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 randomised trial comparing 6-monthly adjuvant zoledronate with a single one-time dose in patients with early breast cancer.

PURPOSE: While adjuvant bisphosphonate use in early breast cancer (EBC) is associated with improvements in breast cancer-specific outcomes, questions remain around optimal bisphosphonate type, dose and scheduling. We evaluated a single zoledronate infusion in a prospective randomised trial. METHODS: Postmenopausal patients with EBC were randomised to receive a single infusion of zoledronate (4 mg IV) or 6-monthly treatment for 3 years. Outcomes measured were; Quality of Life (QoL; EQ-5D-5L), bisphosphonate-related toxicities, including acute phase reactions (APRs), recurrence-free survival (RFS), bone metastasis-free survival (BMFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 211 patients were randomized to either a single infusion (n = 107) or six-monthly treatment (n = 104). After 3 years of follow up there were no significant differences between the arms for QoL and most toxicity endpoints. APRs following zoledronate occurred in 81% (171/211) of patients (77.6% in single infusion arm and 84.6% in the 6-monthly group). While the frequency of APRs decreased over 3 years in the 6-monthly arm, they still remain common. Of 34/104 (32.7%) patients who discontinued zoledronate early in the 6-monthly treatment group, the most common reason was APRs (16/34, 47%). At the 3 year follow up, there were no differences between arms for RFS, BMFS or OS. CONCLUSION: A single infusion of zoledronate was associated with increased patient convenience, less toxicity, and lower rates of treatment discontinuation. Despite the common clinical impression that APRs decrease with time, this was not observed when patients were specifically questioned. While the study is not powered for non-inferiority, longer-term follow-up for confirmation of RFS and OS rates is ongoing.

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.

Third-line treatment patterns in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: a retrospective analysis of real-world data in Canada.

There is an increasing demand for real-world data pertaining to the usage of cancer treatments, especially in settings where no standard treatment is specifically recommended. This study presents the first real-world analysis of third-line treatment patterns in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients in Canada. The purpose was to assess evolution of clinical practice and identify unmet needs in post-second-line therapy. Retrospective data from medical records of 66 patients who received third-line treatment before 31st October 2018, and data from 56 patients who received third-line treatment after this date, extracted from the Personalize My Treatment (PMT) cancer patient registry, were analyzed. In the first cohort, the study revealed heterogeneity in the third-line setting, with trastuzumab, lapatinib, and T-DM1 being the main treatment options. Even though data were collected before the wide availability of tucatinib, neratinib and trastuzumab deruxtecan in Canada, the PMT cohort revealed the emergence of new therapeutic combinations and a shift from lapatinib usage to T-DM1 choice was observed. These findings underscore the evolving nature of third-line treatment strategies in Canada, a facet that is intrinsically tied to the availability of new drugs. The absence of a consensus on post-second-line treatment highlights the pressing need for more efficient therapeutic alternatives beyond the currently available options. This study not only offers valuable insights into the present landscape of third-line treatment in Canada but validates the significance and effectiveness of the PMT registry as a tool for generating pan-Canadian real-world evidence in oncology and its capacity to provide information on evolution of therapeutic practices.

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.

Development of a comprehensive approach to adult hereditary cancer testing in Ontario.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing for hereditary cancer susceptibility has advanced over time due to the discovery of new risk genes, improved technology and decreased cost. In the province of Ontario, testing eligibility criteria were initially developed to include hereditary breast, ovarian and colorectal cancer syndromes. The rapid evolution of genetic technologies has facilitated the ability to interrogate a large number of genes concurrently. This, coupled with new knowledge about risk genes, necessitated a coordinated approach to expanding the scope of genes and indications tested and synchronisation of access and test utilisation across the province as required in a publicly funded universal healthcare system. METHODS: Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario convened expert working groups to develop a standardised and comprehensive cancer gene list for adults and accompanying hereditary cancer testing (HCT) criteria using an evidence-based framework and broad laboratory and clinical genetics engagement. RESULTS: A standardised 76-cancer-gene panel, organised into 13 larger disease site panels and 25 single/small gene panels, was developed and endorsed by the working groups. Provincial genetic testing eligibility criteria were updated to align with the new panels and to guide clinical decision-making. In the first year following the implementation of these changes, 10 564 HCT panels were performed with an overall mutation detection rate of 12.2%. CONCLUSION: Using an evidence framework and broad clinical engagement to develop and endorse an updated guidance document, cancer genetic testing for adults in Ontario is now standardised and coordinated across the province.

Hemorrhage Risk Among Patients With Breast Cancer Receiving Concurrent Direct Oral Anticoagulants With Tamoxifen vs Aromatase Inhibitors.

Importance: Tamoxifen is commonly used as adjuvant therapy in breast cancer and is proposed to interfere with cytochrome P450 enzyme and P-glycoprotein pathways. Concurrent use with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) poses the threat of a potentially dangerous drug-drug interaction by leading to an increase in hemorrhage risk. Objective: To assess the risk of hemorrhage in patients with breast cancer coprescribed a DOAC and tamoxifen compared with a DOAC and an aromatase inhibitor (AI). Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, retrospective cohort study was conducted among adults aged 66 years or older who were prescribed tamoxifen (compared with an AI) concurrently with a DOAC in Ontario, Canada, between June 23, 2009, and November 30, 2020, and followed up until December 31, 2020. Interventions: Concurrent prescription of a DOAC and tamoxifen compared with a DOAC and an AI. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was major hemorrhage requiring an emergency department visit or hospitalization after prescription. Overlap weighted Cox proportional hazards models, accounting for multiple covariates, were used to assess the association between hemorrhage and tamoxifen or AI use with a DOAC. Results: Among a total of 4753 patients (4679 [98.4%] women; mean [SD] age, 77.4 [7.4] years), 1179 (24.8%) were prescribed tamoxifen, and 3574 (75.2%) were prescribed an AI. Rivaroxaban (2530 [53.2%]) and apixaban (1665 [35.0%]) were the most frequently used DOACs. Patients taking AIs were younger than patients taking tamoxifen (mean [SD] age, 77.1 [7.3] vs 78.3 [7.6] years), with higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (mean [SD], 1.8 [2.4] vs 1.5 [2.2]) and more advanced cancer stage (stages III and IV, 569 [15.9%] vs 127 [10.8%]). During a median follow-up of 166 days (IQR, 111-527 days), tamoxifen was not associated with a higher risk of major hemorrhage (29 of 1179 [2.5%]) compared with an AI (119 of 3574 [3.3%]) when combined with a DOAC (absolute risk difference, -0.8%; weighted hazard ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.44-1.06]). These results were similar in additional analyses using a more liberal definition of hemorrhage, accounting for kidney function, limiting follow-up to 90 days, stratifying by incident and prevalent DOAC users, and accounting for cancer duration and the competing risk of death. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, findings suggest that among DOAC users, the concurrent use of tamoxifen was not associated with a higher risk of hemorrhage compared with the concurrent use of an AI. These findings should directly inform prescribers regarding the apparent safety of concurrent DOAC and tamoxifen use.

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.

Oral magnesium supplements for cancer treatment-induced hypomagnesemia: Results from a pilot randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Optimal management of cancer treatment-induced hypomagnesemia (hMg) is not known. We assessed the feasibility of using a novel pragmatic clinical trials model to compare two commonly used oral Mg replacement strategies. METHODS: Patients with grade 1 to 3 hMg while receiving either platinum-based chemotherapy or epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRI) were randomized to oral magnesium oxide (MgOx) or oral magnesium citrate (MgCit). The trial methodology utilized the integrated consent model. Feasibility would be successful if; accrual rate was ≥5 patients a month and if measures of patient and physician engagement, were > 50%. Secondary endpoints included; comparison of Mg levels, cardiac arrhythmias, and rates of treatment delay/hospitalizations. RESULTS: From July 2016 to December 2017, an average of 1 patient a month was accrued. All 15 eligible and approached patients consented to participate in the study (100% engagement) and 7/15 were randomized to MgOx and 8/15 to MgCit. The percentage of physicians who approached patients for the study was 4 of 6 (66.6% engagement). The mean slope of change in Mg (mmol/L/day) was 0.0022 (95% CI: -0.0001 to 0.0044) for MgOx and 0.0006 (95% CI, -0.0012 to 0.0024) for MgCit (P = .2123). Three patients (20%) required IV magnesium while on the study (2 MgCit and 1 MgOx). Grade 1 diarrhea occurred in 3 patients in the MgCit arm. CONCLUSION: Despite oral magnesium tolerability and meeting most of its feasibility endpoints, this study did not meet its target accrual rate. Alternative designs would be necessary for a definitive efficacy study.

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.

The Impact of Foundation Medicine Testing on Cancer Patients: A Single Academic Centre Experience.

BACKGROUND: The use of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) has recently allowed significant improvements in cancer treatment. Foundation Medicine® (FM) provides a genomic profiling test based on NGS for a variety of cancers. However, it is unclear if the Foundation Medicine test would result in a better outcome than the standard on-site molecular testing. In this retrospective chart review, we identified the FM cases from an academic Canadian hospital and determined whether these test results improved treatment options for those patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients with solid tumors who had FM testing between May 1, 2014 and May 1, 2018. Clinical factors and outcomes were measured using descriptive statistics using Microsoft Excel® Software. RESULTS: Out of 66 FM tests, eight patients (= 12%) had a direct change in therapy based on the FM tests. Identified were 285 oncogenic mutations (median 1, range 0-31); where TP53 (n = 31, 10.9%), CDKN2A (n = 19, 6.7%), KRAS (n = 16, 5.6%) and APC (n = 9, 3.2%) were the most common FM mutations identified. CONCLUSION: A small proportion of FM reports identified actionable mutations and led to direct treatment change. FM testing is expensive and a few of the identified mutations are now part of routine on-site testing. NGS testing is likely to become more widespread, but this research suggests that its true clinical impact may be restricted to a minority of patients.

Perceptions around bone-modifying agent use in patients with bone metastases from breast and castration resistant prostate cancer: a patient survey.

BACKGROUND: Optimal use of bone-modifying agent (BMA) therapy in patients with bone metastases from breast and castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is evolving. METHODS: Patients receiving BMA for bone metastases from breast or CRPC were surveyed. Information was collected on patient and disease characteristics, BMA treatments and perceptions regarding BMA benefits and side effects. Interest in participation in trials of de-escalated BMA therapy was also gauged. RESULTS: Of 220 patients contacted, 172 eligible patients responded (response rate 78%). Median age was 67 (range: 21-91); 137 (80%) had breast cancer and 35 (20%) CRPC. Symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) occurred prior to starting BMAs in 61% (84/137) of breast and 48% (17/35) of CRPC patients. Among breast cancer patients, 47, 33 and 13% received zoledronate, pamidronate and denosumab, respectively. Eighty-five percent (30/35) of CRPC patients received denosumab. De-escalation of therapy was more common among breast cancer patients. Although most patients correctly reported the goals of BMA therapy were to "help stop fractures" (62%) and "[improve] quality of life" (63%), 46.5% felt it prolonged survival and 54% felt it reduced bone progression. Most respondents (102/129, 79%) were comfortable with de-escalating to 6-monthly treatment after 2 years of BMA therapy. Patients considered the most important endpoints of de-escalation studies to be "stability of bone metastases" (45%), "quality of life" (22%) and "SSE rates" (14%). CONCLUSION: Twelve weekly BMA was more common in breast than in prostate cancer. There remain misconceptions about the benefits of BMAs, highlighting potential gaps in patient education. Patients were interested in further BMA de-escalation after 2 years of prior BMA and provided study endpoints that were most important to them.

A multi-centre study comparing granulocyte-colony stimulating factors to antibiotics for primary prophylaxis of docetaxel-cyclophosphamide induced febrile neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: Primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin or granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) is recommended with docetaxel-cyclophosphamide (TC) chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer (EBC). A pragmatic randomised trial compared the superiority of G-CSF to ciprofloxacin and a cost-utility analysis were conducted. METHODS: EBC patients receiving TC chemotherapy were randomised to ciprofloxacin or G-CSF. The primary outcome was a composite of FN and non-FN treatment-related hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes included; rates of FN, non-FN treatment-related hospitalisation, chemotherapy dose reductions/delays/discontinuations. Primary analysis was performed with the intention to treat population. Cost-utility analyses were conducted from the Canadian public payer perspective. RESULTS: 458 eligible patients were randomised: 228 to ciprofloxacin and 230 to G-CSF. For the primary endpoint there was non-statistically significant difference (Risk difference = -6.7%, 95%CI = -13.5%-0.1%, p = 0.061) between ciprofloxacin patients (46,20.2%) and G-CSF (31,13.5%). Patients receiving ciprofloxacin were more likely to experience FN (36/228, 15.8% vs 13/230, 5.7%) than patients receiving G-CSF (p < 0.001). Non-FN treatment-related hospitalisation occurred in 40/228 (17.5%) of ciprofloxacin patients vs 28/230 (12.2%) of G-CSF patients (p = 0.12). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes. G-CSF was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of C$1,760,796 per one quality-adjusted life year gained. CONCLUSION: The primary endpoint of superiority of G-CSF over ciprofloxacin was not demonstrated. While there were reduced FN rates with G-CSF, there were no differences in chemotherapy dose delays/reductions or discontinuations. With the commonly used willingness to pay value of C$50,000/QALY, G-CSF use was not cost-effective compared to ciprofloxacin and deserves scrutiny from the payer perspective.

Adjuvant bisphosphonate use in patients with early stage breast cancer: a physician survey.

PURPOSE: Despite the increasing use of adjuvant bone-modifying agents (BMAs) such as zoledronate and clodronate in the treatment of patients with early stage breast cancer (EBC), little is known about real world practice patterns. A physician survey was performed to address this deficit and determine interest in clinical trials of alternative strategies for BMA administration. METHODS: Canadian oncologists treating patients with EBC were surveyed via an anonymized online survey. The survey collected information on: physician demographics, knowledge and interpretation of adjuvant bisphosphonate guidelines, and real world prescribing practices. Questions also determined thoughts around the design of future adjuvant BMA trials. RESULTS: Of 127 surveyed physicians, 53 eligible invitees responded (response rate 42%). The majority of physicians are offering high-risk postmenopausal patients adjuvant BMAs. The most common BMA regimen was adjuvant zoledronate (45/53, 85%) every 6 months for 3 years. Concerns around toxicities and repeated visits to the cancer centre were perceived as the greatest barriers to adjuvant bisphosphonate use. Respondents were interested in future trials of de-escalation of BMAs comparing a single infusion of zoledronate vs. 6-monthly zoledronate for 3 years. The most favoured primary endpoints for such a trial included disease recurrence and fragility fracture rates. CONCLUSION: Questions around optimal use of adjuvant bisphosphonates in patients with EBC still exist. There is interest among physicians in performing trials of de-escalation of these agents. The results of this survey will assist in designing pragmatic clinical trials to address this question.

A prospective multi-centre, randomized study comparing the addition of tapering dexamethasone to other standard of care therapies for taxane-associated pain syndrome (TAPS) in breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Taxane-associated pain syndrome (TAPS) is common with docetaxel and is characterised by myalgias and arthralgias starting 2-3 days after treatment and can last for up to 7 days. Anecdotal evidence suggests that corticosteroids can reduce TAPS. This multicentre, randomized trial evaluated the effect of additional tapering dexamethasone on TAPS. METHODS: 130 breast cancer patients commencing docetaxel were randomized to dexamethasone premedication (8 mg/twice daily for 3 days) or dexamethasone premedication followed by tapering dexamethasone (4 mg/daily for 2 days followed by 2 mg/daily for 2 days). The primary endpoint was absolute change in FACT-Taxane questionnaire during the first chemotherapy cycle. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients with clinically significant TAPS, QoL, pain and toxicity. RESULTS: 110/130 patients had complete data included in the primary analysis. The fall in FACT-Taxane scores was lower in the experimental group on day 5 (p = 0.05), but not on day 7 (p = 0.21). There was no difference in FACT-Taxane scores over the entire study duration (p = 0.59). Fewer patients in the experimental arm reported TAPS on day 5 (30 vs. 47%). There was a borderline significant attenuation of impairment of QoL with experimental treatment on day 5 (p = 0.06), but not day 7 (p = 0.53). Tapered schedule was associated with more dyspepsia and insomnia. CONCLUSION: A tapering schedule of dexamethasone was associated with a brief reduction in docetaxel-associated symptoms which was observed only during dexamethasone exposure and did not persist after discontinuation of the drug. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03348696.

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.

Feasibility outcomes of a randomised, multicentre, pilot trial comparing standard 6-monthly dosing of adjuvant zoledronate with a single one-time dose in patients with early stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant zoledronate is widely used in patients with early stage breast cancer (EBC), but its optimal duration and dosing interval is still unknown. While a single-dose of zoledronate can improve bone density for many years, a proper evaluation of its effects on breast cancer-related outcomes would require a large trial. In this pilot study we evaluated the feasibility of performing such a trial. METHODS: Eligible patients with EBC were randomised to receive either one dose of zoledronate or 7 doses (6-monthly dosing for 3 years). Feasibility was assessed by a combination of primary outcomes including: activation of at least 6 Ontario sites within a year, active participation (i.e. approaching eligible patients for study participation) of at least half of the medical oncologists, and enrolment of at least 100 patients across all sites within 9 months of the sixth site being activated. RESULTS: All 6 sites were activated within 1 year and of 47 medical oncologists, 27 (57%) approached patients. Between November 2018 and April 2020, 211 eligible patients were randomised, 106 (50.2%) to a single dose of zoledronate and 105 (49.8%) to 6-monthly dosing. Baseline characteristics of randomised patients included; median age 59 (range 36-88), ER and/or PR positive (85%), Her2 positive (23%), menopausal status (premenopausal [19%], perimenopausal [6.7%] and postmenopausal [74%]) and 74% received neo/adjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: All study feasibility endpoints were met in this trial comparing alternative schedules for adjuvant zoledronate. We will now seek funding for performing a larger efficacy trial.Trial registration: NCT03664687.

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.

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.