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

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

Histomorphometric and microarchitectural analysis of bone in metastatic breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread use of repeated doses of potent bone-targeting agents (BTA) in oncology patients, relatively little is known about their in vivo effects on bone homeostasis, bone quality, and bone architecture. Traditionally bone quality has been assessed using a trans-iliac bone biopsy with a 7 mm "Bordier" core needle. We examined the feasibility of using a 2 mm "Jamshidi™" core needle as a more practical and less invasive technique. METHODS: Patients with metastatic breast cancer on BTAs were divided according to the extent of bone metastases. They were given 2 courses of tetracycline labeling and then underwent a posterior trans-iliac trephine biopsy and bone marrow aspirate. Samples were analyzed for the extent of tumor invasion and parameters of bone turnover and bone formation by histomorphometry. RESULTS: Twelve patients were accrued, 1 had no bone metastases, 3 had limited bone metastases (LSM) (<3 lesions) and 7 had extensive bone metastases (ESM) (>3 lesions). Most of the primary tumors were estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR) positive. The procedure was well tolerated. The sample quality was sufficient to analyze bone trabecular structure and bone turnover by histomorphometry in 11 out of 12 patients. There was a good correlation between imaging data and morphometric analysis of tumor invasion. Patients with no evidence or minimal bone metastases had no evidence of tumor invasion. Most had suppressed bone turnover and no detectable bone formation when treated with BTA. In contrast, 6 out of 7 patients with extensive bone invasion by imaging and evidence of tumor cells in the marrow had intense osteoclastic activity as measured by the number of osteoclasts. Of these 7 patients with ESM, 6 were treated with BTA with 5 showing resistance to BTA as demonstrated by the high number of osteoclasts present. 3 of these 6 patients had active bone formation. Based on osteoblast activity and bone formation, 3 out of 6 patients with ESM responded to BTA compared to all 3 with LSM. Compared to untreated patients, all patients treated with BTA showed a trend towards suppression of bone formation, as measured by tetracycline labelling. There was also a trend towards a significant difference between ESM and LSM treated with BTA, highly suggestive of resistance although limited by the small sample size. DISCUSSION: Our results indicate that trans-iliac bone biopsy using a 2 mm trephine shows excellent correlation between imaging assessment of tumor invasion and tumor burden by morphometric analysis of bone tissues. In addition, our approach provides additional mechanistic information on therapeutic response to BTA supporting the current clinical understanding that the majority of patients with extensive bone involvement eventually fail to suppress bone turnover (Petrut B, et al. 2008). This suggests that antiresorptive therapies become less effective as disease progresses.

A randomized trial of individualized versus standard of care antiemetic therapy for breast cancer patients at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: Despite triple antiemetic therapy use for breast cancer patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy, nausea remains a clinical challenge. We evaluated adding olanzapine (5 mg) to triple therapy on nausea control in patients at high personal risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). METHODS: This multi-centre, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial randomized breast cancer patients scheduled to receive neo/adjuvant chemotherapy with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide or platinum-based chemotherapy to olanzapine (5 mg, days 1-4) or placebo. Primary endpoint was frequency of self-reported significant nausea, repeated for all cycles of chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included: duration of nausea, overall total control of CINV, Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) using FLIE questionnaire, use of rescue mediation and treatment-related adverse events. RESULTS: 218 eligible patients were randomised to placebo (105) or olanzapine (113). From days 0-5 following each cycle of chemotherapy, 41.3% (95%CI: 36.1-46.7%) of patients in the placebo group reported significant nausea compared to 27.7% (95%CI: 23.2-32.4%) in the olanzapine group (p = 0.001). Across all cycles of chemotherapy, patients receiving olanzapine experienced a statistically significant improvement in HRQoL (p < 0.001). Grade 1/2 sedation was the most commonly side effect reported at 40.8% in the placebo group vs. 54.1% with olanzapine (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients at high personal risk of CINV, the addition of olanzapine 5 mg daily to standard antiemetic therapy significantly improves the control of nausea, HRQoL, with no unexpected toxicities.

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

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

Optimal sequence of adjuvant endocrine and radiation therapy in early-stage breast cancer - A systematic review.

IMPORTANCE: Clinical equipoise exists around the optimal time to start adjuvant endocrine therapy in patients who will receive post-operative radiotherapy for breast cancer. Concerns continue to exist regarding potential reduced efficacy, or increased toxicity, when radiation, and endocrine therapy are administered concurrently. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of studies comparing outcomes between sequential and concurrent adjuvant radiation and endocrine therapy in early-stage breast cancer. All modalities of radiation therapy were considered, and endocrine therapy could be either tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor. Outcomes of interest included; local, regional or distant recurrence, overall survival and treatment-related toxicities. EVIDENCE REVIEWED: PubMed, Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1946 to December 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed each citation using the criteria outlined above. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for prospective studies, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for retrospective studies. FINDINGS: Of 2137 unique citations identified, 13 met eligibility criteria. Eleven were unique studies (7569 patients), while 2 of the studies were updated analyses of previous studies. Studies evaluated the timing of adjuvant radiation, and tamoxifen (5 studies, 1550 patients), or aromatase inhibitors (6 studies, 6019 patients). We identified 1 complete randomized clinical trial (150 patients), and 5 retrospective studies (1580 patients), in addition to conference abstracts (5 studies, 5839 patients). Overall, none of the studies showed a significant difference in efficacy, or toxicity, with concurrent versus sequential treatment. However, given the significant heterogeneity of the study populations, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the absence of high quality data, adequately powered randomized trials are required to answer this important clinical question.

Taxane acute pain syndrome (TAPS) in patients receiving chemotherapy for breast or prostate cancer: a prospective multi-center study.

BACKGROUND: Taxane acute pain syndrome (TAPS) is characterized by myalgias and arthralgias starting 2-3 days after taxane-based chemotherapy and lasting up to 7 days. In the absence of validated tools, many studies use the presence of both the myalgia and arthralgia components of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) to define TAPS. The present study prospectively evaluated the frequency, severity, and impact of TAPS in patients with breast or prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, non-randomized study, patients with breast or prostate cancer commencing taxane-based chemotherapy completed the CTCAE (version 4.03), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Taxane (FACT-T), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) questionnaires at baseline and once between days 5 and 7 of each chemotherapy cycle. RESULTS: From March 2015 to April 1, 2016, 75 patients (breast n = 66, prostate n = 9) were enrolled; 83% received docetaxel and 16% paclitaxel and 1% withdrew. After the first cycle of taxane, TAPS was reported by 25/69 (36.2%) patients; a further 8/69 (18.2%) reporting TAPS after a subsequent chemotherapy treatment. Overall incidence of TAPS was 33/75 (44%). While associated with detrimental scores on FACT-T and BPI as well as increased use of analgesics in 63% (21/33) of patients with TAPS, TAPS did not lead to alterations in chemotherapy dosing. CONCLUSIONS: TAPS is common after taxane-based chemotherapy, and its presence is associated with reduced quality of life and increased analgesic requirements. Prospective patient-reported outcome assessments are crucial to help individualize treatment strategies and improve management of TAPS.

Effects on bone resorption markers of continuing pamidronate or switching to zoledronic acid in patients with high risk bone metastases from breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Switching patients who remain at high risk of skeletal related events (SREs) despite pamidronate to the more potent bisphosphonate zoledronate, may be an effective treatment strategy. As part of a previously reported clinic study in this setting, we evaluated whether biomarkers for bone resorption, such as Bone-Specific Alkaline Phosphatase (BSAP), bone sialoprotein (BSP), and N-terminal telopeptide (NTX) correlated with subsequent SRE risk. METHODS: Breast cancer patients who remained at high risk of SREs despite at least 3 months of q.3-4 weekly pamidronate were randomized to either continue on pamidronate or to switch to zoledronate (4 mg) once every 4 weeks for 12-weeks. High risk bone metastases were defined by either: occurrence of a prior SRE, bone pain, radiologic progression of bone metastases and/or serum C-terminal telopeptide (CTx) levels > 400 ng/L despite pamidronate use. Serum samples were collected at baseline and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 (CTx and BSAP) and baseline and week 12 (NTx and BSP), and all putative biomarkers were measured by ELISA. Follow up was extended to 2 years post trial entry for risk of subsequent SREs. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate time-to-event outcomes. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to evaluate if laboratory values over time or the change in laboratory values from baseline were associated with having a SRE within the time frame of this study. RESULTS: From March 2012 to May 2014, 76 patients were screened, with 73 eligible for enrolment. All 73 patients were available for biochemical analysis, with 35 patients receiving pamidronate and 38 patients receiving zoledronate. The GEE analysis found that no laboratory value was associated with having a subsequent SRE. Interaction between visit and laboratory values was also investigated, but no interaction effect was statistically significant. Only increased number of lines of prior hormonal treatment was associated with subsequent SRE risk. CONCLUSION: Our analysis failed to find any association between serum BSAP, BSP, CTx or NTx levels and subsequent SRE risk in this cohort of patients. This lack of correlation between serum biomarkers and clinical outcomes could be due to influences of prior bisphosphonate treatment or presence of extra-osseous metastases in a significant proportion of enrolled patients. As such, caution should be used in biomarker interpretation and use to direct decision making regarding SRE risk for high risk patients in this setting.

A phase 2 trial exploring the clinical and correlative effects of combining doxycycline with bone-targeted therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bone-targeting agents (BTAs), such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, have demonstrated no discernable effects on tumour response or disease free/overall survival in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. Doxycycline is both osteotropic and has anti-cancer effects. When combined with zoledronate in animal models, doxycycline showed significantly increased inhibition of tumour burden and increased bone formation. We evaluated the effects of adding doxycycline to ongoing anti-cancer therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Breast cancer patients with bone metastases and ≥3 months of BTA use, entered this single-arm study. Patients received doxycycline 100 mg orally, twice a day for 12 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were; effect on validated pain scores (FACT-Bone pain and Brief Pain Inventory) and bone resorption markers (serum C-telopeptide, [sCTx]). All endpoints (pain scores, sCTx, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, skeletal-related events, toxicity) were evaluated at baseline, 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Bone marrow was sampled at baseline and week 12 for exploratory biomarker analysis. RESULTS: Out of 37 enroled patients, 27 (73%) completed 12 weeks of therapy. No significant changes were seen in pain scores or bone turnover markers. Failure to complete treatment: drug toxicity (70%) and disease progression (30%). Sixteen (43%) patients had GI adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 12 weeks had no significant effects on either bone pain or bone turnover markers. Its toxicity profile in this patient population would make further evaluation challenging.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use and delivery of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy-single-centre experience.

BACKGROUND: Use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (g-csf) as primary prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced neutropenia has significant cost implications. We examined use of g-csf for early-stage breast cancer patients at our centre. The study also examined the pattern of nurse-led patient teaching with respect to drug self-administration. METHODS: Patients who received g-csf between November 2009 and October 2010 were identified from pharmacy records. After consent had been obtained, electronic charts were examined to extract data on chemotherapy and use of g-csf. Patients were contacted by telephone to obtain information on the utilization of home-care nursing visits for g-csf administration. RESULTS: The study analyzed 36 patients. Median age was 58 years (range: 31-78 years). Of the 36 patients, 30 (83%) had received adjuvant treatment, and 6 (17%), neoadjuvant treatment. Most patients (71%) received 10 days (range: 7-10 days) of filgrastim. Of the 36 patients, 29 (81%) received g-csf as primary prophylaxis. In 90% of those patients, primary prophylaxis commenced with the taxane component of treatment. Of the 36 patients, 7 (19%) received g-csf after neutropenia, including 2 who had febrile neutropenia. In 96% of the patients, injections were received at home with the help of a nurse; those patients were subsequently taught self-injection techniques. The median number of nursing visits was 2 (range: 1-3 visits). Most patients were satisfied with the home care and g-csf teaching they received. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the g-csf used in breast cancer treatment during the study period was given for primary prophylaxis. A major reason for the decision to use g-csf appears to have been physician-perceived risk of febrile neutropenia. Delivery of g-csf by home-care nurses was well received by patients.

Excision of the primary tumour in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a clinical dilemma.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% of new breast cancer patients will present with overt synchronous metastatic disease. The optimal local management of those patients is controversial. Several series suggest that removal of the primary tumour is associated with a survival benefit, but the retrospective nature of those studies raises considerable methodologic challenges. We evaluated our clinical experience with the management of such patients and, more specifically, the impact of surgery in patients with synchronous metastasis. METHODS: We reviewed patients with primary breast cancer and concurrent distant metastases seen at our centre between 2005 and 2007. Demographic and treatment data were collected. Study endpoints included overall survival and symptomatic local progression rates. RESULTS: The 111 patients identified had a median follow-up of 40 months (range: 0.6-71 months). We allocated the patients to one ot two groups: a nonsurgical group (those who did not have breast surgery, n = 63) and a surgical group (those who did have surgery, n = 48, 29 of whom had surgery before the metastatic diagnosis). When compared with patients in the nonsurgical group, patients in the surgical group were less likely to present with T4 tumours (23% vs. 35%), N3 nodal disease (8% vs. 19%), and visceral metastasis (67% vs. 73%). Patients in the surgical group experienced longer overall survival (49 months vs. 33 months, p = 0.01) and lower rates of symptomatic local progression (14% vs. 44%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, improved overall survival and symptomatic local control were demonstrated in the surgically treated patients; however, this group had less aggressive disease at presentation. The optimal local management of patients with metastatic breast cancer remains unknown. An ongoing phase iii trial, E2108, has been designed to assess the effect of breast surgery in metastatic patients responding to first-line systemic therapy. If excision of the primary tumour is associated with a survival benefit, then the preselected subgroup of patients who have responded to initial systemic therapy is the desired population in which to put this hypothesis to the test.

Prospective validation of risk prediction indexes for acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Despite the use of standardized anti-emetic guidelines, up to 20% of cancer patients suffer from moderate-to-severe chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (cinv)-that is, grade 2 or greater according to the U.S. National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. We previously developed cycle-based prediction models and associated scoring systems for acute and delayed cinv. As part of the validation process, we prospectively evaluated the ability of the scoring systems to accurately identify patients deemed to be high risk for grade 2 or greater cinv. METHODS: Patients who were receiving any chemotherapy for solid tumours and who consented to participate were provided with symptom diaries. Compliance to the diaries was enhanced by 24-hour and 5-day telephone callbacks after chemotherapy in every cycle. All patients received anti-emetic prophylaxis as prescribed by the treating physician. Before each cycle of chemotherapy, the acute and delayed cinv scoring systems were used to stratify patients into low- and high-risk groups. Logistic regression modelling was then applied to compare the risk for grade 2 or greater cinv between patients considered to be at high and at low risk. The external validity of each system was also assessed using an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (auroc) analysis. RESULTS: We collected cinv outcomes data from 95 patients during 181 cycles of chemotherapy. The incidence of grade 2 or greater acute and delayed cinv was 17.7% and 18.2% respectively. As previously identified, major predictors for grade 2 or greater cinv included younger patient age, platinum- or anthracycline-based chemotherapy, low alcohol consumption, earlier cycles of chemotherapy, previous history of morning sickness, and prior emetic episodes after chemotherapy. The acute and delayed scoring systems both had good predictive accuracy when applied to the external validation sample (acute-auroc: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.59 to 0.79; delayed-auroc: 0.70; 95% confidence interval: 0.60 to 0.80). Patients identified by the scoring systems to be at high risk were 2.8 (p = 0.025) and 3.1 (p = 0.001) times more likely to develop grade 2 or greater acute and delayed cinv. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates that our scoring systems are able to accurately identify patients at high risk for acute and delayed cinv. Application and planned continued refinement of the scoring systems will be an important means of patient-specific risk assessment that will allow for optimization of anti-emetic therapy.

Histomorphometric and microarchitectural analyses using the 2 mm bone marrow trephine in metastatic breast cancer patients-preliminary results.

BACKGROUND: Bone-targeted agents are widely used for the treatment of osteoporosis, the prevention of cancer-therapy induced bone loss, and for reducing the risk of skeletal related events in patients with metastatic disease. Despite widespread use, relatively little is known about the in vivo effect of these agents on bone homeostasis, bone quality, and bone architecture in humans. Traditionally bone quality has been assessed using a transiliac bone biopsy with a 7 mm "Bordier" core needle. We examined the possibility of using a 2 mm "Jamshidi" core needle as a more practical and less invasive method to assess bone turnover and potentially other tumor effects. METHODS: A pilot study on the feasibility of assessing bone quality and microarchitecture and tumor invasion using a 2 mm bone marrow trephine was conducted. Patients underwent a posterior trans-iliac trephine biopsy and bone marrow aspirate. Samples were analyzed for bone microarchitecture, bone density, and histomorphometry. The study plan was to accrue three patients with advanced breast cancer to assess the feasibility of the study before enrolling more patients. RESULTS: The procedure was well tolerated. The sample quality was excellent to analyze bone trabecular microarchitecture using both microCT and histomorphometry. Intense osteoclastic activity was observed in a patient with extensive tumor burden in bone despite intravenous bisphosphonate therapy. DISCUSSION: Given the success of this study for assessing bone microarchitecture, bone density, and histomorphometry assessment using a 2 mm needle the study will be expanded beyond these initial three patients for longitudinal assessment of bone-targeted therapy.