canadian dollars (C$) and estimated QALYs was C$8965.03 and 0.605 QALY in the 4-weekly group versus C$5669.95 and 0.612 QALY in the 12-weekly group, respectively. De-escalation from 4-weekly to 12-weekly BTA reduces cost (C$3293.75) and improves QALYs by 0.008 unit, suggesting that 12-weekly BTA dominates 4-weekly BTA in breast and CRPC patients with bone metastases. Sensitivity analysis suggests high levels of uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness findings. De-escalation of bone-targeted agents is cost-effective from the Canadian public payer's perspective.

A Randomized Trial Comparing 3- versus 4-Monthly Cardiac Monitoring in Patients Receiving Trastuzumab-Based Chemotherapy for Early Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: The optimal frequency for cardiac monitoring of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients receiving trastuzumab-based therapy for early breast cancer (EBC) is unknown. We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing 3- versus 4-monthly cardiac monitoring. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Patients scheduled to receive trastuzumab-containing cancer therapy for EBC with normal (>53%) baseline LVEF were randomized to undergo LVEF assessments every 3 or 4 months. The primary outcome was the change in LVEF from baseline. Secondary outcomes included the rate of cardiac dysfunction (defined as a decrease in the LVEF of ≥10 percentage points, to a value <53%), delays in or discontinuation of trastuzumab therapy, and cardiology referral. RESULTS: Of the 200 eligible and enrolled patients, 100 (50%) were randomized to 3-monthly and 100 (50%) to 4-monthly cardiac monitoring. Of these patients, 98 and 97 respectively underwent at least one cardiac scan. The estimated mean difference in LVEF from baseline was -0.94% (one-sided 95% lower bound: -2.14), which exceeded the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -4%. There were also no significant differences between the two study arms for any of the secondary endpoints. The rate of detection of cardiac dysfunction was 16.3% (16/98) and 12.4% (12/97) in the 3- and 4-monthly arms, respectively (95% CI: 4.0 [-5.9, 13.8]). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac monitoring every 4 months was deemed non-inferior to that every 3 months in patients with HER2-positive EBC being treated with trastuzumab-based therapy. Given its costs and inconvenience, cardiac monitoring every 4 months should be considered standard practice. Registration: NCT02696707, 18 February 2016.