Perspectives on shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer: a patient survey.

PURPOSE: Despite previous studies proposing shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy for selected patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC), 12-months remains standard of care. A survey was performed to assess patient perspectives and willingness to participate in studies evaluating shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy. METHODS: Patients with HER2-positive EBC completing or having previously completed anti-HER2 therapy, were recruited by healthcare professionals at The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre to participate in an anonymous online survey. The primary objective was to learn about patients' perspectives on shorter durations (less than 12-months) of anti-HER2 therapy. Secondary objectives were to explore patients' interest in clinical trials of shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy and the degree of increased breast cancer risk they would accept with a shorter treatment duration. RESULTS: Responses were received from 94 eligible patients. Most patients received Trastuzumab alone (78%, 73/94), while 13% (12/94) received trastuzumab and pertuzumab. Side effects were experienced by 52% (46/89), the most common being; fatigue (61%, 28/46), myalgia (37%, 17/46), and diarrhea (24%, 11/46). Most patients (88%, 78/89) did not find treatment bothersome. Regarding perspectives on shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy, most (79%, 74/94) respondents stated they would agree to less treatment if it were possible to receive fewer treatments with the same cancer benefits. 56% of patients were interested in clinical trials, however, about half stated they would not be accepting of any increase in breast cancer recurrence risk. CONCLUSION: Trials to investigate who can safely and effectively be treated with shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy are needed. This study provides important insights to patients' perspectives on shorter durations of anti-HER2 treatment, and their concerns regarding potential increased cancer risk with less treatment.

Canada follows the US in the rise of bilateral mastectomies for unilateral breast cancer: a 23-year population cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: The use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) continues to grow despite the absence of evidence supporting a survival benefit. This study's objectives were to (1) describe the trends in the rates of unilateral and bilateral mastectomy (BM) in women diagnosed with unilateral breast cancer (UBC) in Ontario, Canada from 1991 to 2013, and (2) identify factors associated with BM to treat UBC. METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis included all women aged 18 and older diagnosed with UBC between January 1991 and December 2013. Health administrative data from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, the Ontario Cancer Registry, and the Discharge Abstract Database were used to identify all breast cancer and mastectomy cases. Age-adjusted mastectomy rates were plotted over time. Univariable and multivariable analyses included clinically significant covariates. RESULTS: From 1991 to 2013 there were 172,165 cases of UBC and 64,886 mastectomies (37.7%) performed in Ontario. 13.6% of the mastectomies were bilateral. BM rates increased over sixfold (from 4 to 25%) across all age groups under age 70 over a 23-year period. On multivariable analysis, younger age, higher income, rural community, earlier breast cancer stage, lobular histology, availability of reconstruction and teaching hospitals were associated with increased odds of BM. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest population study of breast cancer patients in Canada and shows an increasing rate of BM for UBC. The results are similar to those already described in the US and highlight the importance of continued efforts to promote efficient communication and evidence-based decision-making prior to breast surgery.

A multicentre, randomised trial comparing schedules of G-CSF (filgrastim) administration for primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in early stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of filgrastim as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in early breast cancer patients is unknown, with 5, 7 or 10 days being commonly prescribed. This trial evaluates whether 5 days of filgrastim was non-inferior to 7/10 days. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomised, open-label trial, early breast cancer patients who were to receive filgrastim as primary FN prophylaxis were randomly allocated to 5 versus 7 versus 10 days of filgrastim for all chemotherapy cycles. A protocol amendment in November 2017 allowed subsequent patients (N = 324) to be randomised to either 5 or 7/10 days. The primary outcome was a composite of either FN or treatment-related hospitalisations. Secondary outcomes included chemotherapy dose reductions, delays and discontinuations. Analyses were carried out by per protocol (primary) and intention-to-treat, and the non-inferiority margin was set at 3% for the risk of having FN and/or hospitalisation per cycle of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Patients (N = 466) were randomised to receive 5 (184, 39.5%), or 7/10 (282, 60.5%) days of filgrastim. In our primary analysis, the difference in risk of either FN or treatment-related hospitalisation per cycle was -1.52% [95% confidence interval (CI): -3.22% to 0.19%] suggesting non-inferiority of a 5-day filgrastim schedule compared with 7/10-days. The difference in events per cycle for FN was 0.11% (95% CI: -1.05 to 1.27) while for treatment-related hospitalisations it was -1.68% (95% CI: -2.73% to -0.63%). The overall proportions of patients having at least one occurrence of either FN or treatment-related hospitalisation were 11.8% and 14.96% for the 5- and 7/10-day groups, respectively (risk difference: -3.17%, 95% CI: -9.51% to 3.18%). CONCLUSION: Five days of filgrastim was non-inferior to 7/10 days. Given the cost and toxicity of this agent, 5 days should be considered standard of care. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT02428114 and NCT02816164.

A randomized phase II study of weekly paclitaxel with or without pelareorep in patients with metastatic breast cancer: final analysis of Canadian Cancer Trials Group IND.213.

BACKGROUND: Pelareorep, a serotype 3 reovirus, has demonstrated preclinical and early clinical activity in breast cancer and synergistic cytotoxic activity with microtubule targeting agents. This multicentre, randomized, phase II trial was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding pelareorep to paclitaxel for patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC). METHODS: Following a safety run-in of 7 patients, 74 women with previously treated mBC were randomized either to paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks plus pelareorep 3 × 1010 TCID50 intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 every 4 weeks (Arm A) or to paclitaxel alone (Arm B). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were objective response rate, overall survival (OS), circulating tumour cell counts, safety, and exploratory correlative analyses. All comparisons used a two-sided test at an alpha level of 20%. Survival analyses were adjusted for prior paclitaxel. RESULTS: Final analysis was performed after a median follow-up of 29.5 months. Pelareorep was well tolerated. Patients in Arm A had more favourable baseline prognostic variables. Median adjusted PFS (Arm A vs B) was 3.78 mo vs 3.38 mo (HR 1.04, 80% CI 0.76-1.43, P = 0.87). There was no difference in response rate between arms (P = 0.87). Median OS (Arm A vs B) was 17.4 mo vs 10.4 mo (HR 0.65, 80% CI 0.46-0.91, P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: This first, phase II, randomized study of pelareorep and paclitaxel in previously treated mBC did not show a difference in PFS (the primary endpoint) or RR. However, there was a significantly longer OS for the combination. Further exploration of this regimen in mBC may be of interest.

Estrogen, progesterone, and HER2/neu receptor discordance between primary and metastatic breast tumours-a review.

Discordance in estrogen (ER), progesterone (PR), and HER2/neu status between primary breast tumours and metastatic disease is well recognized. In this review, we highlight how receptor discordance between primary tumours and paired metastasis can help elucidate the mechanism of metastasis but can also effect patient management and the design of future trials. Discordance rates and ranges were available from 47 studies (3384 matched primary and metastatic pairs) reporting ER, PR, and HER2/neu expression for both primary and metastatic sites. Median discordance rates for ER, PR, and HER2/neu were 14 % (range 0-67 %, IQR 9-25 %), 21 % (range 0-62 %, IQR 15-41 %), and 10 % (range 0-44 %, IQR 4-17 %), respectively. Loss of receptor expression was more common (9.17 %) than gain (4.51 %). Discordance rates varied amongst site of metastasis with ER discordance being highest in bone metastases suggesting that discordance is a true biological phenomenon. Discordance rates vary for both the biomarker and the metastatic site. Loss of expression is more common than gain. This can affect patient management as it can lead to a reduction in both the efficacy and availability of potential therapeutic agents. Future studies are recommended to explore both the mechanisms of discordance as well as its impact on patient outcome and management.

The development of a prediction tool to identify cancer patients at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of effective antiemetics and evidence-based guidelines, up to 40% of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy fail to achieve complete nausea and vomiting control. In addition to type of chemotherapy, several patient-related risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been identified. To incorporate these factors into the optimal selection of prophylactic antiemetics, a repeated measures cycle-based model to predict the risk of ≥ grade 2 CINV (≥2 vomiting episodes or a decrease in oral intake due to nausea) from days 0 to 5 post-chemotherapy was developed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 1198 patients enrolled in one of the five non-interventional CINV prospective studies were pooled. Generalized estimating equations were used in a backwards elimination process with the P-value set at <0.05 to identify the relevant predictive factors. A risk scoring algorithm (range 0-32) was then derived from the final model coefficients. Finally, a receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROCC) analysis was done to measure the predictive accuracy of the scoring algorithm. RESULTS: Over 4197 chemotherapy cycles, 42.2% of patients experienced ≥grade 2 CINV. Eight risk factors were identified: patient age <60 years, the first two cycles of chemotherapy, anticipatory nausea and vomiting, history of morning sickness, hours of sleep the night before chemotherapy, CINV in the prior cycle, patient self-medication with non-prescribed treatments, and the use of platinum or anthracycline-based regimens. The ROC analysis indicated good predictive accuracy with an area-under-the-curve of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.67-0.70). Before to each cycle of therapy, patients with risk scores ≥16 units would be considered at high risk for developing ≥grade 2 CINV. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical application of this prediction tool will be an important source of individual patient risk information for the oncology clinician and may enhance patient care by optimizing the use of the antiemetics in a proactive manner.

A randomized, double-blind, phase II, exploratory trial evaluating the palliative benefit of either continuing pamidronate or switching to zoledronic acid in patients with high-risk bone metastases from breast cancer.

Previous studies suggest switching from pamidronate to a more potent bone-targeted agent is associated with biomarker and palliative response in breast cancer patients with bone metastases. Until now, this has not been addressed in a double-blind, randomized trial. Breast cancer patients with high-risk bone metastases, despite >3 months of pamidronate, were randomized to either continue pamidronate or switch to zoledronic acid every 4 weeks for 12 weeks. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a fall in serum C-telopeptide (sCTx) at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included difference in mean sCTx, pain scores, quality of life, toxicity, and skeletal-related events (SREs). Seventy-three patients entered the study; median age 61 years (range 37-87). Proportion of patients achieving a fall in sCTx over the 12-week evaluation period was 26/32 (81 %) with zoledronic acid and 18/29 (62 %) with pamidronate (p = 0.095). Mean decrease in sCTx (mean difference between groups = 50 ng/L, 95 % CI 18-84; p = 0.003) was significantly greater in patients who received zoledronic acid. Quality of life, pain scores, toxicity, and frequency of new SREs were comparable between the two arms. While a switch from pamidronate to zoledronic acid resulted in reduction in mean sCTx, there were no significant differences between the arms for proportion of patients achieving a reduction in sCTx, quality of life, pain scores, toxicity or SREs. Given the lack of palliative improvement, the current data do not support a switching strategy.

Cost implications of unwarranted imaging for distant metastasis in women with early-stage breast cancer in Ontario.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the publication of multiple evidence-based guidelines recommending against routine imaging for distant metastasis in patients with early-stage (i/ii) breast cancer, such imaging is frequently performed. The present retrospective cohort study was conducted to estimate the cost of unnecessary imaging tests in women with stage i and ii breast cancer diagnosed between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2012 in Ontario. METHODS: We obtained patient-level demographic and tumour data from a large provincial dataset. The total cost of unwarranted imaging tests (in 2015 Canadian dollars) was considered to be equal to the sum of imaging costs incurred between 2007 and 2012 and was stratified by disease stage, imaging modality, and body site. RESULTS: Of the 26,547 identified patients with early-stage breast cancer, 22,811 (85.9%) underwent at least 1 imaging test, with an average of 3.7 tests per patient (3.2 for stage i patients and 4.0 for stage ii patients) over 5 years. At least 1 imaging test was performed in 79.6% of stage i and 92.7% of stage ii patients. During a 5-year period, the cost of unwarranted imaging in patients with early-stage breast cancer ranged from CA$4,418,139 to CA$6,865,856, depending on guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the substantial cost of excess imaging that could be saved and re-allocated to patient care if evidence-based guidelines are followed. Future studies should assess strategies to ensure that evidence-based guidelines are followed and to increase awareness of the cost implications of nonadherence to guidelines.

Can the referring surgeon enhance accrual of breast cancer patients to medical and radiation oncology trials? The ENHANCE study.

INTRODUCTION: The accrual rate to clinical trials in oncology remains low. In this exploratory pilot study, we prospectively assessed the role that engaging a referring surgeon plays in enhancing nonsurgical oncologic clinical trial accrual. METHODS: Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients were seen by a surgeon who actively introduced specific patient-and physician-centred strategies to increase clinical trial accrual. Patient-centred strategies included providing patients, before their oncology appointment, with information about specific clinical trials for which they might be eligible, as evaluated by the surgeon. The attitudes of the patients about clinical trials and the interventions used to improve accrual were assessed at the end of the study. The primary outcome was the clinical trial accrual rate during the study period. RESULTS: Overall clinical trial enrolment during the study period among the 34 participating patients was 15% (5 of 34), which is greater than the institution's historical average of 7%. All patients found the information delivered by the surgeon before the oncology appointment to be very helpful. Almost three quarters of the patients (73%) were informed about clinical trials by their oncologist. The top reasons for nonparticipation reported by the patients who did not participate in clinical trials included lack of interest (35%), failure of the oncologist to mention clinical trials (33%), and inconvenience (19%). CONCLUSIONS: Accrual of patients to clinical trials is a complex multistep process with multiple potential barriers. The findings of this exploratory pilot study demonstrate a potential role for the referring surgeon in enhancing nonsurgical clinical trial accrual.

Should de-escalation of bone-targeting agents be standard of care for patients with bone metastases from breast cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: De-escalation of bone-targeted agents, such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, from 4- to 12-weekly dosing is an increasingly used strategy in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. It is unclear whether there is sufficient evidence to support de-escalation as a standard of care. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized trials comparing standard 4-weekly administration of bone-targeted agents with de-escalated (Q12-weekly) dosing in breast cancer patients was carried out. Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until November 2014 for relevant studies. Outcomes of interest included skeletal-related event (SRE) rates, bone pain, adverse events (AEs) and bone turnover biomarkers. Random-effects meta-analyses were carried out. RESULTS: A total of nine citations representing seven unique studies were eligible. One study is ongoing with no reported data. Six studies reported data for at least one outcome of interest. Data were available comparing standard versus de-escalated therapy for pamidronate (1 study, 38 patients), zoledronate (3 studies, 1117 patients) and denosumab (2 studies, 284 patients). Meta-analysis of five trials reporting data for on-study SRE rates between standard (61/443 patients) and de-escalated (49/392 patients) arms produced a summary risk ratio of 0.90 (95% confidence interval 0.63-1.29). Meta-analyses of data for AEs and bone turnover biomarkers also showed no statistically significant differences between standard and de-escalated arms, though only limited numbers of patients and events were present for most analyses. CONCLUSION: In this systematic review of studies of bisphosphonates and denosumab, there appears to be no difference in SREs or pain with de-escalated therapy. While a large, hopefully definitive study is ongoing, the data presented so far are consistent with de-escalation of bone-targeting agents becoming a standard of care for patients with bone metastases from breast cancer.

Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy and window of opportunity trials: new standards in the treatment of breast cancer?

Until recently, the use of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy was mainly restricted to those patients whose general frailty or comorbidities were contraindications to surgery. There is now increased evidence that certain patient populations (i.e. older patients with hormone-receptor positive disease) can gain as good a pathologic response, with considerably less toxicity, from neoadjuvant endocrine therapy than from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Optimization of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy is therefore an important therapeutic goal. However, possibly of greater importance in the overall management of breast cancer, is the increased interest in exploring the effects of brief periods of endocrine therapy on in vivo biomarkers, in so called window of opportunity trials. These trials can not only be used to identify the mechanisms of action of novel agents but also to predict optimal subsequent adjuvant therapy for individual patients. While this paper will briefly review the history of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy, more emphasis will be on the evaluation of pivotal window of opportunity trials that will likely lead to a long awaited paradigm shift in the management of breast cancer.

Systemic treatment approaches in her2-negative advanced breast cancer-guidance on the guidelines.

Despite advancements in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer, many patients still develop disease recurrence; others present with de novo metastatic disease. For most patients with advanced breast cancer, the primary treatment intent is noncurative-that is, palliative-in nature. The goals of treatment should therefore focus on maximizing symptom control and extending survival. Treatments should be evaluated on an individualized basis in terms of evidence, but also with full respect for the wishes of the patient in terms of acceptable toxicity. Given the availability of extensive reviews on the roles of endocrine therapy and her2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2)-targeted therapies for advanced disease, we focus here mainly on treatment guidelines for the non-endocrine management of her2-negative advanced breast cancer in a Canadian health care context.

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer-time for a new paradigm?

BACKGROUND: In cases of locally advanced breast cancer (labc), preoperative ("neoadjuvant") therapy was traditionally reserved to render the patient operable. More recently, neoadjuvant therapy, particularly chemotherapy, is being used in patients with operable disease to increase the opportunity for breast conservation. Despite the increasing use of preoperative chemotherapy, rates of pathologic complete response, a surrogate marker for disease-free survival, remain modest in patients with locally advanced disease and particularly so when the tumour is estrogen or progesterone receptor-positive and her2-negative. A new paradigm for labc patients is needed. In other solid tumours (for example, rectal, esophageal, and lung cancers), concurrent chemoradiotherapy (ccrt) is routinely used in neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment protocols alike. RESULTS: The literature suggests that ccrt in labc patients with inoperable disease is associated with response rates higher than would be anticipated with systemic therapy alone. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing trials in this field are eagerly awaited to determine if ccrt should become the new paradigm.

Neoadjuvant endocrine treatment for breast cancer: from bedside to bench and back again?

In recent years, considerable attention has been paid to the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a pluripotential test bed for the treatment of breast cancer. Although traditionally reserved to render inoperable disease operable, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is increasingly being used to improve the chance for breast-conserving surgery, to gain information on pathologic response rates for a more rapid assessment of new chemotherapy-biologic regimens, and also to study in vivo tumour sensitivity or resistance to the agent being used. Similarly, use of neoadjuvant endocrine treatment was also traditionally restricted to elderly or frail patients who were felt to be unsuitable for chemotherapy. It is therefore not surprising that, given the increasing realization of the pivotal role of endocrine therapy in patient care, there is enhanced interest in neoadjuvant endocrine therapy not only as a less-toxic alternative to chemotherapy, but also to assess tumour sensitivity or resistance to endocrine agents. The availability of newer endocrine manipulations and increasing evidence that the benefits of chemotherapy are frequently marginal in many hormone-positive patients is making endocrine therapy increasingly important in the clinical setting. The hope is that, one day, instead of preoperative endocrine therapy being restricted to the infirm and the elderly, it will be used in the time between biopsy diagnosis and surgery to predict which patients will or will not benefit from chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting.

Comparative effectiveness of interventions for cancer treatment-related cognitive impairment in adult cancer survivors: protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment-related cognitive impairment (CTRCI) can substantially reduce the quality of life of cancer survivors. Many treatments of CTRCI have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including psychological interventions, pharmacologic interventions, and other therapies. There is a pressing need to establish the benefits and harms of previously studied CTRCI treatments. The proposed systematic review and network meta-analyses will assess the relative efficacy and safety of competing interventions for the management of CTRCI. METHODS: In consultation with the review team, an experienced medical information specialist will draft electronic search strategies for MEDLINE®, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Trials Registry. We will seek RCTs of interventions for the treatment of CTRCI in adults with any cancer, except cancers/metastases of the central nervous system. Due to the anticipated high search yields, dual independent screening of citations will be expedited by use of an artificial intelligence/machine learning tool. The co-primary outcomes of interest will be subjective and objective cognitive function. Secondary outcomes of interest will include measures of quality of life, mental and physical health symptoms, adherence to treatment, and harms (overall and treatment-related harms and harms associated with study withdrawal), where feasible, random-effects meta-analyses and network meta-analyses will be pursued. We will address the anticipated high clinical and methodological heterogeneity through meta-regressions, subgroup analyses, and/or sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION: The proposed systematic review will deliver a robust comparative evaluation of the efficacy and safety of existing therapies for the management of CTRCI. These findings will inform clinical decisions, identify evidence gaps, and identify promising therapies for future evaluation in RCTs.

Evolution of sites of recurrence after early breast cancer over the last 20 years: implications for patient care and future research.

Improvements in adjuvant therapy have led to a sustained fall in recurrences after early breast cancer. The differential reduction in local and systemic recurrences is poorly understood. This study aimed to explore changes in the distribution of loco-regional and distant recurrences in clinical trials reported over the last 20 years. We also aimed to determine the relative impact of adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. MEDLINE search for adjuvant, phase III randomized breast cancer clinical studies between January 1990 and March 2011 was performed. Neoadjuvant, single agent biologics and studies that did not report the proportion of loco-regional and distant recurrences were excluded. The change in the frequency of recurrences was assessed as the nonparametric correlation between the number of loco-regional recurrences as a proportion of all recurrences and time. Studies were weighted by sample size. The differential effect of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy was also assessed. Fifty-three randomized clinical trials with a total of 86,598 patients were included in the analysis. Between 1990 and 2011, the proportion of loco-regional recurrences has decreased from approximately 30 to 15 % (Spearman's ρ = -0.40, p < 0.001). There was no interaction between type of surgery (mastectomy vs. lumpectomy), administration of adjuvant radiation therapy and menopausal status and the correlation of loco-regional recurrences and time. Chemotherapy regimen showed a larger negative correlation compared with endocrine therapy ( ρ = 0.49 vs. ρ = 0.24). Advances in treatment of early breast cancer have differentially reduced the proportion of loco-regional recurrences compared with distant recurrences. In recent trials, loco-regional recurrences account for less than 10-15 % of all recurrences. These falling event rates may affect patient care, especially when deciding on treatments influencing loco-regional control. This change may also impact on the design of clinical trials assessing loco-regional therapy such as surgery and/or local radiation therapy.

Preference weights for chemotherapy side effects from the perspective of women with breast cancer.

Perceptions among women with breast cancer about the relative importance of different potential chemotherapy side effects is not well understood. A survey was performed by women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer. Grade I/II (mild to moderate) and III/IV (moderate to severe) descriptions of nine common chemotherapy side effects were assigned preference weights using the standard gamble technique. For each hypothetical side effect, patients could choose to stay in the respective side effect state or take a gamble between full health (probability p) or being dead (1 - p). For each side effect, p was varied until the patient was indifferent between these options. The survey also included questions about the importance of survival, slowing cancer growth, and quality of life. This analysis included 69 patients; mean age 54 years (range 35-84), representing all cancer stages. Standard gamble preferences were lowest (i.e., least preferred) for grade III/IV nausea/vomiting (0.621), indicating that patients would, on average, risk a 38 % chance of being dead to avoid having grade III/IV nausea/vomiting for the rest of their lives. The next least preferred side effects were grade III/IV diarrhea (0.677) and grade III/IV sensory neuropathy (0.694). Survival appeared more important than slowing cancer growth and maintaining quality of life across cancer stages. Nevertheless, patients with advanced disease placed less importance on survival (p = 0.09) and higher importance on quality of life (p = 0.05). These standard gamble utilities provide unique insights into chemotherapy toxicities from the patient perspective. Differences in the relative importance of overall survival and quality of life with treatment existed between patients with different stages of disease. These studies should be expanded as the data may also be used to calculate quality-adjusted life expectancy in cost-effectiveness evaluations of breast cancer chemotherapies.

Do alternative methods of measuring tumor size, including consideration of multicentric/multifocal disease, enhance prognostic information beyond TNM staging in women with early stage breast cancer: an analysis of the NCIC CTG MA.5 and MA.12 clinical trials.

The AJCC staging criteria consider tumor size to be the largest dimension of largest tumor. Some case series suggest using summation of all tumor dimensions in patients with multicentric/multifocal (MC/MF) disease. We used data from NCIC CTG MA.5 and MA.12 clinical trials to examine alternative methods of assessing tumor size on breast-cancer-free-interval (BCFI). The 710 MA.5 pre-/peri-menopausal node positive and 672 MA.12 pre-menopausal node-negative/-positive patients have 10-year median follow-up. All patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. Tumors were centrally reviewed for grade, hormone receptor, and HER2 status. Continuous pathologic tumor size was: (1) largest dimension of largest tumor (cm); (2) tumor area (cm(2)); (3) volume of tumor (cm(3)); (4) with MC/MF disease, summation of (1)-(3) for up to 3 foci. We examined univariate and multivariate effects of tumor size on BCFI utilizing (un)stratified Cox regression and the Wald test statistic. In univariate analysis, larger tumor dimension was significantly associated with worse BFCI in node positive patients: p < 0.0001 for MA.5; p = 0.01 for MA.12. In MA.5 multivariate analysis, larger summation of largest tumor dimensions was associated with worse BCFI (p = 0.0003), while larger single dimension was associated with worse BCFI (p = 0.02) for MA.12. Presence of MC/MF and other tumor size measurements were not associated (p > 0.05) with BFCI. While physicians could consider the largest diameter of the largest focus of disease or the sum of the largest diameters of all foci in their T-stage determination, it appears that the current method of T-staging offers equivalent determinations of prognosis.

A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over trial of the impact on quality of life of continuing dexamethasone beyond 24 h following adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Uncertainty remains about the optimal anti-emetic regimen for control of delayed nausea and vomiting after adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Many patients receive dexamethasone but complain of insomnia, anxiety/agitation, and indigestion. The aim was to determine if patients receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer prefer treatment with dexamethasone or placebo for prophylaxis against delayed nausea and vomiting, and to compare quality of life (QOL) between the two treatments. In this randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial, we compared oral dexamethasone (4 mg twice daily for 2 days) versus placebo for chemotherapy-naïve patients with breast cancer. All patients received intravenous granisetron and dexamethasone pre-chemotherapy and oral granisetron on day 2. Primary endpoints were: (i) patient preference; (ii) difference between cycles in change of QOL from days 1 to 8. Median age of the 94 women was 51 years (range 27-76): 79 received fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide and 15 received doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide. Thirteen withdrew pre-cycle 2 with no differences between arms. Of 80 patients stating a preference, 31 preferred placebo (39 %, 95 % CI: 28-50 %) and 37 (46 %, 95 % CI: 35-58 %) preferred dexamethasone; 12 had no preference. There were no differences in intensity of vomiting, nausea, or time to onset of vomiting. There was greater decrease in global QOL (p = 0.06) when patients received dexamethasone. No other symptom/QOL domains differed significantly. In conclusion, no significant difference was found in patient preference, QOL, or symptoms regardless of whether dexamethasone or placebo was used after adjuvant chemotherapy.