Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 64
Filter
Add more filters

Country/Region as subject
Publication year range
1.
Support Care Cancer ; 31(10): 581, 2023 Sep 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37728795

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of all approved granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk regimens (in those with additional patient risk factors). Previous studies have examined G-CSF cost-effectiveness by cancer type in patients with a high baseline risk of FN. This study evaluated patients with breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving therapy who were at intermediate risk for FN and compared primary prophylaxis (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) using biosimilar filgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim in Austria, France, and Germany. METHODS: A Markov cycle tree-based model was constructed to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL receiving therapy over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that using biosimilar filgrastim as PP compared to SP resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below the most commonly accepted WTP threshold of €30,000. Across all three countries, PP in NSCLC had the lowest cost per QALY, and in France, PP was both cheaper and more effective than SP. Similar results were found using biosimilar pegfilgrastim, with ICERs generally higher than those for filgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis are cost-effective approaches to avoid FN events in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL at intermediate risk for FN in Austria, France, and Germany.


Subject(s)
Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals , Breast Neoplasms , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung , Febrile Neutropenia , Lung Neoplasms , Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin , Humans , Female , Filgrastim/therapeutic use , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/drug therapy , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/therapeutic use , Lung Neoplasms/drug therapy , Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor/therapeutic use , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Febrile Neutropenia/etiology , Febrile Neutropenia/prevention & control , Granulocytes
2.
Lancet Oncol ; 22(7): e327-e340, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34000244

ABSTRACT

Breast cancer is increasingly prevalent in older adults and is a substantial part of routine oncology practice. However, management of breast cancer in this population is challenging because the disease is highly heterogeneous and there is insufficient evidence specific to older adults. Decision making should not be driven by age alone but should involve geriatric assessments plus careful consideration of life expectancy, competing risks of mortality, and patient preferences. A multidisciplinary taskforce, including members of the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists and International Society of Geriatric Oncology, gathered to expand and update the previous 2012 evidence-based recommendations for the management of breast cancer in older individuals with the endorsement of the European Cancer Organisation. These guidelines were expanded to include chemotherapy toxicity prediction calculators, cultural and social considerations, surveillance imaging, genetic screening, gene expression profiles, neoadjuvant systemic treatment options, bone-modifying drugs, targeted therapies, and supportive care. Recommendations on geriatric assessment, ductal carcinoma in situ, screening, primary endocrine therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, adjuvant systemic therapy, and secondary breast cancer were updated.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Medical Oncology/standards , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/mortality , Clinical Decision-Making , Consensus , Decision Support Techniques , Female , Geriatric Assessment , Humans , Predictive Value of Tests , Prognosis , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors
5.
Support Care Cancer ; 25(1): 277-288, 2017 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27443154

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This review summarizes the recommendations for the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting in adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) which includes cisplatin, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, cyclophosphamide >1500 mg/m2, carmustine, dacarbazine, and the combination of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) administered to women with breast cancer, as agreed at the MASCC/ESMO Antiemetic Guidelines Update meeting in Copenhagen in June 2015. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using PubMed and the Cochrane Database from 2009 to June 2015 was performed. RESULTS: The NK1-receptor antagonists netupitant (300 mg given in combination with palonosetron 0.5 mg as NEPA) and rolapitant have both completed phase II and III programs and were approved by FDA (both) and EMA (NEPA) in 2014-2015. Addition of one of these agents (or of (fos)aprepitant) to a combination of a serotonin (5-HT)3-receptor antagonist and dexamethasone improved the number of patients with a complete response (no emesis and no rescue medication) days 1-5 after AC HEC with 8-9 % and after non-AC HEC by 8-20 %. Olanzapine has improved control of delayed nausea as compared to aprepitant in a randomized open designed study. In the prophylaxis of delayed nausea and vomiting, metoclopramide is an option instead of aprepitant in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy and dexamethasone is an option instead of aprepitant in patients receiving AC chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Two new NK1-receptor antagonists (netupitant and rolapitant) have been included in the updated recommendations as additional options to aprepitant or fosaprepitant. Addition of one of these NK1-receptor antagonists to a combination of a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is recommended in both non-AC HEC and AC HEC. Olanzapine is included as an option in HEC in particular if nausea is the main symptom.


Subject(s)
Antiemetics/therapeutic use , Antineoplastic Agents/adverse effects , Nausea/prevention & control , Vomiting/prevention & control , Consensus , Emetics/adverse effects , Humans , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk
6.
Clin Adv Hematol Oncol ; 13(10 Suppl 10): 1-14, 2015 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26859507

ABSTRACT

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is among the most feared and debilitating adverse events experienced by cancer patients. Left unaddressed, CINV symptoms not only decrease quality of life, but may also affect patients' willingness to continue chemotherapy treatment. Detailed guidelines are available that outline best practices for prophylaxis of acute and delayed CINV. However, adherence to guideline recommendations continues to be suboptimal, and many patients still suffer unnecessarily from CINV. In addition, breakthrough/refractory CINV continues to present particular challenges. The development of effective CINV treatments with diverse mechanisms of action has expanded the options available for preventing symptoms. The US Food and Drug Administration has recently approved several new therapies for the management of CINV. NEPA is a fixed-dose combination of netupitant(300 mg) plus palonosetron (0.5 mg). In combination with dexamethasone, NEPA has demonstrated superior efficacyto palonosetron alone in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Rolapitant is a next generation neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist. Both palonosetron and rolapitant have proven particularly effective in controlling delayed CINV. Regimens that combine a serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine­3 receptor antagonist, an NK1receptor antagonist, and a corticosteroid now represent the standard of care for managing both acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Clinical Trials as Topic , Isoquinolines/therapeutic use , Nausea/drug therapy , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Pyridines/therapeutic use , Quinuclidines/therapeutic use , Vomiting/drug therapy , Drug Combinations , Humans , Nausea/chemically induced , Quality of Life , Treatment Outcome , Vomiting/chemically induced
7.
Clin Adv Hematol Oncol ; 13(3 Suppl 3): 3-13, 1; quiz 2 p following 14, 2015 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25856052

ABSTRACT

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains one of the most challenging adverse events of chemotherapy, and one that has substantial negative effects on patients, clinicians, and the wider health care system. Use of CINV prophylaxis consistent with clinical practice guidelines is essential for attaining optimal CINV control. In recent years, there has been a dramatic improvement in the control of CINV with the introduction of effective antiemetic agents, including the serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine [5-HT3]) receptor antagonists (ondansetron, granisetron, and palonosetron) and the neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists (aprepitant and fosaprepitant). An important benefit of the newer antiemetic agents is their improved ability to control the delayed CINV that can develop in the days after chemotherapy administration. In October 2014, a fixed-dose oral combination containing the novel NK1 receptor antagonist netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration. The combination of 2 effective antiemetic agents in a single, oral capsule may help simplify CINV management. Ongoing studies are evaluating new CINV approaches (eg, the novel NK1 receptor antagonist rolapitant), as well as the optimal use of existing therapies. Patient education regarding the timing, prevention, and treatment of CINV is another key component of CINV management.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/adverse effects , Nausea/prevention & control , Vomiting/prevention & control , Antiemetics/therapeutic use , Drug Combinations , Humans , Isoquinolines/therapeutic use , Nausea/chemically induced , Pyridines/therapeutic use , Quinuclidines/therapeutic use , Vomiting/chemically induced
8.
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res ; 24(2): 237-250, 2024 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38175140

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Approved biosimilars exhibit comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to reference products. This report provides perspectives on the societal value of biosimilars within Europe and potential factors that have influenced market dynamics. METHODS: An independent, self-administered survey or one-on-one in-depth interview was used to collect viewpoints about the impact of biosimilar medicines within European markets. Key insights were also sought from an expert panel of European stakeholders. RESULTS: Survey respondents were clinicians, pharmacists, and payers from Europe (N = 103). Perceived benefits of biosimilars included increased access to innovative medicines (73% of respondents) or biologic treatments (66%). Biosimilar competition was thought to expand access to biologics (~50% of respondents) or drug combinations (~36%) and reduce biologic access time (34%). Key drivers of biologic access after biosimilar competition included increased biologic awareness (51%) and changes to prescribing guidelines (37%) and/or treatment paradigms (28%). The expert panel developed a market maturity framework of biosimilar adoption/opportunities comprising three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand,' and 'Harvest.' Findings were supported by published literature. CONCLUSIONS: In Europe, the perceptions of well-informed survey/interview respondents are that biosimilars have improved patient outcomes via increased access to biologics and innovative biologic products, contributing to earlier and longer treatment of a broader population.


Subject(s)
Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals , Humans , Europe , Pharmacists , Surveys and Questionnaires
9.
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res ; 24(4): 509-519, 2024 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38284223

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Biosimilars have improved access to biologic medicines; however, historical thinking may jeopardize the viability of future markets. AREAS COVERED: An expert panel of eight diverse European stakeholders provided insights about rethinking biosimilars and cost-savings, reducing patient access inequalities, increasing inter-market equity, and improving education. The insights reported here (Part 2) follow a study that provides perspectives on leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars for market sustainability based on independent survey results and telephone interviews of stakeholders from diverse biosimilar markets (Part 1). Directional recommendations are provided for payers. EXPERT OPINION: The panel's market maturity framework for biosimilars has three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand' and 'Harvest.' Across market stages, re-thinking the benefits of biosimilars beyond cost-savings, considering earlier or expanded access/new indications, product innovations, and re-investment of biosimilar-generated cost-savings should be communicated to stakeholders to promote further engagement. During 'Expand' and 'Harvest' stages, development of efficient, forward-looking procurement systems and mechanisms that drive uptake and stabilize competition between manufacturers are key. Future biosimilars will target various therapy areas beyond those targeted by existing biosimilars. To ensure a healthy, accessible future market, stakeholders must align their objectives, communicate, collaborate, and coordinate via education, incentivization, and procurement, to maximize the totality of benefits.


Subject(s)
Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals , Humans , Drug Approval , Europe , Cost Savings , Surveys and Questionnaires
10.
Breast ; 76: 103756, 2024 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38896983

ABSTRACT

This manuscript describes the Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) international consensus guidelines updated at the last two ABC international consensus conferences (ABC 6 in 2021, virtual, and ABC 7 in 2023, in Lisbon, Portugal), organized by the ABC Global Alliance. It provides the main recommendations on how to best manage patients with advanced breast cancer (inoperable locally advanced or metastatic), of all breast cancer subtypes, as well as palliative and supportive care. These guidelines are based on available evidence or on expert opinion when a higher level of evidence is lacking. Each guideline is accompanied by the level of evidence (LoE), grade of recommendation (GoR) and percentage of consensus reached at the consensus conferences. Updated diagnostic and treatment algorithms are also provided. The guidelines represent the best management options for patients living with ABC globally, assuming accessibility to all available therapies. Their adaptation (i.e. resource-stratified guidelines) is often needed in settings where access to care is limited.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Palliative Care , Humans , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Female , Palliative Care/standards , Consensus , Practice Guidelines as Topic
11.
Support Care Cancer ; 21(2): 565-73, 2013 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22869054

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Data from two randomized trials, evaluating a single-day regimen of palonosetron plus dexamethasone against emesis due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, were assessed for the impact of age on outcome in a pooled sample of women receiving anthracycline and/or cyclophosphamide (AC)-containing chemotherapy. METHODS: Chemo-naïve breast cancer patients randomized to receive palonosetron (0.25 mg) plus dexamethasone (8 mg IV) on day 1 of chemotherapy (n = 200), or the same regimen followed by oral dexamethasone (8 mg) on days 2 and 3 (n = 205), were included in the analysis. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR: no vomiting and no rescue anti-emetics) in the 5-day study period. The effect of the 1-day regimen and age (<50 and ≥ 50 years) was investigated by a meta-analysis of individual patient data. RESULTS: Younger patients comprised 43 % and 49 % of the 1-day and 3-day regimen groups, respectively; 94 % of the pooled sample received the AC combination. There were no between-treatment differences in CR rate according to age during all observation periods. In the 1-day regimen group, 55.2 % of younger patients achieved overall CR compared with 54 % of older patients. In the 3-day regimen group, 51.5 % of younger patients achieved overall CR compared with 58.7 % of older patients. In the adjusted analysis, younger age was not associated with overall CR to treatment (risk difference, -3.1 %; 95 % CI, -13.0 to 6.7 %; P = 0.533). CONCLUSIONS: These results provide evidence that, irrespective of age, the dexamethasone-sparing regimen is not associated with a significant loss in overall anti-emetic protection in women undergoing AC-containing chemotherapy.


Subject(s)
Anthracyclines/adverse effects , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Cyclophosphamide/adverse effects , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Isoquinolines/therapeutic use , Nausea/prevention & control , Quinuclidines/therapeutic use , Vomiting/prevention & control , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Anthracyclines/administration & dosage , Anthracyclines/therapeutic use , Antiemetics/administration & dosage , Antiemetics/therapeutic use , Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating/administration & dosage , Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating/adverse effects , Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating/therapeutic use , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Cyclophosphamide/administration & dosage , Cyclophosphamide/therapeutic use , Dexamethasone/administration & dosage , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Humans , Isoquinolines/administration & dosage , Middle Aged , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Nausea/chemically induced , Nausea/drug therapy , Palonosetron , Quinuclidines/administration & dosage , Serotonin Antagonists/administration & dosage , Serotonin Antagonists/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome , Vomiting/chemically induced , Vomiting/drug therapy
12.
Oncologist ; 17 Suppl 1: 16-22, 2012.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23015681

ABSTRACT

The landscape of treatment for advanced prostate cancer is continually evolving as new therapies are developed and guidelines are constantly updated. However, the management of older men with advanced disease is not optimal. Many men are denied chemotherapy based on their chronological age, not their health status. Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) remains the mainstay of first-line treatment of advanced disease. Once the disease becomes resistant to castration, docetaxel-based chemotherapy is the regulatory-approved standard of care, irrespective of age. The place of weekly docetaxel in patients with poor performance status and signs of frailty has to be further evaluated in clinical studies. New treatments are now available, or on the horizon, for disease that progresses during or after docetaxel therapy. Cabazitaxel and abiraterone have been shown to prolong survival, irrespective of age, and are already in clinical use having received regulatory approval. The optimal sequence for these two agents is still unknown, although there is some indication that in patients predicted to be poor responders to abiraterone (high Gleason score, progression during docetaxel therapy, rapid progression to castrate-resistant prostate cancer with ADT) cabazitaxel should be the preferred choice. Further advances are being investigated, with promising data reported from phase III trials.


Subject(s)
Disease Management , Prostate/pathology , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy , Aged , Androgen Antagonists/therapeutic use , Androstenes , Androstenols/therapeutic use , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Castration/methods , Clinical Trials as Topic , Docetaxel , Drug Resistance, Neoplasm , Humans , Life Expectancy , Male , Prostate/drug effects , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Taxoids/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome
13.
Oncologist ; 17 Suppl 1: 31-5, 2012.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23015683

ABSTRACT

Largely a disease of older men, prostate cancer is likely to become a growing burden in the developed world as the population ages and overall life expectancy increases. Furthermore, prostate cancer management in older men is not optimal, reflecting the lack of training dedicated to senior adults in fellowship programs and the lack of specific guidelines to manage senior adults. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) convened a multidisciplinary Prostate Cancer Working Group to review the evidence base and provide advice on the management of the disease in senior age groups. The Working Group reported that advancing age, by itself, is not a reliable guide to treatment decision making for men with either localized or advanced prostate cancer. Instead, the SIOG guidelines advise health care teams to assess the patient's underlying health status, which is largely dictated by associated comorbid conditions, but also by dependency in activities of daily living and nutritional status, and to use the findings to categorize the individual into one of four groups: healthy, vulnerable, frail, or terminally ill. The guidelines recommend that a patient categorized as healthy or vulnerable (i.e., with reversible problems following geriatric intervention) should receive the same approach to treatment as a younger patient. Frail patients should be managed using adapted treatment strategies, and the terminally ill should receive symptomatic/palliative care only. The guidelines may have ongoing relevance as the treatment options for prostate cancer expand.


Subject(s)
Evidence-Based Medicine , Geriatric Assessment/methods , Palliative Care/methods , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy , Activities of Daily Living , Aged , Decision Making , Geriatrics , Health Status , Humans , Life Expectancy , Male , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Prostatic Neoplasms/epidemiology
14.
Breast ; 61: 156-167, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35016012

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The oral, α-specific phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3Kα) inhibitor alpelisib is the first PI3K inhibitor approved for the treatment of advanced breast cancer. As alpelisib is a relatively new therapeutic option, specific guidance and a multidisciplinary approach are needed to provide optimal patient care. The primary objective of this manuscript is to provide comprehensive guidance on minimizing and managing adverse events (AEs) for patients with advanced breast cancer who are receiving alpelisib. METHODS: Clinical studies, prescribing information, published literature, and relevant guidelines were reviewed to provide recommendations on the prevention and management of alpelisib-associated AEs. RESULTS: The most common AEs associated with alpelisib in the phase 3 SOLAR-1 trial were hyperglycemia and rash (which are considered on-target effects of PI3Kα inhibition) and gastrointestinal AEs, including diarrhea, nausea, and decreased appetite. These AEs require regular monitoring, early recognition, and prompt initiation of appropriate treatment. In addition, there are effective strategies to reduce the onset and severity of frequently observed AEs-in particular, onset of hyperglycemia and rash may be reduced by lifestyle changes (such as reduced intake of carbohydrates and regular exercise) and antihistamine prophylaxis, respectively. To reduce risk of severe hyperglycemia, it is essential to achieve adequate glycemic control prior to initiation of alpelisib treatment. CONCLUSION: Overall, alpelisib-associated AEs are generally manageable with prompt recognition, regular monitoring, and appropriate intervention, preferably with a multidisciplinary approach.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinases , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Female , Humans , Thiazoles/therapeutic use
15.
Support Care Cancer ; 19(10): 1533-8, 2011 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20803345

ABSTRACT

A commonly reported consequence of post-treatment nausea or vomiting is the development of anticipatory nausea and vomiting (ANV). In most published work, nausea is reported to occur before chemotherapy drugs are administered by approximately 20% of patients at any one chemotherapy cycle and by 25-30% of patients by their fourth chemotherapy cycle. Most studies in adult patients strongly support the view that the development of ANV involves elements of classical conditioning. The best method to avoid development of ANV is to adequately prevent both vomiting and nausea from the first exposure to chemotherapy. If anticipatory side effects develop, behavioral treatment techniques, such as systematic desensitization, have been shown effective. Benzodiazepines used in combination with behavioral techniques or antiemetics may also be useful. The evidence on which these conclusions are based is reviewed in this article.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/adverse effects , Nausea/psychology , Vomiting, Anticipatory/psychology , Adult , Animals , Antiemetics/therapeutic use , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Behavior Therapy/methods , Benzodiazepines/therapeutic use , Conditioning, Classical , Humans , Nausea/chemically induced , Nausea/therapy , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Vomiting, Anticipatory/etiology , Vomiting, Anticipatory/therapy
16.
Eur J Cancer ; 146: 30-47, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33578357

ABSTRACT

BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene pathogenic variants account for most hereditary breast cancer and are increasingly used to determine eligibility for PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapy of BRCA-related cancer. Because issues of BRCA testing in clinical practice now overlap with both preventive and therapeutic management, updated and comprehensive practice guidelines for BRCA genotyping are needed. The integrative recommendations for BRCA testing presented here aim to (1) identify individuals who may benefit from genetic counselling and risk-reducing strategies; (2) update germline and tumour-testing indications for PARPi-approved therapies; (3) provide testing recommendations for personalised management of early and metastatic breast cancer; and (4) address the issues of rapid process and tumour analysis. An international group of experts, including geneticists, medical and surgical oncologists, pathologists, ethicists and patient representatives, was commissioned by the French Society of Predictive and Personalised Medicine (SFMPP). The group followed a methodology based on specific formal guidelines development, including (1) evaluating the likelihood of BRCAm from a combined systematic review of the literature, risk assessment models and expert quotations, and (2) therapeutic values of BRCAm status for PARPi therapy in BRCA-related cancer and for management of early and advanced breast cancer. These international guidelines may help clinicians comprehensively update and standardise BRCA testing practices.


Subject(s)
BRCA1 Protein/genetics , BRCA2 Protein/genetics , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Genetic Testing/methods , Germ-Line Mutation , Ovarian Neoplasms/diagnosis , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Breast Neoplasms/genetics , Female , Humans , Ovarian Neoplasms/genetics
17.
Cancer Invest ; 28 Suppl 1: 14-27, 2010.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20653404

ABSTRACT

The use of endocrine therapy in breast cancer represents one of the earliest molecular targeting strategies used in cancer treatment. Tamoxifen, a selective estrogen-receptor (ER) modulator, has been the standard of care for women with receptor-positive breast cancer for the last 30 years. Tamoxifen suppresses the estrogen-dependent growth of breast cancer cells by specifically targeting the ER. Because of estrogenic effects, tamoxifen does not increase the risk of osteoporosis, but it can lead to endometrial cancer and thromboembolism. The third-generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs) exert their tumor antiproliferative action by targeting an enzyme critical for estrogen biosynthesis. The AIs thus have a different mechanism of action than tamoxifen, and a different safety profile. The majority of adverse events (AEs) related to the AIs are mild to moderate. Most of these AEs are common to menopause and are predictable and manageable. This review looks at AI-associated side effects and current clinical management strategies, with a particular emphasis on managing bone health. Compliance with long-term therapy, strategies to improve adherence, and considerations in elderly patients with hormone-responsive breast cancer are also discussed.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Aromatase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Aromatase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Bone Density , Breast Neoplasms/mortality , Clinical Trials as Topic , Diphosphonates/therapeutic use , Etidronic Acid/analogs & derivatives , Etidronic Acid/therapeutic use , Female , Humans , Ibandronic Acid , Medication Adherence , Osteoporosis/prevention & control , Risedronic Acid , Tamoxifen/therapeutic use
18.
Adv Ther ; 37(8): 3606-3618, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32642965

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression (CIM) is one of the most common dose-limiting complications of cancer treatment, and is associated with a range of debilitating symptoms that can significantly impact patients' quality of life. The purpose of this study was to understand patients' perspectives on how the side effects of CIM are managed in routine clinical practice. METHODS: An online survey was conducted of participants with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer who had received chemotherapy treatment within the past 12 months, and had experienced at least one episode of myelosuppression in the past year. The survey was administered with predominantly close-ended questions, and lay definitions of key terms were provided to aid response selection. RESULTS: Of 301 participants who completed the online survey, 153 (51%) had breast cancer, 100 (33%) had lung cancer, and 48 (16%) had colorectal cancer. Anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia were reported by 61%, 59%, 37%, and 34% of participants, respectively. Most participants (79%) reported having received treatment for CIM, and 64% of participants recalled chemotherapy dose modifications as a result of CIM. Although most participants believed their oncologist was aware of the side effects of CIM, and treated them quickly, 30% of participants felt their oncologists did not understand how uncomfortable they were due to the side effects of CIM. Overall, 88% of participants considered CIM to have a moderate or major impact on their lives. CONCLUSION: The data highlight that despite the various methods used to address CIM, and the patient-focused approach of oncologists, the real-world impact of CIM on patients is substantial. Improving communication between patients and health care providers may help improve patients' understanding of CIM, and foster shared decision-making in terms of treatment. Additional insights from patients should be obtained to further elucidate the totality of life burden associated with CIM.


This study looked at people with cancer who received chemotherapy and developed a condition where their bone marrow activity was reduced, called myelosuppression. This meant they had fewer red blood cells that carry oxygen around the body, white blood cells that help fight infections, and platelets that help the blood to clot. The researchers wanted to understand how chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression affects peoples' lives and their cancer treatment, and people's experiences of treatment for myelosuppression. Overall, 301 people in the USA with breast, lung, or large bowel (colorectal) cancer completed an online survey. They had all received chemotherapy in the last year, and had myelosuppression at least once during their treatment. The survey showed that around 8 in 10 people (79%) had to be treated for myelosuppression, and around 7 in 10 people (73%) felt they received treatment for myelosuppression quickly. Chemotherapy was delayed, reduced, or stopped because of myelosuppression in around 6 in 10 people (64%). Around 3 in 10 people (30%) felt their oncologist did not understand the discomfort that myelosuppression caused them, and around 9 in 10 people (88%) felt that myelosuppression made their quality of life worse. The researchers concluded that because myelosuppression impacts peoples' lives and their ability to keep receiving chemotherapy to treat their cancer, effective prevention and treatment for this condition are important. Better communication between people and their health care teams could help them to understand how people experience myelosuppression and make plans for treatment together.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/adverse effects , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Colorectal Neoplasms/drug therapy , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/drug therapy , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/etiology , Lung Neoplasms/drug therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Surveys and Questionnaires , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
19.
Rev Med Suisse ; 5(189): 322-4, 326-7, 2009 Feb 04.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19271650

ABSTRACT

The American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) determined that there were twelve major advances in medical oncology last year. Endocrine-responsive breast cancer benefits from tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor taken for more than five years. Zoledronic acid, a bisphosphonate, reduces the risk of breast cancer recurrence in premenopausal women undergoing hormonal-suppression therapy. Bevacizumab was for use in combination with paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer Cetuximab added to chemotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer patients increased survival by up to 21%. Adjuvant gemcitabine doubled disease-free survival in pancreas cancer. Adjuvant pegylated interferon cuts the risk of recurrent melanoma by 18%. Bendamustine abolishes signs of activity of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in 30% of patients. The HPV vaccine--now approved for prevention of cervical cancer--might have a role in preventing oral cancers and a review of 45 studies showed that oral contraceptives reduce the risk of ovarian cancer.


Subject(s)
Neoplasms/drug therapy , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Humans , Neoplasms/prevention & control , Papillomavirus Vaccines
20.
Eur J Oncol Nurs ; 12(3): 253-68, 2008 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18501674

ABSTRACT

Docetaxel is an effective treatment approved in five key cancers, but its effectiveness in clinical practice can be compromised by sub-optimal side-effect management. The aim of this review was to investigate the extent of the published work on specific docetaxel-related side effects and to provide, where possible, evidence-based recommendations for their prevention and management. PubMed and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) databases were systematically searched for articles published in English over the past 5 and 2 years, respectively, and pertaining to six side effects identified as being common to the majority of docetaxel regimens and indications of particular relevance to the oncology nurse. The Cochrane library was also searched. A total of 103 citations were identified, 14 of which discussed strategies for the prevention or management of febrile neutropenia (n=6), hypersensitivity reactions (3), fluid retention (1) and nail changes (4). No articles were identified that related to asthenia or neuropathy. Based on the literature review, evidence/guidelines-based advice for the use of G-CSF in febrile neutropenia is provided. The evidence base with respect to the other side effects does not permit the formulation of recommendations. It is the experience of the authors, however, that the severity of symptoms experienced by patients is generally mild and the side effects are for the most part easily managed with prophylactic and supportive care measures. It is therefore important to share and build on experiences, through research and discussion, to maximise the healthcare professional's ability to offer the best standard of care to patients.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/adverse effects , Drug Monitoring/nursing , Oncology Nursing/methods , Taxoids/adverse effects , Asthenia/chemically induced , Docetaxel , Drug Administration Schedule , Drug Hypersensitivity/etiology , Drug Monitoring/methods , Evidence-Based Medicine , Fever/chemically induced , Humans , Nail Diseases/chemically induced , Neutropenia/chemically induced , Nurse's Role , Nursing Assessment , Nursing Research , Patient Education as Topic , Peripheral Nervous System Diseases/chemically induced , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Premedication , Research Design , Severity of Illness Index , Water-Electrolyte Imbalance/chemically induced
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL