Development and application of a weighted change score to evaluate interventions for vasomotor symptoms in patients with breast cancer using regression trees: a cohort study.

PURPOSE: Vasomotor symptoms (VMS) are common among individuals with breast cancer (BC) and poorly managed symptoms are associated with reduced quality of life, treatment discontinuation, and poorer breast cancer outcomes. Direct comparisons among therapies are limited, as prior studies evaluating VMS interventions have utilized heterogeneous change measures which may not fully assess the perceived impact of change in VMS severity. METHODS: We performed a prospective study where BC patients chose one of four categories of interventions to manage VMS. Change in VMS severity at 6 weeks was assessed using the validated Hot Flush Rating Scale (HFRS). A novel weighted change score integrating baseline symptom severity and directionality of change was computed to maximize the correlation between the change score and a perceived treatment effectiveness score. Variables influencing change in VMS severity were included in a regression tree to model factors influencing the weighted change score. RESULTS: 100 baseline and follow-up questionnaires assessing VMS were completed by 88 patients. Correlations between treatment effectiveness and VMS outcomes strengthened following adjustment for baseline symptoms. Patients with low VMS severity at baseline did not perceive change in treatment effectiveness. Intervention category was predictive of change in HFRS at 6 weeks. CONCLUSION: Baseline symptom severity and the directionality of change (improvement or deterioration of symptoms) influenced the perception of clinically meaningful change in VMS severity. Future interventional studies utilizing the weighted change score should target moderate-high baseline severity patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on follow-up of patients with early breast cancer: A patient survey.

PURPOSE: Despite limited evidence supporting its effectiveness, most guidelines recommend long-term, routinely scheduled in-person surveillance of patients with early breast cancer (EBC). The COVID-19 pandemic led to increased use of virtual care. This survey evaluated patient perspectives on follow-up care. METHODS: Patients with EBC undergoing surveillance were surveyed about follow-up protocols, perceptions, and interest in clinical trials assessing different follow-up strategies. RESULTS: Of 402 approached patients 270 completed the survey (response rate 67%). Median age 62.5 years (range 25-86) and median time since breast cancer diagnosis was 3.8 years (range < 1-33 years). Most (n = 148/244, 60%) were followed by more than one provider. Routine follow-ups with breast examination were mostly conducted by medical/radiation oncologists every 6 months (n = 110/236, 46%) or annually (n = 106/236, 44%). Participants felt routine follow-up was useful to monitor for recurrence, manage side effects of cancer treatment and to provide support/reassurance. Most participants felt regular follow-up care would detect recurrent cancer earlier (n = 214/255, 96%) and increase survival (n = 218/249, 88%). The COVID-19 pandemic reduced the number of in-person visits for 54% of patients (n = 63/117). Patients were concerned this reduction of in-person visits would lead to later detection of both local (n = 29/63, 46%) and distant recurrences (n = 25/63, 40%). While many felt their medical and radiation oncologists were the most suited to provide follow-up care, 55% felt comfortable having their primary care provider (PCP) conduct surveillance. When presented with a scenario where follow-up has no effect on earlier detection or survival, 70% of patients still wanted routine in-person follow-up for reassurance (63%) with the goal of earlier recurrence detection (56%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited evidence of effectiveness of routine in-person assessment, patients continue to place importance on regularly scheduled in-person follow-up.

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

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

Evaluation of Unsolicited Feedback from Patients with Cancer and Their Families as a Strategy to Improve Cancer Care Delivery.

BACKGROUND: Unsolicited patient feedback (compliments and complaints) should allow the healthcare system to address and improve individual and overall patient, family, and staff experiences. We evaluated feedback at a tertiary cancer centre to identify potential areas for optimizing care delivery. METHODS: unsolicited feedback submitted to the Patient Relations Department, relating to the Divisions of Medical and Radiation Oncology, at the Ottawa Hospital, was analyzed. RESULTS: Of 580 individual reports submitted from 2016 to 2022, patient demographics were available for 97% (563/580). Median patient age was 65 years (range 17-101), and 53% (301/563) were female. The most common cancer types were breast (127/545, 23%) and gastrointestinal (119/545, 22%) malignancies, and most (64%, 311/486) patients had metastatic disease. Feedback was submitted mainly by patients (291/579, 50%), and predominantly negative (489/569, 86%). The main reasons for complaints included: communication (29%, 162/566) and attitude/conduct of care (28%, 159/566). While feedback rates were initially stable, an increase occurred from 2019 to 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Unsolicited feedback remains mostly negative, and relates to physician communication. If we are to drive meaningful changes in care delivery, more standardized means of assessing feedback and implementation strategies are needed. In addition, in an era of increased healthcare provider burnout, strategies to enhance formal positive feedback are also warranted.

Does Pre-Emptive Availability of PREDICT 2.1 Results Change Ordering Practices for Oncotype DX? A Multi-Center Prospective Cohort Study.

For early-stage hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer, tools to estimate treatment benefit include free and publicly available algorithms (e.g., PREDICT 2.1) and expensive molecular assays (e.g., Oncotype DX). There remains a need to identify patients who de-rive the most benefit from molecular assays and where this test may be of poor value. In this multicenter prospective cohort study, we evaluated whether use of PREDICT 2.1 would impact physician decision making. For the first 6 months of the study, data on physician use of both PREDICT 2.1 and Oncotype DX ordering were collected on all newly diagnosed patients eligible for molecular testing. After 6 months, an educational intervention was undertaken to see if providing physicians with PREDICT 2.1 results affects the frequency of Oncotype DX requests. A total of 602 patients across six cancer centers in Ontario, Canada were recruited between March 2020 and November 2021. Providing PREDICT 2.1 results and an educational intervention did not alter the ordering of an Oncotype DX. For patients with low clinical risk, either by clinico-pathologic features or by PREDICT 2.1, the probability of obtaining a high Oncotype DX recurrence score was substantially lower compared to patients with high-clinical-risk disease. The introduction of an educational intervention had no impact on molecular assay requests. However, routine ordering of molecular assays for patients with low-clinical-risk disease is of poor value.

The REthinking Clinical Trials Program Retreat 2023: Creating Partnerships to Optimize Quality Cancer Care.

Patients, families, healthcare providers and funders face multiple comparable treatment options without knowing which provides the best quality of care. As a step towards improving this, the REthinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) pragmatic trials program started in 2014 to break down many of the traditional barriers to performing clinical trials. However, until other innovative methodologies become widely used, the impact of this program will remain limited. These innovations include the incorporation of near equivalence analyses and the incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical trial design. Near equivalence analyses allow for the comparison of different treatments (drug and non-drug) using quality of life, toxicity, cost-effectiveness, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data. AI offers unique opportunities to maximize the information gleaned from clinical trials, reduces sample size estimates, and can potentially "rescue" poorly accruing trials. On 2 May 2023, the first REaCT international symposium took place to connect clinicians and scientists, set goals and identify future avenues for investigator-led clinical trials. Here, we summarize the topics presented at this meeting to promote sharing and support other similarly motivated groups to learn and share their experiences.

How Frequently Should Patients with Breast Cancer Have Routine Follow-Up Visits?

Prospective Data Regarding the Optimal Frequency and ModalityProspective data regarding the optimal frequency and modality of follow up after definitive therapy for localized breast cancer is lacking, especially as it relates to time to recurrence detection. This article reviews the evidence and proposes a randomized trial to evaluate on-demand versus guideline-based survivorship care.

Shorter Durations of Anti-HER2 Therapy for Patients with Early-Stage, HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: The Physician Perspective.

Despite evidence from clinical trials showing the efficacy of shorter durations of therapy, most HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC) patients receive a year of anti-HER2 therapy. A survey of Canadian oncologists was conducted online, with electronic data collection, and the analysis is reported descriptively. Measures collected included current practices with respect to the duration of adjuvant anti-HER2 therapy, perspectives on data regarding shorter durations of treatment, and interest in further trials on this subject. Responses were received from 42 providers across Canada. Half (50%, 21/42) reported having never recommended 6 months of anti-HER2 therapy. The primary reason physicians consider a shorter duration is in response to treatment-related toxicities (76%, 31/41). Most participants (79%, 33/42) expressed the need for more data to determine which patients can be safely and effectively treated with shorter durations. Patient factors such as young age, initial stage, hormone receptor status, and type of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were attributed to reluctance to offer shorter durations of treatment. Many respondents (83%, 35/42) expressed interest in participating in the proposed clinical trial of 6 months of anti-HER2 therapy. In contemporary Canadian practice, 12 months of anti-HER2 therapy remains the primary practice. Future trials are required to better define the role of shorter treatment durations.