A scoping review characterizing "Choosing Wisely®" recommendations for breast cancer management.

PURPOSE: Choosing Wisely (CW)® was created by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) to promote patient-physician conversations about unnecessary medical interventions. Similarly, other countries created their own panels of experts called "CW® campaigns" which review recommendations submitted by that country's oncology societies. We performed a scoping review to consolidate CW® recommendations from different groups with respect to breast cancer care. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline and Embase was designed by an information specialist for publications presenting CW® recommendations for breast cancer care practices from 2011-2020. We also reviewed the websites of all CW® campaigns and reference sections of each CW® recommendation. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion and performed data extraction. Findings were summarized narratively. RESULTS: Review of ABIM CW® recommendations showed 19 breast cancer-related recommendations pertaining to; screening (n = 4), radiological staging (n = 2), treatment (n = 10), surveillance (n = 2), and miscellaneous (genetic testing; n = 1). Of 22 countries with CW® campaigns, 10 published recommendations for breast cancer. Over half (57%) of recommendations were supported by more than one country. No recommendations were refuted between campaigns. Two campaigns developed 3 novel recommendations on new topics, including chemotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ (Italy) and comparison of screening imaging modalities (Portugal). CONCLUSIONS: CW® recommendations focus on reducing overutilization of investigations and treatments. There was a high rate of consensus between different CW® campaigns. As health care systems globally move attention to reduce low-value care, further studies are required to address adherence to these current recommendations and develop new recommendations.

De-escalation of bone-modifying agents in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) such as bisphosphonates and denosumab are usually administered every 4 weeks (standard) in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs). Recent randomized controlled trials suggest every 12-week (de-escalated) dosing interval may be non-inferior. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and harms of standard with de-escalated administration of BMA's in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. METHODS: We searched Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials from 1947 to March 14, 2018 and conference abstracts from (2014-March 14, 2018) for randomized clinical trials comparing every 4-week and every 12-week dosing interval of bone-modifying agents. Using PRISMA guidelines, meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models, with findings reported as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: From a total of 1311 citations, we identified 8 full-text articles and 1 abstract comprising data from 5 completed randomized clinical trials (n = 1807). Zoledronate administration every 12 weeks compared to every 4 weeks produced a summary risk ratio of 1.05 (95% CI 0.88-1.25) for patients with ≥ 1 on-study SRE indicating similar efficacy. These results did not differ whether patients had received prior intravenous bisphosphonate. De-escalation was associated with a non-statistically significant lower risk of increased creatinine (summary risk ratio 0.41 [95% CI 0.15-1.16]). Currently, there are insufficient data for pamidronate and denosumab de-escalation. CONCLUSIONS: These data are supportive of de-escalation of zoledronate from onset for patients with bone metastases from breast cancer.

Creating a pragmatic trials program for breast cancer patients: Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT).

BACKGROUND: The proportion of breast cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials is falling. The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) program was developed to challenge some of the contemporary barriers responsible for this fall in accrual. In this article, we review the successes and challenges our program has faced. METHODS: The REaCT program was created to improve care and outcomes for cancer patients through surveys of patients and healthcare providers, systematic reviews, economic evaluations, and the performance of pragmatic randomized trials with patient-centered outcomes. Likely, the greatest difference to conventional trial methodologies has been our widespread use of the integrated consent model (ICM) incorporating oral consent. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2018, the program has recruited over 2000 patients to 15 randomized studies at 11 Canadian cancer centers. The REaCT program has completed and published five patient surveys, six healthcare provider surveys, ten systematic reviews, performed four economic evaluations, opened 15 clinical trials comparing standard of care interventions (two surgical, two adjuvant chemotherapy, five adjuvant supportive care, one radiology, two vascular devices, two palliative supportive care, and one molecular diagnostics). Patient surveys have shown high levels of satisfaction with the ICM. CONCLUSION: The REaCT program was developed to tackle important practice questions that will better guide optimal practice and to increase the availability of pragmatic clinical trials. While many challenges remain, future strategies will involve including more study sites and efforts to integrate novel information technology strategies.

Does Pre-Emptive Availability of PREDICT 2.1 Results Change Ordering Practices for Oncotype DX? A Multi-Center Prospective Cohort Study.

For early-stage hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer, tools to estimate treatment benefit include free and publicly available algorithms (e.g., PREDICT 2.1) and expensive molecular assays (e.g., Oncotype DX). There remains a need to identify patients who de-rive the most benefit from molecular assays and where this test may be of poor value. In this multicenter prospective cohort study, we evaluated whether use of PREDICT 2.1 would impact physician decision making. For the first 6 months of the study, data on physician use of both PREDICT 2.1 and Oncotype DX ordering were collected on all newly diagnosed patients eligible for molecular testing. After 6 months, an educational intervention was undertaken to see if providing physicians with PREDICT 2.1 results affects the frequency of Oncotype DX requests. A total of 602 patients across six cancer centers in Ontario, Canada were recruited between March 2020 and November 2021. Providing PREDICT 2.1 results and an educational intervention did not alter the ordering of an Oncotype DX. For patients with low clinical risk, either by clinico-pathologic features or by PREDICT 2.1, the probability of obtaining a high Oncotype DX recurrence score was substantially lower compared to patients with high-clinical-risk disease. The introduction of an educational intervention had no impact on molecular assay requests. However, routine ordering of molecular assays for patients with low-clinical-risk disease is of poor value.

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.

Young Women with Breast Cancer: The Current Role of Precision Oncology.

Young adults aged 40 years and younger with breast cancer represent less than 5% of all breast cancer cases, yet it is the leading cause of death among young women with cancer worldwide. Breast cancer that develops at a young age is more aggressive and has biological features that carry an increased risk of relapse and death. Young adults are more likely to have a genetic predisposition and key biomarkers, including endocrine receptors, the HER2 receptor, and proliferation biomarkers, that appear different compared to older adults. Despite being more aggressive, management strategies are largely the same irrespective of age. Given the higher rates of genetic predisposition, fast access to genetic counselling and testing is a necessity. In this review, the biological differences in young adult breast cancer and the current role precision medicine holds in the treatment of young adults with breast cancer are explored. Given the relatively high risk of relapse, developing novel genomic tools to refine the treatment options beyond the current standard is critical. Existing predictive genomic tests require careful interpretation with consideration of the patient's clinical and pathological features in the young patient cohort. Careful evaluation is also required when considering extended endocrine therapy options. Improved characterization of mutations occurring in tumors using next-generation sequencing could identify important driver mutations that arise in young women. Applying the advances of precision medicine equitably to patients in resource-rich and low- and middle-income countries will be critical to impacting the survival of young adults with breast cancer worldwide.

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.