Interrupting Endocrine Therapy to Attempt Pregnancy after Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prospective data on the risk of recurrence among women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer who temporarily discontinue endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a single-group trial in which we evaluated the temporary interruption of adjuvant endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy in young women with previous breast cancer. Eligible women were 42 years of age or younger; had had stage I, II, or III disease; had received adjuvant endocrine therapy for 18 to 30 months; and desired pregnancy. The primary end point was the number of breast cancer events (defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence of invasive breast cancer or new contralateral invasive breast cancer) during follow-up. The primary analysis was planned to be performed after 1600 patient-years of follow-up. The prespecified safety threshold was the occurrence of 46 breast cancer events during this period. Breast cancer outcomes in this treatment-interruption group were compared with those in an external control cohort consisting of women who would have met the entry criteria for the current trial. RESULTS: Among 516 women, the median age was 37 years, the median time from breast cancer diagnosis to enrollment was 29 months, and 93.4% had stage I or II disease. Among 497 women who were followed for pregnancy status, 368 (74.0%) had at least one pregnancy and 317 (63.8%) had at least one live birth. In total, 365 babies were born. At 1638 patient-years of follow-up (median follow-up, 41 months), 44 patients had a breast cancer event, a result that did not exceed the safety threshold. The 3-year incidence of breast cancer events was 8.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.3 to 11.6) in the treatment-interruption group and 9.2% (95% CI, 7.6 to 10.8) in the control cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Among select women with previous hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer, temporary interruption of endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy did not confer a greater short-term risk of breast cancer events, including distant recurrence, than that in the external control cohort. Further follow-up is critical to inform longer-term safety. (Funded by ETOP IBCSG Partners Foundation and others; POSITIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02308085.).

Patient-reported experiences of cancer care related to the COVID-19 pandemic in Switzerland.

PURPOSE: This study aims to describe the experience of Swiss oncological patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A national multi-center study including five hospitals covering the three main language regions of Switzerland was conducted between March and July 2021. Patients with melanoma, breast, lung, or colon cancer receiving active systemic anti-cancer treatment at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic were included. We conducted semi-structured telephone or onsite interviews alongside the administration of distress and resilience-validated questionnaires. Thematic analysis was performed for the qualitative data and descriptive statistics for the quantitative data. RESULTS: Sixty-two cancer patients with a mean age of 61 (SD=14) (58% female) were interviewed. Based on the interviews, we identified that the experience of having cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic was related to five dimensions: psychological, social, support, healthcare, and vaccination. Three themes transverse the five dimensions: (a) needs, (b) positive changes, and (c) phases of the pandemic. In general, patients did not experience delays or disruptions in their cancer treatment nor felt additionally burdened by the pandemic. Lockdown and isolation were reported as mixed experiences (positive and negative), and access to vaccination reassured patients against the risk of infection and instilled hope to return to normalcy. Additionally, we found low distress levels (M=2.9; SD=2.5) and high resilience scores (M=7; SD=1.3) in these patients. CONCLUSION: Swiss patients with cancer did not express major needs or disruptions in their care during this period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results identify the mixed experiences of patients and highlight the high resilience levels.

A phase III trial of alpelisib + trastuzumab ± fulvestrant versus trastuzumab + chemotherapy in HER2+ PIK3CA-mutated breast cancer.

ALPHABET is a randomized phase III trial assessing alpelisib + trastuzumab with or without fulvestrant in previously treated HER2-positive PIK3CA-mutated advanced breast cancer. Patients will be included in two cohorts according to hormone receptor (HR) status. In the experimental arms, patients in the HR-negative cohort will receive trastuzumab + alpelisib, and patients in the HR-positive cohort will receive the same treatment plus fulvestrant. Patients in the control arms will receive trastuzumab + physician's choice chemotherapy (eribuline, capecitabine or vinorelbine). Key eligibility criteria include 1-4 previous lines of anti-HER2 therapy and prior trastuzumab emtansine. The primary end point is investigator-assessed progression-free survival. The study aims to recruit a total of 300 patients.

ALPHABET is a clinical study investigating the potential use of alpelisib for the treatment of certain subtypes of breast cancer. Alpelisib is a novel drug that is given orally. It specifically targets a protein called PI3K. PI3K is hyperactivated in some tumors, allowing uncontrolled growth. This study is enrolling patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer whose tumor tests positive for a mutation in the PIK3CA gene, which encodes PI3K. Patients are allocated at random to receive either a combination treatment of trastuzumab (an anti-HER2-targeted therapy) with alpelisib or standard chemotherapy and trastuzumab without alpelisib. The efficacy of each treatment will be determined by comparing how long patients in each group live for without further tumor growth. Additional analyses will also look at the side effects experienced by patients, as well as their quality of life.

Quality of life and pain in patients with metastatic bone disease from solid tumors treated with bone-targeted agents- a real-world cross-sectional study from Switzerland (SAKK 95/16).

BACKGROUND: Bone-targeted agents (BTAs) are widely used in the management of patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. Knowledge of the impact of their routine care use on patient-reported pain and bone pain-related quality of life (QoL) is limited. METHODS: This real world, cross-sectional study enrolled patients over a 3-month period through oncologists across Switzerland. Patients were ≥ 18 years, had solid tumors and at least one bone metastasis, and received routine care for bone metastases. Physicians provided data on BTA-related practices, risk of bone complications and BTA regimen. Patients completed questionnaires about pain (BPI-SF), general and bone pain-related QoL (FACT-G, FACT-BP) and treatment satisfaction (FACIT-TS-G). RESULTS: Eighteen sites recruited 417 patients. Based on the FACT-BP, 42% of the patients indicated not having bone pain. According to the BPI-SF, 28% reported no, 43% mild, 14% moderate, and 15% severe pain, respectively. Patients not treated with a BTA had better overall QoL (FACT-G: p = 0.031) and bone pain-related QoL (FACT-BP, p = 0.007) than those treated with a BTA. All pain and other QoL scales did not differ between groups. Patients perceived at 'low risk of bone complications' by their physician not receiving a BTA reported less pain and better QoL than those considered at 'low risk' but receiving BTA treatment or those considered at 'high risk' regardless of BTA treatment. Overall satisfaction with the treatment was good; almost 50% of patients reporting that they were completely satisfied. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, pain and QoL did not differ according to BTA treatment or physicians' risk perception. Patient with low risks not receiving BTA treatment reported least pain and highest QoL scores. These results may suggest that treating physicians assess bone complication risk appropriately and treat patients accordingly, but they need to be confirmed by objective determination of longitudinal skeletal complication risk.

Experiences of people affected by cancer during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic: an exploratory qualitative analysis of public online forums.

PURPOSE: Studies focusing on patients with and survivors of cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic highlight unique psychological and behavioral challenges. These findings were obtained in surveys using self-report questionnaires with pre-specified response options that may not capture the broad range of experiences of individuals affected by cancer, including people with cancer and informal caregivers, in this unprecedented situation. Online forums produce a large amount of valuable first-hand user-generated content that can be used to better understand their day-to-day lives. This study, based on the analysis of narratives in cancer online forums, aims to describe and categorize the experiences of people affected by cancer during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: An inductive, descriptive, thematic approach was applied to publicly available cancer forums from Germany, the USA, the UK, and Ireland posted between mid-March and mid-April 2020. RESULTS: An analysis of the content of 230 main posts revealed three major themes: (1) concerns related to the impact of COVID-19 on cancer care, the risks and fears of getting infected, logistic issues, and economic impact; (2) adaptation challenges faced at the individual and societal level; and (3) the need for advice including information about COVID-19 and the (self-)management of cancer symptoms and treatment. CONCLUSION: Our qualitative description of the experiences of people affected by cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak can help to improve communication, education, and the development of supportive care strategies. Furthermore, the themes and subthemes identified could potentially inform item development for future self-report questionnaires.

Correction: Quality of life under extended continuous versus intermittent adjuvant letrozole in lymph node-positive, early breast cancer patients: the SOLE randomised phase 3 trial.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Treatment-induced symptoms, depression and age as predictors of sexual problems in premenopausal women with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy.

PURPOSE: Sexual dysfunction is an important concern of premenopausal women with early breast cancer. We investigated predictors of sexual problems in two randomized controlled trials. METHODS: A subset of patients enrolled in TEXT and SOFT completed global and symptom-specific quality-of-life indicators, CES-Depression and MOS-Sexual Problems measures at baseline, six, 12 and 24 months. Mixed models tested the association of changes in treatment-induced symptoms (baseline to 6 months), depression at 6 months, and age at randomization with changes in sexual problems over 2 years. RESULTS: Sexual problems increased by 6 months and persisted at this level. Overall, patients with more severe worsening of vaginal dryness, sleep disturbances and bone or joint pain at 6 months reported a greater increase in sexual problems at all time-points. Depression scores were significantly associated with sexual problems in the short-term. All other symptoms had a smaller impact on sexual problems. Age was not associated with sexual problems at any time-point. CONCLUSION: Among several key symptoms, vaginal dryness, sleep disturbance, and bone and joint pain significantly predicted sexual problems during the first 2 years. Early identification of these symptoms may contribute to timely and tailored interventions.

Quality of life under extended continuous versus intermittent adjuvant letrozole in lymph node-positive, early breast cancer patients: the SOLE randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III SOLE trial, the extended use of intermittent versus continuous letrozole for 5 years did not improve disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Intermittent therapy with 3-month breaks may be beneficial for patients' quality of life (QoL). METHODS: In the SOLE QoL sub-study, 956 patients completed the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (BCPT) symptom and further QoL scales up to 24 months after randomisation. Differences in change of QoL from baseline between the two administration schedules were tested at 12 and 24 months using repeated measures mixed-models. The primary outcome was change in hot flushes at 12 months. RESULTS: There was no difference in hot flushes at 12 months between the two schedules, but patients receiving intermittent letrozole reported significantly more improvement at 24 months. They also indicated less worsening in vaginal problems, musculoskeletal pain, sleep disturbance, physical well-being and mood at 12 months. Overall, 25-30% of patients reported a clinically relevant worsening in key symptoms and global QoL. CONCLUSION: Less symptom worsening was observed during the first year of extended treatment with the intermittent administration. For women experiencing an increased symptom burden of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy, an intermittent administration is a safe alternative. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: Clinical trial information: NCT00651456.

Clinical Outcome After Rectal Replacement With Side-to-End, Colon-J-Pouch, or Straight Colorectal Anastomosis Following Total Mesorectal Excision: A Swiss Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Trial (SAKK 40/04).

OBJECTIVE: To compare, in a phase 3, prospective, randomized, multi-center clinical trial functional outcome of reconstruction procedures following total mesorectal excision (TME). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Intestinal continuity reconstruction following TME is accompanied by postoperative defecation dysfunctions known as "anterior resection syndrome." Commonly used reconstruction techniques are straight colorectal anastomosis (SCA), colon J -pouch (CJP), and side-to-end anastomosis (SEA). Comparison of their functional outcomes in prospective, randomized, multi-center studies, including long-term assessments, is lacking. METHODS: Patients requiring TME for histologically proven rectal tumor, with or without neoadjuvant treatment, age ≥ 18 years, normal sphincter function without history of incontinence, any pretreatment staging or adenoma, expected R0-resection, were randomized for standardized SCA, CJP, or SEA procedures. Primary endpoint was comparison of composite evacuation scores 12 months after TME. Comparison of composite evacuation and incontinence scores at 6, 18 and 24 months after surgery, morbidity, and overall survival represented secondary endpoints. Analysis was based on "per protocol" (PP) population, fully complying with trial requirements, and intention-to treat (ITT) population. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-six patients from 15 hospitals were randomized. PP population included 257 patients (JCP = 63; SEA = 95; SCA = 99). Composite evacuation scores of PP and ITT populations did not show statistically significant differences among the 3 groups at any time point. Similarly, composite incontinence scores for PP and ITT populations showed no statistically significant difference among the 3 trial arms at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: Within boundaries of investigated procedures, surgeons in charge may continue to perform reconstruction of intestinal continuity following TME at their technical preference.

Quality of Life After Total Mesorectal Excision and Rectal Replacement: Comparing Side-to-End, Colon J-Pouch and Straight Colorectal Reconstruction in a Randomized, Phase III Trial (SAKK 40/04).

BACKGROUND: Functional outcomes of different reconstruction techniques have an impact on patients' quality of life (QoL), but information on long-term QoL is lacking. We compared QoL among three reconstruction techniques after total mesorectal excision (TME). METHODS: Quality of life was assessed within a randomized, multicenter trial comparing rectal surgery using side-to-end anastomosis (SEA), colon J-pouch (CJP), and straight colorectal anastomosis (SCA) by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal scale (FACT-C) before randomization and every 6 months up to 2 years post-TME. The primary QoL endpoint was the change in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI), including the FACT-C subscales of physical and functional well-being and colorectal cancer symptoms (CSS), from baseline to month 12. Pair-wise comparisons of changes from baseline (presurgery) to each timepoint between the three arms were analyzed by Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: For the QoL analysis, 257 of 336 randomized patients were in the per protocol evaluation (SEA = 95; CJP = 63; SCA = 99). Significant differences between the reconstruction techniques were found for selected QoL scales up to 12 months, all in favor of CJP. Patients with SEA or SCA reported a clinically relevant deterioration for TOI and CSS at 6 months, those with SCA for CSS also at 12 months after TME. Patients with CJP remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: Although the three reconstruction techniques differ in their effects on QoL at months 6 and 12, these differences did not persist over the whole observation period of 24 months. Patients with a colon J-pouch may benefit with respect to QoL in the short-term.

Extended adjuvant intermittent letrozole versus continuous letrozole in postmenopausal women with breast cancer (SOLE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In animal models of breast cancer, resistance to continuous use of letrozole can be reversed by withdrawal and reintroduction of letrozole. We therefore hypothesised that extended intermittent use of adjuvant letrozole would improve breast cancer outcome compared with continuous use of letrozole in postmenopausal women. METHODS: We did the multicentre, open-label, randomised, parallel, phase 3 SOLE trial in 240 centres (academic, primary, secondary, and tertiary care centres) in 22 countries. We enrolled postmenopausal women of any age with hormone receptor-positive, lymph node-positive, and operable breast cancer for which they had undergone local treatment (surgery with or without radiotherapy) and had completed 4-6 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. They had to be clinically free of breast cancer at enrolment and without evidence of recurrent disease at any time before randomisation. We randomly assigned women (1:1) to treatment groups of either continuous use of letrozole (2·5 mg/day orally for 5 years) or intermittent use of letrozole (2·5 mg/day orally for 9 months followed by a 3-month break in years 1-4 and then 2·5 mg/day during all 12 months of year 5). Randomisation was done by principal investigators or designee at respective centres through the internet-based system of the International Breast Cancer Study Group, was stratified by type of previous endocrine therapy (aromatase inhibitors only vs selective oestrogen receptor modulators only vs both therapies), and used permuted block sizes of four and institutional balancing. No one was masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed by the intention-to-treat principle using a stratified log-rank test. All patients in the intention-to-treat population who initiated protocol treatment during their period of trial participation were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00553410, and EudraCT, number 2007-001370-88; and long-term follow-up of patients is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Dec 5, 2007, and Oct 8, 2012, 4884 women were enrolled and randomised after exclusion of patients at a non-adherent centre, found to have inadequate documentation of informed consent, immediately withdrew consent, or randomly assigned to intervention groups in error. 4851 women comprised the intention-to-treat population that compared extended intermittent letrozole use (n=2425) with continuous letrozole use (n=2426). After a median follow-up of 60 months (IQR 53-72), disease-free survival was 85·8% (95% CI 84·2-87·2) in the intermittent letrozole group compared with 87·5% (86·0-88·8) in the continuous letrozole group (hazard ratio 1·08, 95% CI 0·93-1·26; p=0·31). Adverse events were reported as expected and were similar between the two groups. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were hypertension (584 [24%] of 2417 in the intermittent letrozole group vs 517 [21%] of 2411 in the continuous letrozole group) and arthralgia (136 [6%] vs 151 [6%]). 54 patients (24 [1%] in the intermittent letrozole group and 30 [1%] in the continuous letrozole group) had grade 3-5 CNS cerebrovascular ischaemia, 16 (nine [<1%] vs seven [<1%]) had grade 3-5 CNS haemorrhage, and 40 (19 [1%] vs 21 [1%]) had grade 3-5 cardiac ischaemia. In total, 23 (<1%) of 4851 patients died while on trial treatment (13 [<1%] of 2417 patients in the intermittent letrozole group vs ten [<1%] of 2411 in the continuous letrozole group). INTERPRETATION: In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, extended use of intermittent letrozole did not improve disease-free survival compared with continuous use of letrozole. An alternative schedule of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy with letrozole, including intermittent administration, might be feasible and the results of the SOLE trial support the safety of temporary treatment breaks in selected patients who might require them. FUNDING: Novartis and the International Breast Cancer Study Group.

Impact of a Surgical Sealing Patch on Lymphatic Drainage After Axillary Dissection for Breast Cancer: The SAKK 23/13 Multicenter Randomized Phase III Trial.

BACKGROUND: Several studies and a meta-analysis showed that fibrin sealant patches reduced lymphatic drainage after various lymphadenectomy procedures. Our goal was to investigate the impact of these patches on drainage after axillary dissection for breast cancer. METHODS: In a phase III superiority trial, we randomized patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery at 14 Swiss sites to receive versus not receive three large TachoSil® patches in the dissected axilla. Axillary drains were inserted in all patients. Patients and investigators assessing outcomes were blinded to group assignment. The primary endpoint was total volume of drainage. RESULTS: Between March 2015 and December 2016, 142 patients were randomized (72 with TachoSil® and 70 without). Mean total volume of drainage in the control group was 703 ml [95% confidence interval (CI) 512-895 ml]. Application of TachoSil® did not significantly reduce the total volume of axillary drainage [mean difference (MD) -110 ml, 95% CI -316 to 94, p = 0.30]. A total of eight secondary endpoints related to drainage, morbidity, and quality of life were not improved by use of TachoSil®. The mean total cost per patient did not differ significantly between the groups [34,253 Swiss Francs (95% CI 32,625-35,880) with TachoSil® and 33,365 Swiss Francs (95% CI 31,771-34,961) without, p = 0.584]. In the TachoSil® group, length of stay was longer (MD 1 day, 95% CI 0.3-1.7, p = 0.009), and improvement of pain was faster, although the latter difference was not significant [2 days (95% CI 1-4) vs. 5.5 days (95% CI 2-11); p = 0.2]. CONCLUSIONS: TachoSil® reduced drainage after axillary dissection for breast cancer neither significantly nor relevantly.

Interprofessional, psycho-social intervention to facilitate resilience and reduce supportive care needs for patients with cancer: Results of a noncomparative, randomized phase II trial.

OBJECTIVE: We developed 2 intensity levels of a complex intervention for interprofessional supportive care in cancer (IPSC-C) to facilitate resilience and reduce unmet supportive care needs. We aimed to test the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of both intensity levels in routine practice. METHODS: In a randomized, noncomparative phase II trial, newly diagnosed patients received either low (LI-IPSC-C) or high (HI-IPSC-C) intensity interventions. Low-intensity-interprofessional supportive care in cancer (LI-IPSC-C) consisted of 3 electronic assessments of resilience, unmet supportive care needs, mood, and coping effort over 16 weeks with an immediate feedback to clinicians including tailored intervention recommendations to facilitate resilience and supportive care. High-intensity-interprofessional supportive care in cancer (HI-IPSC-C) added 5 structured consultations (face-to-face and telephone) provided by specialized nurses. Primary outcome was a change ≥5 in resilience score on the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Secondary outcomes were unmet supportive care needs, mood, and coping effort. We assessed feasibility by clinician-provided tailored interventions as recommended and acceptability through qualitative interviews with clinicians and patients. RESULTS: In the LI-IPSC-C arm, 11 of 41, in the HI-IPSC-C arm 17 of 43, patients increased resilience scores by ≥5. Relatively more patients decreased unmet needs in HI-IPSC-C arm. Mood, in both arms, and coping effort, in HI-IPSC-C arm, improved meaningfully. Feasibility was limited for the LI-IPSC-C arm, mainly due to lack of time; acceptability was high in both arms. CONCLUSION: Neither LI-IPSC-C nor HI-IPSC-C interventions reached the desired threshold. HI-IPSC-C showed positive effects on secondary outcomes and was feasible. Resilience as measured by the CD-RISC may not be the optimal outcome measure for this intervention.

When do patient reported quality of life indicators become prognostic in breast cancer?

BACKGROUND: Various patient reported quality-of-life indicators are independently prognostic for survival in metastatic breast cancer and other cancers. The same measures recorded at first diagnosis of early breast cancer carry no corresponding prognostic information. The present study aims to assess at what time in the disease evolution the prognostic association appears. METHODS: Among 8024 patients enrolled in one of seven randomized controlled trials in early-stage breast cancer 3247 had a breast cancer relapse after a median follow-up of 12.1 years. Of these 677 had completed QL indicator assessments within defined windows 1, 2 or 3 months prior to relapse. We performed Cox regression analyses using these assessments and using identical instruments after relapse. All analyses were stratified by trial and adjusted for baseline clinicopathologic factors. RESULTS: QL indicators in the months before relapse were not significantly prognostic for subsequent survival with the possibly chance exception of mood at the second month before relapse. After relapse, physical well-being was statistically significantly associated with survival (P < 0.001). This prognostic significance increased in later post-relapse assessments. Similar findings were observed using patient-reported indicators for nausea and vomiting, appetite, coping effort, and health perception. CONCLUSIONS: Before cancer relapse, QL indicators were not generally prognostic for subsequent survival. After relapse, QL indicators substantially predicted OS, with a stronger association later in the course of relapsed disease. Simple patient perception of disease burden seems unlikely to explain this sudden change: rather the patient's awareness of disease relapse must contribute.

Adjuvant exemestane with ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor improves outcomes, as compared with tamoxifen, in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS: In two phase 3 trials, we randomly assigned premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer to the aromatase inhibitor exemestane plus ovarian suppression or tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression for a period of 5 years. Suppression of ovarian estrogen production was achieved with the use of the gonadotropin-releasing-hormone agonist triptorelin, oophorectomy, or ovarian irradiation. The primary analysis combined data from 4690 patients in the two trials. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 68 months, disease-free survival at 5 years was 91.1% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 87.3% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence, second invasive cancer, or death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.85; P<0.001). The rate of freedom from breast cancer at 5 years was 92.8% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, as compared with 88.8% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.80; P<0.001). With 194 deaths (4.1% of the patients), overall survival did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio for death in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.51; P=0.37). Selected adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported for 30.6% of the patients in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 29.4% of those in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group, with profiles similar to those for postmenopausal women. CONCLUSIONS: In premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer, adjuvant treatment with exemestane plus ovarian suppression, as compared with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, significantly reduced recurrence. (Funded by Pfizer and others; TEXT and SOFT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00066703 and NCT00066690, respectively.).

Cancer-specific geriatric assessment and quality of life: important factors in caring for older patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of chemotherapy, a geriatric assessment is recommended in elderly patients with cancer. We aimed to characterize and compare patients with aggressive lymphoma by objective response and survival status based on pre-treatment cancer-specific geriatric (C-SGA) and quality of life (QoL) assessments. METHODS: Patients not eligible for anthracycline-based first-line therapy or intensive salvage regimens completed C-SGA and QoL assessment before and after a rituximab-bendamustine-lenalidomide (R-BL) treatment in a phase II clinical trial. Clinical outcomes were compared based on pre-treatment individual and summary C-SGA measures, their cutoff-based subcategories and QoL indicators, using Wilcoxon rank sum or chi-square tests. RESULTS: A total of 57 patients (41 included in the clinical trial) completed a C-SGA. Participants with pre-treatment impaired functional status (Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 score ≥3) were more likely to experience worse outcomes: a higher proportion were non-responders, died before the median follow-up of 31.6 months (interquartile range (IQR) 27.9-37.9) or died during treatment. Non-responders were patients categorized as having possible depression (Geriatric Depression Scale-5 score ≥2) and with worse QoL scores for functional performance. Patients with worse C-SGA summary scores and with greater tiredness were more likely to die during treatment. CONCLUSION: A pre-treatment impaired functional status is an important factor with respect to clinical outcomes in patients receiving an R-BL regimen. Individual geriatric and related QoL domains showed similar associations with clinical outcomes. Whether interventions targeting specific geriatric dimensions also translate in better symptom- or domain-specific QoL warrants further research.

Adjuvant ovarian function suppression and cognitive function in women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: To examine the effect on cognitive function of adjuvant ovarian function suppression (OFS) for breast cancer. METHODS: The Suppression of Ovarian Function (SOFT) trial randomised premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer to 5 years adjuvant endocrine therapy with tamoxifen+OFS, exemestane+OFS or tamoxifen alone. The Co-SOFT substudy assessed objective cognitive function and patient reported outcomes at randomisation (T0), and 1 year later (T1); the primary endpoint was change in global cognitive function, measured by the composite objective cognitive function score. Data were compared for the pooled tamoxifen+OFS and exemestane+OFS groups vs the tamoxifen alone group using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Of 86 participants, 74 underwent both T0 and T1 cognitive testing; 54 randomised to OFS+ either tamoxifen (28) or exemestane (26) and 20 randomised to tamoxifen alone. There was no significant difference in the changes in the composite cognitive function scores between the OFS+ tamoxifen or exemestane groups and the tamoxifen group (mean±s.d., -0.21±0.92 vs -0.04±0.49, respectively, P=0.71, effect size=-0.20), regardless of prior chemotherapy status, and adjusting for baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The Co-SOFT study, although limited by small samples size, provides no evidence that adding OFS to adjuvant oral endocrine therapy substantially affects global cognitive function.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and extrapleural pneumonectomy of malignant pleural mesothelioma with or without hemithoracic radiotherapy (SAKK 17/04): a randomised, international, multicentre phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative hemithoracic radiotherapy has been used to treat malignant pleural mesothelioma, but it has not been assessed in a randomised trial. We assessed high-dose hemithoracic radiotherapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and extrapleural pneumonectomy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: We did this phase 2 trial in two parts at 14 hospitals in Switzerland, Belgium, and Germany. We enrolled patients with pathologically confirmed malignant pleural mesothelioma; resectable TNM stages T1-3 N0-2, M0; WHO performance status 0-1; age 18-70 years. In part 1, patients were given three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 given every 3 weeks) and extrapleural pneumonectomy; the primary endpoint was complete macroscopic resection (R0-1). In part 2, participants with complete macroscopic resection were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive high-dose radiotherapy or not. The target volume for radiotherapy encompassed the entire hemithorax, the thoracotomy channel, and mediastinal nodal stations if affected by the disease or violated surgically. A boost was given to areas at high risk for locoregional relapse. The allocation was stratified by centre, histology (sarcomatoid vs epithelioid or mixed), mediastinal lymph node involvement (N0-1 vs N2), and T stage (T1-2 vs T3). The primary endpoint of part 1 was the proportion of patients achieving complete macroscopic resection (R0 and R1). The primary endpoint in part 2 was locoregional relapse-free survival, analysed by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00334594. FINDINGS: We enrolled patients between Dec 7, 2005, and Oct 17, 2012. Overall, we analysed 151 patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, of whom 113 (75%) had extrapleural pneumonectomy. Median follow-up was 54·2 months (IQR 32-66). 52 (34%) of 151 patients achieved an objective response. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxic effects were neutropenia (21 [14%] of 151 patients), anaemia (11 [7%]), and nausea or vomiting (eight [5%]). 113 patients had extrapleural pneumonectomy, with complete macroscopic resection achieved in 96 (64%) of 151 patients. We enrolled 54 patients in part 2; 27 in each group. The main reasons for exclusion were patient refusal (n=20) and ineligibility (n=10). 25 of 27 patients completed radiotherapy. Median total radiotherapy dose was 55·9 Gy (IQR 46·8-56·0). Median locoregional relapse-free survival from surgery, was 7·6 months (95% CI 4·5-10·7) in the no radiotherapy group and 9·4 months (6·5-11·9) in the radiotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or higher toxic effects related to radiotherapy were nausea or vomiting (three [11%] of 27 patients), oesophagitis (two [7%]), and pneumonitis (two [7%]). One patient died of pneumonitis. We recorded no toxic effects data for the control group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings do not support the routine use of hemithoracic radiotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and extrapleural pneumonectomy. FUNDING: Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation, Eli Lilly.

Patient-reported outcomes with adjuvant exemestane versus tamoxifen in premenopausal women with early breast cancer undergoing ovarian suppression (TEXT and SOFT): a combined analysis of two phase 3 randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The combined efficacy analysis of the TEXT and SOFT trials showed a significant disease-free survival benefit with exemestane plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) compared with tamoxifen plus OFS. We present patient-reported outcomes from these trials. METHODS: Between Nov 7, 2003, and April 7, 2011, 4717 premenopausal women with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer were enrolled in TEXT or SOFT to receive unmasked adjuvant treatment with 5 years of exemestane plus OFS or tamoxifen plus OFS. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue triptorelin, bilateral oophorectomy, or bilateral ovarian irradiation were used to achieve OFS. Chemotherapy use was optional. Randomisation with permuted blocks was done with the International Breast Cancer Study Group's internet-based system and was stratified by chemotherapy use and status of lymph nodes. Patients completed a quality of life (QoL) form comprising several global and symptom indicators at baseline, every 6 months for 24 months, and then every year during years 3 to 6. Differences in the change of QoL from baseline between the two treatments were tested at 6 months, 24 months, and 60 months with mixed-models for repeated measures for each trial with and without chemotherapy and overall. The analysis was by intention to treat. At the time of analysis, the median follow-up was 5·7 years (IQR 3·7-6·9); treatment and follow-up of patients continue. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, as NCT00066703 (TEXT) and NCT00066690 (SOFT). FINDINGS: Patients on tamoxifen plus OFS were more affected by hot flushes and sweats over 5 years than were those on exemestane plus OFS, although these symptoms improved. Patients on exemestane plus OFS reported more vaginal dryness, greater loss of sexual interest, and difficulties becoming aroused than did patients on tamoxifen plus OFS; these differences persisted over time. An increase in bone or joint pain was more pronounced, particularly in the short term, in patients on exemestane plus OFS than patients on tamoxifen plus OFS. Changes in global QoL indicators from baseline were small and similar between treatments over the 5 years. INTERPRETATION: Overall, from a QoL perspective, there is no strong indication to favour either exemestane plus OFS or tamoxifen plus OFS. The distinct effects of the two treatments on the burden of endocrine symptoms need to be addressed with patients individually. FUNDING: Pfizer, International Breast Cancer Study Group, and US National Cancer Institute.