Management of Advanced Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer and Brain Metastases: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To provide updated evidence- and consensus-based guideline recommendations to practicing oncologists and others on the management of brain metastases for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced breast cancer up to 2021. METHODS: An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review (for both systemic therapy for non-CNS metastases and for CNS metastases of HER2+ guideline updates) that identified 545 articles. Outcomes of interest included overall survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 545 publications identified and reviewed, six on systemic therapy were identified to form the evidentiary basis for the systemic therapy for CNS metastases guideline recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: Patients with brain metastases should receive appropriate local therapy and systemic therapy, if indicated. Local therapies include surgery, whole-brain radiotherapy, and stereotactic radiosurgery. Memantine and hippocampal avoidance should be added to whole-brain radiotherapy when possible. Treatments depend on factors such as patient prognosis, presence of symptoms, resectability, number and size of metastases, prior therapy, and whether metastases are diffuse. Other options include systemic therapy, best supportive care, enrollment onto a clinical trial, and/or palliative care. There are insufficient data to recommend for or against performing routine magnetic resonance imaging to screen for brain metastases; clinicians should have a low threshold for magnetic resonance imaging of the brain because of the high incidence of brain metastases among patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update evidence-based guideline recommendations to practicing oncologists and others on systemic therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced breast cancer. METHODS: An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review (for both systemic treatment and CNS metastases) and identified 545 articles. Outcomes of interest included efficacy and safety. RESULTS: Of the 545 publications identified and reviewed, 14 were identified to form the evidentiary basis for the guideline recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: HER2-targeted therapy is recommended for patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, except for those with clinical congestive heart failure or significantly compromised left ventricular ejection fraction, who should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and taxane for first-line treatment and trastuzumab deruxtecan for second-line treatment are recommended. In the third-line setting, clinicians should offer other HER2-targeted therapy combinations. There is a lack of head-to-head trials; therefore, there is insufficient evidence to recommend one regimen over another. The patient and the clinician should discuss differences in treatment schedule, route, toxicities, etc during the decision-making process. Options include regimens with tucatinib, trastuzumab emtansine, trastuzumab deruxtecan (if either not previously administered), neratinib, lapatinib, chemotherapy, margetuximab, hormonal therapy, and abemaciclib plus trastuzumab plus fulvestrant, and may offer pertuzumab if the patient has not previously received it. Optimal duration of chemotherapy is at least 4-6 months or until maximum response, depending on toxicity and in the absence of progression. HER2-targeted therapy can continue until time of progression or unacceptable toxicities. For patients with HER2-positive and estrogen receptor-positive or progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer, clinicians may recommend either standard first-line therapy or, for selected patients, endocrine therapy plus HER2-targeted therapy or endocrine therapy alone.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Positive effects of acupressure bands combined with relaxation music/instructions on patients most at risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea.

PURPOSE: Research by our group has shown that acupressure bands are efficacious in reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) for breast cancer patients who expect nausea, and that their effectiveness in controlling CIN can largely be accounted for by patients' expectations of efficacy, i.e., a placebo effect. The present research examined if the effectiveness of acupressure bands could be enhanced by boosting patients' expectation of the bands' efficacy. METHODS: Two hundred forty-two chemotherapy-naïve patients with breast cancer who expected nausea were randomized. Arms 1 and 2 received acupressure bands, plus a relaxation MP3 and written handout that were either expectancy-enhancing (arm 1) or expectancy-neutral (arm 2). Arm 3 was the control without bands or MP3 and received standard care. All participants received guideline-specified antiemetics. RESULTS: Peak CIN for arms 1, 2, and 3 on a 1-7 scale was 3.52, 3.55, and 3.87, respectively (p = 0.46). Because no differences were observed between arms 1 and 2 (primary analysis), we combined these two arms (intervention) and compared them to controls for the following analyses. A significant interaction was found between intervention/control and receiving doxorubicin-based chemotherapy (yes/no) and pre-treatment anxiety (high/low). Intervention patients receiving doxorubicin had lower peak CIN than controls (3.62 vs. 4.38; p = 0.02). Similarly, intervention patients with high pre-treatment anxiety had a lower peak CIN than controls (3.62 vs. 4.62; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and having high CIN expectation, acupressure bands combined with a relaxation recording were effective in reducing CIN for patients who received doxorubicin or had high anxiety.

Systemic Therapy for Patients With Advanced Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

Purpose To update evidence-based guideline recommendations for practicing oncologists and others on systemic therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced breast cancer to 2018. Methods An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review (for both systemic treatment and CNS metastases) and identified 622 articles. Outcomes of interest included overall survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events. Results Of the 622 publications identified and reviewed, no additional evidence was identified that would warrant a change to the 2014 recommendations. Recommendations HER2-targeted therapy is recommended for patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, except for those with clinical congestive heart failure or significantly compromised left ventricular ejection fraction, who should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and taxane for first-line treatment and trastuzumab emtansine for second-line treatment are recommended. In the third-line setting, clinicians should offer other HER2-targeted therapy combinations or trastuzumab emtansine (if not previously administered) and may offer pertuzumab if the patient has not previously received it. Optimal duration of chemotherapy is at least 4 to 6 months or until maximum response, depending on toxicity and in the absence of progression. HER2-targeted therapy can continue until time of progression or unacceptable toxicities. For patients with HER2-positive and estrogen receptor-positive/progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer, clinicians may recommend either standard first-line therapy or, for selected patients, endocrine therapy plus HER2-targeted therapy or endocrine therapy alone. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

Recommendations on Disease Management for Patients With Advanced Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer and Brain Metastases: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

Purpose To update the formal expert consensus-based guideline recommendations for practicing oncologists and others on the management of brain metastases for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced breast cancer to 2018. Methods An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review (for both systemic treatment and CNS metastases) and identified 622 articles. Outcomes of interest included overall survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events. In 2014, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) convened a panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, guideline implementation, and advocacy experts, and conducted a systematic review of the literature. When that failed to yield sufficiently strong quality evidence, the Expert Panel undertook a formal expert consensus-based process to produce these recommendations. ASCO used a modified Delphi process. The panel members drafted recommendations, and a group of other experts joined them for two rounds of formal ratings of the recommendations. Results Of the 622 publications identified and reviewed, no additional evidence was identified that would warrant a change to the 2014 recommendations. Recommendations Patients with brain metastases should receive appropriate local therapy and systemic therapy, if indicated. Local therapies include surgery, whole-brain radiotherapy, and stereotactic radiosurgery. Treatments depend on factors such as patient prognosis, presence of symptoms, resectability, number and size of metastases, prior therapy, and whether metastases are diffuse. Other options include systemic therapy, best supportive care, enrollment in a clinical trial, and/or palliative care. Clinicians should not perform routine magnetic resonance imaging to screen for brain metastases, but rather should have a low threshold for magnetic resonance imaging of the brain because of the high incidence of brain metastases among patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

NOLAN: a randomized, phase 2 study to estimate the effect of prophylactic naproxen or loratadine vs no prophylactic treatment on bone pain in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim.

PURPOSE: Mild-to-moderate bone pain is a commonly reported adverse event (AE) associated with pegfilgrastim. We evaluated the effect of prophylactic naproxen or loratadine vs no prophylactic treatment on pegfilgrastim-associated bone pain. METHODS: In this open-label study (NCT01712009), women ≥ 18 years of age with newly diagnosed stage I-III breast cancer and an ECOG performance status ≤ 2 who were planning ≥ 4 cycles of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim support starting in cycle 1 were randomized 1:1:1 to receive naproxen, loratadine, or no treatment to prevent pegfilgrastim-associated bone pain. The primary endpoint was all-grade bone pain in cycle 1 from AE reporting. Secondary endpoints included bone pain in cycles 2-4 and across all cycles from AE reporting and patient-reported bone pain by cycle and across all cycles. RESULTS: Six hundred patients were enrolled. Most patients (83.0%) were white, and mean (SD) age was 54.2 (11.1) years. The percentage of patients with all-grade bone pain in cycle 1 from AE reporting in the naproxen, loratadine, and no prophylaxis groups was 40.3, 42.5, and 46.6%, respectively; differences between the treatment groups were not statistically significant. Maximum, mean, and area under the curve for patient-reported bone pain were consistently lower in the naproxen and loratadine groups than in the no prophylaxis group; some of these differences were significant. Loratadine was associated with fewer treatment-related AEs and discontinuations than naproxen. CONCLUSIONS: Given its tolerability, its ease of administration, and its potential benefit, treatment with loratadine should be considered to help prevent bone pain in patients receiving chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ; NCT01712009.

The Oncology Care Model: Perspectives From the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and Participating Oncology Practices in Academia and the Community.

Cancer care delivery in the United States is often fragmented and inefficient, imposing substantial burdens on patients. Costs of cancer care are rising more rapidly than other specialties, with substantial regional differences in quality and cost. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Innovation Center (CMMIS) recently launched the Oncology Care Model (OCM), which uses payment incentives and practice redesign requirements toward the goal of improving quality while controlling costs. As of March 2017, 190 practices were participating, with approximately 3,200 oncologists providing care for approximately 150,000 unique beneficiaries per year (approximately 20% of the Medicare Fee-for-Service population receiving chemotherapy for cancer). This article provides an overview of the program from the CMS perspective, as well as perspectives from two practices implementing OCM: an academic health system (Yale Cancer Center) and a community practice (Hematology Oncology Associates of Central New York). Requirements of OCM, as well as implementation successes, challenges, financial implications, impact on quality, and future visions, are provided from each perspective.

Feasibility Assessment of Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events in Multicenter Cancer Clinical Trials.

IMPORTANCE: In cancer clinical trials, symptomatic adverse events (AEs), such as nausea, are reported by investigators rather than by patients. There is increasing interest to collect symptomatic AE data via patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, but it is unclear whether it is feasible to implement this approach in multicenter trials. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether patients are willing and able to report their symptomatic AEs in multicenter trials. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 361 consecutive patients enrolled in any 1 of 9 US multicenter cancer treatment trials were invited to self-report 13 common symptomatic AEs using a PRO adaptation of the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) via tablet computers at 5 successive clinic visits. Patient adherence was tracked with reasons for missed self-reports. Agreement with clinician AE reports was analyzed with weighted κ statistics. Patient and investigator perspectives were elicited by survey. The study was conducted from March 15, 2007, to August 11, 2011. Data analysis was performed from August 9, 2013, to March 21, 2014. RESULTS: Of the 361 patients invited to participate, 285 individuals enrolled, with a median age of 57 years (range, 24-88), 202 (74.3%) female, 241 (85.5%) white, 73 (26.8%) with a high school education or less, and 176 (64.7%) who reported regular internet use (denominators varied owing to missing data). Across all patients and trials, there were 1280 visits during which patients had an opportunity to self-report (ie, patients were alive and enrolled in a treatment trial at the time of the visit). Self-reports were completed at 1202 visits (93.9% overall adherence). Adherence was highest at baseline and declined over time (visit 1, 100%; visit 2, 96%; visit 3, 95%; visit 4, 91%; and visit 5, 85%). Reasons for missing PROs included institutional errors in 27 of 48 (56.3%) of the cases (eg, staff forgetting to bring computers to patients at visits), patients feeling "too ill" in 8 (16.7%), patient refusal in 8 (16.7%), and internet connectivity problems in 5 (10.4%). Patient-investigator CTCAE agreement was moderate or worse for most symptoms (most κ < 0.05), with investigators reporting fewer AEs than patients across symptoms. Most patients believed that the system was easy to use (234 [93.2%]) and useful (230 [93.1%]), and investigators thought that the patient-reported AEs were useful (133 [94.3%]) and accurate (119 [83.2%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Participants in multicenter cancer trials are willing and able to report their own symptomatic AEs at most clinic visits and report more AEs than investigators. This approach may improve the precision of AE reporting in cancer trials.

Postmastectomy Radiotherapy: An American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology Focused Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: A joint American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology panel convened to develop a focused update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline concerning use of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). METHODS: A recent systematic literature review by Cancer Care Ontario provided the primary evidentiary basis. The joint panel also reviewed targeted literature searches to identify new, potentially practice-changing data. RECOMMENDATIONS: The panel unanimously agreed that available evidence shows that PMRT reduces the risks of locoregional failure (LRF), any recurrence, and breast cancer mortality for patients with T1-2 breast cancer with one to three positive axillary nodes. However, some subsets of these patients are likely to have such a low risk of LRF that the absolute benefit of PMRT is outweighed by its potential toxicities. In addition, the acceptable ratio of benefit to toxicity varies among patients and physicians. Thus, the decision to recommend PMRT requires a great deal of clinical judgment. The panel agreed clinicians making such recommendations for individual patients should consider factors that may decrease the risk of LRF, attenuate the benefit of reduced breast cancer-specific mortality, and/or increase risk of complications resulting from PMRT. When clinicians and patients elect to omit axillary dissection after a positive sentinel node biopsy, the panel recommends that these patients receive PMRT only if there is already sufficient information to justify its use without needing to know additional axillary nodes are involved. Patients with axillary nodal involvement after neoadjuvant systemic therapy should receive PMRT. The panel recommends treatment generally be administered to both the internal mammary nodes and the supraclavicular-axillary apical nodes in addition to the chest wall or reconstructed breast.

Postmastectomy Radiotherapy: An American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology Focused Guideline Update.

A joint American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology panel convened to develop a focused update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline concerning use of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). METHODS: A recent systematic literature review by Cancer Care Ontario provided the primary evidentiary basis. The joint panel also reviewed targeted literature searches to identify new, potentially practice-changing data. RECOMMENDATIONS: The panel unanimously agreed that available evidence shows that PMRT reduces the risks of locoregional failure (LRF), any recurrence, and breast cancer mortality for patients with T1-2 breast cancer with one to three positive axillary nodes. However, some subsets of these patients are likely to have such a low risk of LRF that the absolute benefit of PMRT is outweighed by its potential toxicities. In addition, the acceptable ratio of benefit to toxicity varies among patients and physicians. Thus, the decision to recommend PMRT requires a great deal of clinical judgment. The panel agreed clinicians making such recommendations for individual patients should consider factors that may decrease the risk of LRF, attenuate the benefit of reduced breast cancer-specific mortality, and/or increase risk of complications resulting from PMRT. When clinicians and patients elect to omit axillary dissection after a positive sentinel node biopsy, the panel recommends that these patients receive PMRT only if there is already sufficient information to justify its use without needing to know additional axillary nodes are involved. Patients with axillary nodal involvement after neoadjuvant systemic therapy should receive PMRT. The panel recommends treatment generally be administered to both the internal mammary nodes and the supraclavicular-axillary apical nodes in addition to the chest wall or reconstructed breast.

Postmastectomy Radiotherapy: An American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology Focused Guideline Update.

Purpose A joint American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology panel convened to develop a focused update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline concerning use of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). Methods A recent systematic literature review by Cancer Care Ontario provided the primary evidentiary basis. The joint panel also reviewed targeted literature searches to identify new, potentially practice-changing data. Recommendations The panel unanimously agreed that available evidence shows that PMRT reduces the risks of locoregional failure (LRF), any recurrence, and breast cancer mortality for patients with T1-2 breast cancer with one to three positive axillary nodes. However, some subsets of these patients are likely to have such a low risk of LRF that the absolute benefit of PMRT is outweighed by its potential toxicities. In addition, the acceptable ratio of benefit to toxicity varies among patients and physicians. Thus, the decision to recommend PMRT requires a great deal of clinical judgment. The panel agreed clinicians making such recommendations for individual patients should consider factors that may decrease the risk of LRF, attenuate the benefit of reduced breast cancer-specific mortality, and/or increase risk of complications resulting from PMRT. When clinicians and patients elect to omit axillary dissection after a positive sentinel node biopsy, the panel recommends that these patients receive PMRT only if there is already sufficient information to justify its use without needing to know additional axillary nodes are involved. Patients with axillary nodal involvement after neoadjuvant systemic therapy should receive PMRT. The panel recommends treatment generally be administered to both the internal mammary nodes and the supraclavicular-axillary apical nodes in addition to the chest wall or reconstructed breast.

Buspirone for management of dyspnea in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a randomized placebo-controlled URCC CCOP study.

PURPOSE: Cancer-related dyspnea is a common, distressing, and difficult-to-manage symptom in cancer patients, resulting in diminished quality of life and poor prognosis. Buspirone, a non-benzodiazepine anxiolytic which does not suppress respiration and has proven efficacy in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder, has been suggested to relieve the sensation of dyspnea in patients with COPD. The main objective of our study was to evaluate whether buspirone alleviates dyspnea in cancer patients. METHODS: We report on a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 432 patients (mean age 64, female 51%, lung cancer 62%) from 16 participating Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) sites with grade 2 or higher dyspnea, as assessed by the Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale. Dyspnea was assessed by the Oxygen Cost Diagram (OCD; higher scores are better) and anxiety by the state subscale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S; lower scores are better) at baseline and after the 4-week intervention (post-intervention). RESULTS: Mean scores from baseline to post-intervention for buspirone were OCD 8.7 to 9.0 and STAI-S 40.5 to 40.1 and for placebo were OCD 8.4 to 9.3 and STAI-S 40.9 to 38.6 with raw improvements over time on both measures being greater in the placebo group. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) controlling for baseline scores showed no statistically significant difference between groups for OCD (P = 0.052) or STAI-S (P = 0.062). CONCLUSION: Buspirone did not result in significant improvement in dyspnea or anxiety in cancer patients. Thus, buspirone should not be recommended as a pharmacological option for dyspnea in cancer patients.

The effect of YOCAS©® yoga for musculoskeletal symptoms among breast cancer survivors on hormonal therapy.

Up to 50% of breast cancer survivors on aromatase inhibitor therapy report musculoskeletal symptoms such as joint and muscle pain, significantly impacting treatment adherence and discontinuation rates. We conducted a secondary data analysis of a nationwide, multi-site, phase II/III randomized, controlled, clinical trial examining the efficacy of yoga for improving musculoskeletal symptoms among breast cancer survivors currently receiving hormone therapy (aromatase inhibitors [AI] or tamoxifen [TAM]). Breast cancer survivors currently receiving AI (N = 95) or TAM (N = 72) with no participation in yoga during the previous 3 months were randomized into 2 arms: (1) standard care monitoring and (2) standard care plus the 4-week yoga intervention (2x/week; 75 min/session) and included in this analysis. The yoga intervention utilized the UR Yoga for Cancer Survivors (YOCAS©(®)) program consisting of breathing exercises, 18 gentle Hatha and restorative yoga postures, and meditation. Musculoskeletal symptoms were assessed pre- and post-intervention. At baseline, AI users reported higher levels of general pain, muscle aches, and total physical discomfort than TAM users (all P ≤ 0.05). Among all breast cancer survivors on hormonal therapy, participants in the yoga group demonstrated greater reductions in musculoskeletal symptoms such as general pain, muscle aches and total physical discomfort from pre- to post-intervention than the control group (all P ≤ 0.05). The severity of musculoskeletal symptoms was higher for AI users compared to TAM users. Among breast cancer survivors on hormone therapy, the brief community-based YOCAS©® intervention significantly reduced general pain, muscle aches, and physical discomfort.

Systemic therapy for patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing oncologists and others on systemic therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -positive advanced breast cancer. METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, guideline implementation, and advocacy experts and conducted a systematic literature review from January 2009 to October 2012. Outcomes of interest included overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 16 trials met the systematic review criteria. The CLEOPATRA trial found survival and PFS benefits for docetaxel, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab in first-line treatment, and the EMILIA trial found survival and PFS benefits for trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in second-line treatment. T-DM1 also showed a third-line PFS benefit. One trial reported on duration of HER2-targeted therapy, and three others reported on endocrine therapy for patients with HER-positive advanced breast cancer. RECOMMENDATIONS: HER2-targeted therapy is recommended for patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, except for those with clinical congestive heart failure or significantly compromised left ventricular ejection fraction, who should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and taxane for first-line treatment and T-DM1 for second-line treatment are recommended. In the third-line setting, clinicians should offer other HER2-targeted therapy combinations or T-DM1 (if not previously administered) and may offer pertuzumab, if the patient has not previously received it. Optimal duration of chemotherapy is at least 4 to 6 months or until maximum response, depending on toxicity and in the absence of progression. HER2-targeted therapy can continue until time of progression or unacceptable toxicities. For patients with HER2-positive and estrogen receptor-positive/progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer, clinicians may recommend either standard first-line therapy or, for selected patients, endocrine therapy plus HER2-targeted therapy or endocrine therapy alone.

Recommendations on disease management for patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide formal expert consensus-based recommendations to practicing oncologists and others on the management of brain metastases for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -positive advanced breast cancer. METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) convened a panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, guideline implementation, and advocacy experts and conducted a systematic review of the literature. When that failed to yield sufficiently strong quality evidence, the Expert Panel undertook a formal expert consensus-based process to produce these recommendations. ASCO used a modified Delphi process. The panel members drafted recommendations, and a group of other experts joined them for two rounds of formal ratings of the recommendations. RESULTS: No studies or existing guidelines met the systematic review criteria; therefore, ASCO conducted a formal expert consensus-based process. RECOMMENDATIONS: Patients with brain metastases should receive appropriate local therapy and systemic therapy, if indicated. Local therapies include surgery, whole-brain radiotherapy, and stereotactic radiosurgery. Treatments depend on factors such as patient prognosis, presence of symptoms, resectability, number and size of metastases, prior therapy, and whether metastases are diffuse. Other options include systemic therapy, best supportive care, enrollment onto a clinical trial, and/or palliative care. Clinicians should not perform routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to screen for brain metastases, but rather should have a low threshold for MRI of the brain because of the high incidence of brain metastases among patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer.

A phase III randomized, placebo-controlled study of topical amitriptyline and ketamine for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN): a University of Rochester CCOP study of 462 cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) occurs in as high as 70% of patients receiving certain types of chemotherapy agents. The FDA has yet to approve a therapy for CIPN. The aim of this multicenter, phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to investigate the efficacy of 2% ketamine plus 4% amitriptyline (KA) cream for reducing CIPN. METHODS: Cancer survivors who completed chemotherapy at least 1 month prior and had CIPN (>4 out of 10) were enrolled (N=462). CIPN was assessed using average scores from a 7-day daily diary that asks patients to rate the average "pain, numbness, or tingling in [their] hands and feet over the past 24 h" on an 11-point numeric rating scale at baseline and 6 weeks post intervention. ANCOVA was used to measure differences in 6-week CIPN with effects including baseline CIPN, KA treatment arm, and previous taxane therapy (Y/N). RESULTS: The KA treatment showed no effect on 6-week CIPN scores (adjusted mean difference=-0.17, p=0.363). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that KA cream does not decrease CIPN symptoms in cancer survivors.

Sorafenib or placebo with either gemcitabine or capecitabine in patients with HER-2-negative advanced breast cancer that progressed during or after bevacizumab.

PURPOSE: We assessed adding the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib to gemcitabine or capecitabine in patients with advanced breast cancer whose disease progressed during/after bevacizumab. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase IIb study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00493636) enrolled patients with locally advanced or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer and prior bevacizumab treatment. Patients were randomized to chemotherapy with sorafenib (400 mg, twice daily) or matching placebo. Initially, chemotherapy was gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) i.v., days 1, 8/21), but later, capecitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) orally twice daily, days 1-14/21) was allowed as an alternative. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: One hundred and sixty patients were randomized. More patients received gemcitabine (82.5%) than capecitabine (17.5%). Sorafenib plus gemcitabine/capecitabine was associated with a statistically significant prolongation in PFS versus placebo plus gemcitabine/capecitabine [3.4 vs. 2.7 months; HR = 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.95; P = 0.02], time to progression was increased (median, 3.6 vs. 2.7 months; HR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44-0.93; P = 0.02), and overall response rate was 19.8% versus 12.7% (P = 0.23). Median survival was 13.4 versus 11.4 months for sorafenib versus placebo (HR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.71-1.44; P = 0.95). Addition of sorafenib versus placebo increased grade 3/4 hand-foot skin reaction (39% vs. 5%), stomatitis (10% vs. 0%), fatigue (18% vs. 9%), and dose reductions that were more frequent (51.9% vs. 7.8%). CONCLUSION: The addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine/capecitabine provided a clinically small but statistically significant PFS benefit in HER2-negative advanced breast cancer patients whose disease progressed during/after bevacizumab. Combination treatment was associated with manageable toxicities but frequently required dose reductions.

A randomized, controlled, double-blinded clinical trial of gabapentin 300 versus 900 mg versus placebo for anxiety symptoms in breast cancer survivors.

Gabapentin is used for the treatment of hot flashes and neuropathic pain in breast cancer survivors, and is commonly used off-label for the treatment of anxiety. Yet, clinical trial evidence to support the use of gabapentin for anxiety symptoms is lacking. In a randomized, double-blinded controlled trial we compared 300 mg gabapentin versus 900 mg gabapentin versus placebo. Subjects were 420 breast cancer patients who had completed all chemotherapy cycles. Anxiety traits and current (state) anxiety were measured using the Speilberger Strait-Trait Anxiety Inventory at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks. Pain was measured at baseline using a 10-point scale. Analyses included analysis of covariance and ordinary least squares regression. At 4 weeks, state anxiety change scores were significantly better for gabapentin 300 and 900 mg (p = 0.005) compared to placebo. The magnitude of improvement was proportional to baseline state anxiety. At 8 weeks, the anxiolytic effects of gabapentin compared to placebo persisted (p < 0.005). We found no significant interactions. The lower dose (300 mg) was associated with the best treatment outcomes for all patients except those with the highest baseline anxiety. Given its similar pharmacology, efficacy in the treatment of hot flashes, and low cost, gabapentin may provide a low cost and parsimonious alternative treatment choice for breast cancer survivors presenting in primary care practices with anxiety symptoms. Gabapentin is effective for hot flashes, and, therefore, may provide therapeutic benefit for both anxiety and hot flashes at a generic drug price. For patients reluctant to take a controlled substance, such as a benzodiazepine, gabapentin may offer an alternative therapy. Similarly, patients with a history of substance use may benefit from gabapentin without risk of addiction or abuse. For cancer survivors experiencing both hot flashes and anxiety, gabapentin may provide a single effective treatment for both and is an alternative therapy for anxiety for patients unwilling to take a benzodiazepine or those with a history of substance use.