COVID-19-Related Outcomes Among Group Home Residents with Serious Mental Illness in Massachusetts in the First Year of the Pandemic.

This study examined COVID-19 infection and hospitalizations among people with serious mental illness who resided in residential care group homes in Massachusetts during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors analyzed data on 2261 group home residents and COVID-19 data from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Outcomes included positive COVID-19 tests and COVID-19 hospitalizations March 1, 2020-June 30, 2020 (wave 1) and July 1, 2020-March 31, 2021 (wave 2). Associations between hazard of outcomes and resident and group home characteristics were estimated using multi-level Cox frailty models including home- and city-level frailties. Between March 2020 and March 2021, 182 (8%) residents tested positive for COVID-19, and 51 (2%) had a COVID-19 hospitalization. Compared with the Massachusetts population, group home residents had age-adjusted rate ratios of 3.0 (4.86 vs. 1.60 per 100) for COVID infection and 13.5 (1.99 vs. 0.15 per 100) for COVID hospitalizations during wave 1; during wave 2, the rate ratios were 0.5 (4.55 vs. 8.48 per 100) and 1.7 (0.69 vs. 0.40 per 100). In Cox models, residents in homes with more beds, higher staff-to-resident ratios, recent infections among staff and other residents, and in cities with high community transmission risk had greater hazard of COVID-19 infection. Policies and interventions that target group home-specific risks are needed to mitigate adverse communicable disease outcomes in this population.Clinical Trial Registration Number This study provides baseline (i.e., pre-randomization) data from a clinical trial study NCT04726371.

Neratinib + capecitabine sustains health-related quality of life in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and ≥ 2 prior HER2-directed regimens.

PURPOSE: To characterize health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) from the NALA phase 3 study. METHODS: In NALA (NCT01808573), patients were randomized 1:1 to neratinib + capecitabine (N + C) or lapatinib + capecitabine (L + C). HRQoL was assessed using seven prespecified scores from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality Of Life Questionnaire core module (QLQ-C30) and breast cancer-specific questionnaire (QLQ-BR23) at baseline and every 6 weeks. Descriptive statistics summarized scores over time, mixed models evaluated differences between treatment arms, and Kaplan-Meier methods were used to assess time to deterioration in HRQoL scores of ≥ 10 points. RESULTS: Of the 621 patients randomized in NALA, patients were included in the HRQoL analysis if they completed baseline and at least one follow-up questionnaire. The summary, global health status, physical functioning, fatigue, constipation, and systemic therapy side effects scores were stable over time with no persistent differences between treatment groups. There were no differences in time to deterioration (TTD) for the QLQ-C30 summary score between treatment arms; the hazard ratio (HR) for N + C vs. L + C was 0.94 (95% CI 0.63-1.40). Only the diarrhea score worsened significantly more in the N + C arm as compared to the L + C arm, and this remained over time (HR for TTD for N + C vs. L + C was 1.71 [95% CI 1.32-2.23]). CONCLUSION: In NALA, patients treated with N + C maintained their global HRQoL over time, despite a worsening of the diarrhea-related scores. These results may help guide optimal treatment selection for HER2-positive MBC.

Survivorship, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for common physical and psychosocial consequences of cancer and cancer treatment to help healthcare professionals who work with survivors of adult-onset cancer in the posttreatment period. This portion of the guidelines describes recommendations regarding the management of anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity and lymphedema. In addition, recommendations regarding immunizations and the prevention of infections in cancer survivors are included.

Survivorship, Version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Many cancer survivors experience menopausal symptoms, including female survivors taking aromatase inhibitors or with a history of oophorectomy or chemotherapy, and male survivors who received or are receiving androgen-ablative therapies. Sexual dysfunction is also common in cancer survivors. Sexual dysfunction and menopause-related symptoms can increase distress and have a significant negative impact on quality of life. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship provide recommendations for screening, evaluation, and treatment of sexual dysfunction and menopausal symptoms to help healthcare professionals who work with survivors of adult-onset cancer in the posttreatment period.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Survivorship, Version 1.2016.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for common consequences of cancer and cancer treatment. They are intended to aid health care professionals who work with survivors of adult-onset cancer in the posttreatment period, including those in general oncology, specialty cancer survivor clinics, and primary care practices. Guidance is also provided to help promote physical activity, weight management, and proper immunizations in survivors. This article summarizes the NCCN Survivorship panel's discussions for the 2016 update of the guidelines regarding the management of anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder-related symptoms, and emotional distress in survivors.

Hypomethylation of the MMP7 promoter and increased expression of MMP7 distinguishes the basal-like breast cancer subtype from other triple-negative tumors.

Identification of novel targets for the treatment of basal-like breast cancer is essential for improved outcomes in patients with this disease. This study investigates the association of MMP7 expression and MMP7 promoter methylation with subtype and outcome in breast cancer patient cohorts. Immunohistochemical analysis was performed on a breast cancer tissue microarray and validated in independent histological samples. MMP7 expression significantly correlated with patient age, tumor size, triple-negative (TN) status, and recurrence. Analysis of publically available datasets confirmed MMP7 gene expression as a prognostic marker of breast cancer metastasis, particularly metastasis to the brain and lungs. Methylation of the MMP7 promoter was assessed by methylation-specific PCR in a panel of breast cancer cell lines and patient tumor samples. Hypomethylation of the MMP7 promoter significantly correlated with TN status in DNA from patient tumor samples, and this association was confirmed using The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset. Evaluation of a panel of breast cancer cell lines and data from the Curtis and TCGA breast carcinoma datasets revealed that elevated MMP7 expression and MMP7 promoter hypomethylation are specific biomarkers of the basal-like molecular subtype which shares considerable, but not complete, overlap with the clinical TN subtype. Importantly, MMP7 expression was identified as an independent predictor of pathological complete response in a large breast cancer patient cohort. Combined, these data suggest that MMP7 expression and MMP7 promoter methylation may be useful as prognostic biomarkers. Furthermore, MMP7 expression and promoter methylation analysis may be effective mechanisms to distinguish basal-like breast cancers from other triple-negative subtypes. Finally, these data implicate MMP7 as a potential therapeutic target for the treatment of basal-like breast cancers.

Predictors of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization in group homes for individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities.

BACKGROUND: More than seven million people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (ID/DD) live in the US and may face an elevated risk for COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To identify correlates of COVID-19 and related hospitalizations among people with ID/DD in group homes in Massachusetts. METHODS: We collected data during March 1, 2020-June 30, 2020 (wave 1) and July 1, 2020-March 31, 2021 (wave 2) from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and six organizations administering 206 group homes for 1035 residents with ID/DD. The main outcomes were COVID-19 infections and related hospitalizations. We fit multilevel Cox proportional hazards models to estimate associations with observed predictors and assess contextual home- and organizational-level effects. RESULTS: Compared with Massachusetts residents, group home residents had a higher age-adjusted rate of COVID-19 in wave 1 (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 12.06; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 10.51-13.84) and wave 2 (IRR, 2.47; 95 % CI, 2.12-2.88) and a higher age-adjusted rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations in wave 1 (IRR, 17.64; 95 % CI, 12.59-24.70) and wave 2 (IRR, 4.95; 95 % CI, 3.23-7.60). COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations were more likely among residents aged 65+ and in group homes with 6+ resident beds and recent infection among staff and residents. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive efforts to decrease resident density, staff-to-resident ratios, and staff infections through efforts such as vaccination, in addition to ongoing access to personal protective equipment and COVID-19 testing, may reduce COVID-19 and related hospitalizations in people with ID/DD living in group homes.

Group Home Staff Experiences With Work and Health in the COVID-19 Pandemic in Massachusetts.

Importance: Direct reports of the experiences of staff working in group homes for people with serious mental illness (SMI) and/or intellectual or developmental disabilities (ID/DD) are rarely reported. Hearing from workers about their experiences in the COVID-19 pandemic may inform future workforce and public policy. Objective: To gather baseline data on worker experience with the perceived effects of COVID-19 on health and work in the pandemic prior to initiating an intervention to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and to measure differences in worker experience by gender, race, ethnicity, education, and resident population served (persons with SMI and/or IDD/DD). Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-mode, cross-sectional survey study was conducted using online then paper-based self-administration from May to September 2021 at the end of the first year of the pandemic. Staff working in 415 group homes that provided care within 6 Massachusetts organizations serving adults aged 18 years or older with SMI and/or ID/DD were surveyed. The eligible survey population included a census of staff who were currently employed in participating group homes during the study period. A total of 1468 staff completed or partially completed surveys. The overall survey response rate was 44% (range by organization, 20% to 52%). Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported experiential outcomes were measured in work, health, and vaccine completion. Bivariate and multivariate analyses explore experiences by gender, race, ethnicity, education, trust in experts and employers, and population served. Results: The study population included 1468 group home staff (864 [58.9%] women; 818 [55.7%] non-Hispanic Black; 98 [6.7%] Hispanic or Latino). A total of 331 (22.5%) group home staff members reported very serious perceived effects on health; 438 (29.8%) reported very serious perceived effects on mental health; 471 (32.1%) reported very serious perceived effects on health of family and friends; and 414 reported very serious perceived effects (28.2%) on access to health services, with statistically significant differences observed by race and ethnicity. Vaccine acceptance was higher among persons with higher educational attainment and trust in scientific expertise and lower among persons who self-reported as Black or Hispanic/Latino. A total of 392 (26.7%) respondents reported needing support for health needs, and 290 (19.8%) respondents reported needing support for loneliness or isolation. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, approximately one-third of group home workers reported serious personal health and access to health care barriers during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts. Addressing unmet health needs and access to health and mental health services, including inequities and disparities by race, ethnicity, and education, should benefit staff health and safety, as well as that of the individuals with disabilities who rely on them for support and care.

Best practices to reduce COVID-19 in group homes for individuals with serious mental illness and intellectual and developmental disabilities: Protocol for a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental illness (SMI) and intellectual disabilities and/or developmental disabilities (ID/DD) living in group homes (GHs) and residential staff are at higher risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death compared with the general population. METHODS: We describe a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized trial to assess evidence-based infection prevention practices to prevent COVID-19 for residents with SMI or ID/DD and the staff in GHs. The trial will use a cluster randomized design in 400 state-funded GHs in Massachusetts for adults with SMI or ID/DD to compare effectiveness and implementation of "Tailored Best Practices" (TBP) consisting of evidence-based COVID-19 infection prevention practices adapted for residents with SMI and ID/DD and GH staff; to "General Best Practices" (GBP), consisting of required standard of care reflecting state and federal standard general guidelines for COVID-19 prevention in GHs. External (i.e., community-based research staff) and internal (i.e., GH staff leadership) personnel will facilitate implementation of TBP. The primary effectiveness outcome is incident SARS-CoV-2 infection and secondary effectiveness outcomes include COVID-19-related hospitalizations and mortality in GHs. The primary implementation outcomes are fidelity to TBP and rates of COVID-19 vaccination. Secondary implementation outcomes are adoption, adaptation, reach, and maintenance. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, and 15-months post-randomization. CONCLUSIONS: This study will advance knowledge on comparative effectiveness and implementation of two different strategies to prevent COVID-19-related infection, morbidity, and mortality and promote fidelity and adoption of these interventions in high-risk GHs for residents with SMI or ID/DD and staff. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04726371.

A phase II study of 17-allylamino-17-demethoxygeldanamycin in metastatic or locally advanced, unresectable breast cancer.

Heat shock protein 90 (Hsp90) is an attractive target for breast cancer treatment, as it is required for the proper folding and stabilization of several proteins known to be involved in breast cancer growth and development. These proteins include the epidermal growth factor receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and src. 17-Allylamino-17-demethoxygeldanamycin (17-AAG) is an intravenous Hsp90 inhibitor in development for breast cancer treatment. We conducted a phase II study of 17-AAG 220 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 every 21 days in patients with metastatic and locally advanced breast cancer. Since we expected the molecular effects of Hsp90 inhibition to extend beyond just ER, PR, and HER2 down regulation and to impact a variety of other cellular proteins, patients were not selected based on ER, PR, or HER2 status. Eleven patients, including 6 patients with triple negative breast cancer, were enrolled and treated. There were no responses and 3 patients had stable disease as their best response. Five patients developed grade 3/4 toxicities, which were primarily hepatic and pulmonary. Based on these results, we do not recommend further study of 17-AAG at this dosing schedule or in unselected breast cancer patients.

Neglecting to screen women between the ages of 40 and 49 years with mammography: what is the impact on breast cancer diagnosis?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare breast cancer stage at diagnosis in two groups of women between 40 and 49 years old: women undergoing screening mammography and women with a symptom needing diagnostic workup. This comparison is indicative of the impact of forgoing screening in this age group, as recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was used to collect the results of imaging-guided core needle biopsies performed in women between the ages of 40 and 49 years from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2009. In patients diagnosed with breast cancer or a high-risk lesion, the reason for presentation, pathology, tumor size, stage, and receptor characteristics were recorded. The chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Of 108 primary breast cancers, 71 were detected in the screened group and 37 in the unscreened group. The screened group was significantly more likely to be diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ than the unscreened group (22 vs 1, chi-square = 11.6, p = 0.001). Furthermore, screened patients with invasive carcinoma were significantly more likely to be diagnosed at earlier stages (chi-square = 5.02, p = 0.025). The size of invasive breast cancer in the screened group was significantly smaller as well (chi-square = 9.3, p = 0.002). Of the high-risk lesions, atypical ductal hyperplasia (n = 29) and lobular carcinoma in situ (n = 8) were most frequently seen. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer patients undergoing screening mammography were diagnosed at earlier stages with smaller tumors. Screening also allows detection of high-risk lesions, which may prompt chemoprevention and lower subsequent breast cancer risk. We continue to support screening mammography in women between the ages of 40 and 49 years.

Early Local Therapy for the Primary Site in De Novo Stage IV Breast Cancer: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial (EA2108).

PURPOSE: Distant metastases are present in 6% or more of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. In this context, locoregional therapy for the intact primary tumor has been hypothesized to improve overall survival (OS), but clinical trials have reported conflicting results. METHODS: Women presenting with metastatic breast cancer and an intact primary tumor received systemic therapy for 4-8 months; if no disease progression occurred, they were randomly assigned to locoregional therapy for the primary site (surgery and radiotherapy per standards for nonmetastatic disease) or continuing sysmetic therapy. The primary end point was OS; locoregional control and quality of life were secondary end points. The trial design provided 85% power to detect a 19.3% absolute difference in the 3-year OS rate in randomly assigned patients. The stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model were used to compare OS between arms. Cumulative incidence of locoregional progression was compared using Gray's test. Quality-of-life assessment used standard instruments. RESULTS: Of 390 participants enrolled, 256 were randomly assigned: 131 to continued systemic therapy and 125 to early locoregional therapy. The 3-year OS was 67.9% without and 68.4% with early locoregional therapy (hazard ratio = 1.11; 90% CI, 0.82 to 1.52; P = .57). The median OS was 53.1 months (95% CI, 47.9 to not estimable) in the systemic therapy arm and 54.9 months (95% CI, 46.7 to not estimable) in the locoregional therapy arm. Locoregional progression was less frequent in those randomly assigned to locoregional therapy (3-year rate: 16.3% v 39.8%; P < .001). Quality-of-life measures were largely similar between arms. CONCLUSION: Early locoregional therapy for the primary site did not improve survival in patients presenting with metastatic breast cancer. Although it was associated with improved locoregional control, this had no overall impact on quality of life.

Biosimilar strategic implementation at a large health system.

PURPOSE: This article highlights one health system's response to the market influx of biosimilars with the establishment of a process for formulary review and selection of preferred agents and support for therapeutic interchanges. SUMMARY: Through assessment of available literature, insurance payor coverage, and manufacturer-anticipated approvals of biosimilars, a strategic stance was developed to guide biosimilar order preparation, review, adoption, and implementation. The electronic medical record (EMR) is prepared for biosimilar implementation at least 6 to 12 months ahead of anticipated formulary review. The review includes assessment of a class (reference product and available biosimilars) after at least 2 biosimilars become available. Key health-system departments and clinicians are enlisted to support review of clinical, safety, and economic implications. Implementation of a preferred product relies on standard education, formulary availability, and staff awareness to address any perceived patient safety concerns and gather provider support. The standard steps developed now apply to all future biosimilar reviews, adoption plans, and ongoing monitoring. Barriers evaluated include changes in payor coverage and challenges in preparation of the EMR for future biosimilars, meeting precertification team education needs, and providing operational support for pharmacy inventory. CONCLUSION: To date, use of 5 preferred biosimilar products has led to significant cost savings to the institution, and the process has been endorsed by providers. The institution's successes can be attributed to clear communication with stakeholders and the development of a deliberate process, led by a multidisciplinary leadership team, for managing formulary, safety, and operational barriers in a thoughtful and systematic manner.

Emerging radiation techniques for early-stage breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery.

Standard whole-breast irradiation consisting of a dose of 45-50 Gy over 5 weeks with or without the addition of a boost to the tumor bed has equivalent survival to mastectomy and is considered to be the standard of care for most patients with early-stage breast cancer. Newer techniques have been developed to shorten the course of radiation or limit normal tissue exposure in an attempt to increase accessibility to and tolerance of radiation therapy. This article will review some of the newer regimens and techniques for treating early-stage breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery.

Cisplatin +/- rucaparib after preoperative chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative or BRCA mutated breast cancer.

Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy have a high risk of recurrence. We tested the impact of DNA-damaging chemotherapy alone or with PARP inhibition in this high-risk population. Patients with TNBC or deleterious BRCA mutation (TNBC/BRCAmut) who had >2 cm of invasive disease in the breast or persistent lymph node (LN) involvement after neoadjuvant therapy were assigned 1:1 to cisplatin alone or with rucaparib. Germline mutations were identified with BROCA analysis. The primary endpoint was 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) with 80% power to detect an HR 0.5. From Feb 2010 to May 2013, 128 patients were enrolled. Median tumor size at surgery was 1.9 cm (0-11.5 cm) with 1 (0-38) involved LN; median Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) score was 2.6. Six patients had known deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations at study entry, but BROCA identified deleterious mutations in 22% of patients with available samples. Toxicity was similar in both arms. Despite frequent dose reductions (21% of patients) and delays (43.8% of patients), 73% of patients completed planned cisplatin. Rucaparib exposure was limited with median concentration 275 (82-4694) ng/mL post-infusion on day 3. The addition of rucaparib to cisplatin did not increase 2-year DFS (54.2% cisplatin vs. 64.1% cisplatin + rucaparib; P = 0.29). In the high-risk post preoperative TNBC/BRCAmut setting, the addition of low-dose rucaparib did not improve 2-year DFS or increase the toxicity of cisplatin. Genetic testing was underutilized in this high-risk population.

Sapanisertib Plus Exemestane or Fulvestrant in Women with Hormone Receptor-Positive/HER2-Negative Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: This open-label, multicenter, phase IB/II study evaluated sapanisertib, a dual inhibitor of mTOR kinase complexes 1/2, plus exemestane or fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced/metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had previously progressed on everolimus with exemestane/fulvestrant and received ≤3 (phase IB) or ≤1 (phase II) prior chemotherapy regimens. Patients received sapanisertib 3 to 5 mg every day (phase IB), or 4 mg every day (phase II) with exemestane 25 mg every day or fulvestrant 500 mg monthly in 28-day cycles. Phase II enrolled parallel cohorts based on prior response to everolimus. The primary objective of phase II was to evaluate antitumor activity by clinical benefit rate at 16 weeks (CBR-16). RESULTS: Overall, 118 patients enrolled in phase IB (n = 24) and II (n = 94). Five patients in phase IB experienced dose-limiting toxicities, at sapanisertib doses of 5 mg every day (n = 4) and 4 mg every day (n = 1); sapanisertib 4 mg every day was the MTD in combination with exemestane or fulvestrant. In phase II, in everolimus-sensitive versus everolimus-resistant cohorts, CBR-16 was 45% versus 23%, and overall response rate was 8% versus 2%, respectively. The most common adverse events were nausea (52%), fatigue (47%), diarrhea (37%), and hyperglycemia (33%); rash occurred in 17% of patients. Molecular analysis suggested positive association between AKT1 mutation status and best treatment response (complete + partial response; P = 0.0262). CONCLUSIONS: Sapanisertib plus exemestane or fulvestrant was well tolerated and exhibited clinical benefit in postmenopausal women with pretreated everolimus-sensitive or everolimus-resistant breast cancer.

A vasculature-targeting regimen of preoperative docetaxel with or without bevacizumab for locally advanced breast cancer: impact on angiogenic biomarkers.

PURPOSE: Taxanes have effects on angiogenesis causing difficulties in separating biological effects of chemotherapy from those due to angiogenesis inhibitors. This randomized phase II trial was designed to evaluate the additional biomarker effect on angiogenesis when bevacizumab is added to docetaxel. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with inoperable breast cancer were randomized to either 2 cycles of preoperative docetaxel (D) 35 mg/m(2) i.v. weekly for 6 weeks, followed by a 2-week break; or docetaxel with bevacizumab 10 mg/kg i.v. every other week for a total of 16 weeks (DB). Plasma and serum markers of endothelial damage, dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI), and tumor microvessel density were assessed before treatment and at the end of each preoperative cycle. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were randomized (DB, 24; D, 25). There was no difference in overall clinical response, progression-free survival, or overall survival. Vascular endothelial growth factor increased during treatment; more so with DB (P < 0.0001). Vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) also increased (P < 0.0001); more so with DB (P = 0.069). Intercellular adhesion molecule increased (P = 0.018) and E-selectin decreased (P = 0.006) overall. Baseline levels of VCAM-1 and E-selectin correlated with clinical response by univariate analysis. DCE-MRI showed a greater decrease in tumor perfusion calculated by initial area under the curve for the first 90 seconds in DB (P = 0.024). DCE-MRI also showed an overall decrease in tumor volume (P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Bevacizumab plus docetaxel caused a greater increase in vascular endothelial growth factor and VCAM-1, and a greater reduction in tumor perfusion by DCE-MRI compared with docetaxel. Clinical outcomes of inoperable breast cancer were predicted by changes in VCAM-1 and E-selectin.

Lower-dose vs high-dose oral estradiol therapy of hormone receptor-positive, aromatase inhibitor-resistant advanced breast cancer: a phase 2 randomized study.

CONTEXT: Estrogen deprivation therapy with aromatase inhibitors has been hypothesized to paradoxically sensitize hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer tumor cells to low-dose estradiol therapy. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether 6 mg of estradiol (daily) is a viable therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced aromatase inhibitor-resistant hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A phase 2 randomized trial of 6 mg vs 30 mg of oral estradiol used daily (April 2004-February 2008 [enrollment closed]). Eligible patients (66 randomized) had metastatic breast cancer treated with an aromatase inhibitor with progression-free survival (> or = 24 wk) or relapse (after > or = 2 y) of adjuvant aromatase inhibitor use. Patients at high risk of estradiol-related adverse events were excluded. Patients were examined after 1 and 2 weeks for clinical and laboratory toxicities and flare reactions and thereafter every 4 weeks. Tumor radiological assessment occurred every 12 weeks. At least 1 measurable lesion or 4 measurable lesions (bone-only disease) were evaluated for tumor response. INTERVENTION: Randomization to receive 1 oral 2-mg generic estradiol tablet 3 times daily or five 2-mg tablets 3 times daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end point: clinical benefit rate (response plus stable disease at 24 weeks). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: toxicity, progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, quality of life, and the predictive properties of the metabolic flare reaction detected by positron emission tomography/computed tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose F 18. RESULTS: The adverse event rate (> or = grade 3) in the 30-mg group (11/32 [34%]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 23%-47%) was higher than in the 6-mg group (4/34 [18%]; 95% CI, 5%-22%; P = .03). Clinical benefit rates were 9 of 32 (28%; 95% CI, 18%-41%) in the 30-mg group and 10 of 34 (29%; 95% CI, 19%-42%) in the 6-mg group. An estradiol-stimulated increase in fluorodeoxyglucose F 18 uptake (> or = 12% prospectively defined) was predictive of response (positive predictive value, 80%; 95% CI, 61%-92%). Seven patients with estradiol-sensitive disease were re-treated with aromatase inhibitors at estradiol progression, among which 2 had partial response and 1 had stable disease, suggesting resensitization to estrogen deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: In women with advanced breast cancer and acquired resistance to aromatase inhibitors, a daily dose of 6 mg of estradiol provided a similar clinical benefit rate as 30 mg, with fewer serious adverse events. The efficacy of treatment with the lower dose should be further examined in phase 3 clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00324259.

Feasibility of a team based prognosis and treatment goal discussion (T-PAT) with women diagnosed with advanced breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of a team-based prognosis and treatment goal discussion for women living with advanced breast cancer. METHODS: Female patients diagnosed with advanced breast cancer (n = 25) participated in a mixed methods study that evaluated the feasibility and effects of a planned and structured prognosis discussion. Audio analysis of the intervention appointments was conducted to assess intervention feasibility. Patient self-reports of prognosis related beliefs and treatment preferences were compared across intervention and usual care groups. RESULTS: Most patients found the T-PAT appointment challenging but worthwhile. Intervention uptake by clinicians was good, but some fidelity disruptions were noted. T-PAT participants were more likely to hold realistic beliefs about disease curability after the appointment. CONCLUSION: Productive prognosis discussions can be delivered effectively by a practice-based clinical team within a semi-structured patient education appointment. It was perceived by patients with advanced breast cancer as both valuable and acceptable. T-PAT clinicians found the intervention easy to deliver. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Regular implementation of T-PAT may help clinicians' build prognosis discussion communication skills. T-PAT documentation provides valuable information that can be used to tailor ongoing care.