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.

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.

Evaluating the Utility and Privacy of Synthetic Breast Cancer Clinical Trial Data Sets.

PURPOSE: There is strong interest from patients, researchers, the pharmaceutical industry, medical journal editors, funders of research, and regulators in sharing clinical trial data for secondary analysis. However, data access remains a challenge because of concerns about patient privacy. It has been argued that synthetic data generation (SDG) is an effective way to address these privacy concerns. There is a dearth of evidence supporting this on oncology clinical trial data sets, and on the utility of privacy-preserving synthetic data. The objective of the proposed study is to validate the utility and privacy risks of synthetic clinical trial data sets across multiple SDG techniques. METHODS: We synthesized data sets from eight breast cancer clinical trial data sets using three types of generative models: sequential synthesis, conditional generative adversarial network, and variational autoencoder. Synthetic data utility was evaluated by replicating the published analyses on the synthetic data and assessing concordance of effect estimates and CIs between real and synthetic data. Privacy was evaluated by measuring attribution disclosure risk and membership disclosure risk. RESULTS: Utility was highest using the sequential synthesis method where all results were replicable and the CI overlap most similar or higher for seven of eight data sets. Both types of privacy risks were low across all three types of generative models. DISCUSSION: Synthetic data using sequential synthesis methods can act as a proxy for real clinical trial data sets, and simultaneously have low privacy risks. This type of generative model can be one way to enable broader sharing of clinical trial data.

Explaining risks and benefits of loco-regional treatments to patients.

Treatment for early-stage breast cancer is complex, requiring multidisciplinary care with a multitude of treatment options available for each patient. Coupled with the rising importance of shared decision-making, patient-physician conversations are progressively more complicated. These conversations require frank disclosure of risks and benefits of the different treatment modalities in a way that is individualized for each patient and simple to understand. In most patients, breast conserving therapy with radiation should be presented as the gold-standard local treatment given similar long-term and improved quality of life outcomes. De-escalation is currently at the forefront of research in loco-regional treatments, and further investigations are required to best determine the optimal patient populations for reduced sentinel lymph node sampling, omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy altogether and omission of radiation treatment. For future trials, better endpoints need to be established considering patient-centered outcomes as well as recurrence.

Regularly scheduled physical examinations and the detection of breast cancer recurrences.

PURPOSE: Follow-up care of early breast cancer (EBC) patients usually includes routinely scheduled physical examinations. While ASCO guidelines recommend a physical exam every three to six months for the first three years, little evidence supports this schedule. We evaluated recurrence detection of patients transferred into a single centre survivorship program that follows ASCO recommendations. METHODS: Patients with EBC referred to the Wellness Beyond Cancer Program (WBCP) who had breast cancer recurrence between February 1, 2013, and January 1, 2019 were reviewed. Descriptive analyses were used to present patient and disease characteristics stratified by type of recurrence and mode of cancer detection. RESULTS: Of 206 recurrences, 135 were distant recurrences (65.5%), 41 were ipsilateral breast recurrences (19.9%), and 30 were contralateral breast primaries (14.6%). Distant recurrences were primarily detected via patient-reported symptoms (125/135, 92.6%). 53.7% (22/41) of ipsilateral breast recurrences were detected by patients and 41.5% (17/41) by routine imaging. Contralateral breast primaries were primarily detected by imaging 83.3% (25/30) and patient-reported symptoms 16.7% (5/30). Only 2/206 (1.14%) recurrences/new primaries were detected by healthcare providers at routinely scheduled follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS: Despite following ASCO guidelines, healthcare providers rarely detect recurrences at routinely scheduled follow-up appointments. Our data suggests that approximately 35, 000 follow-up visits were required for healthcare providers to detect these 2 recurrences. While reduced in-person visits may affect other aspects of follow-up care (e.g. toxicity management), it appears unlikely, provided patients attend regular screening tests, that less frequent in-person follow-up is associated with worse breast cancer-related outcomes.

Does the number of 6-monthly adjuvant zoledronate infusions received affect treatment efficacy for early breast cancer? A sub-study of ABCSG-12.

BACKGROUND: The widespread adoption of adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy for postmenopausal early breast cancer (EBC) patients was based on results of the Early Breast Cancer Trialist Group (EBCTCG) meta-analysis. Despite multiple regimens evaluated, there was no signal of varying efficacy with type, dose/dose intensity of bisphosphonate administration. We evaluated the effect of early treatment cessation using long-term outcome data from the ABCSG-12 trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ABCSG-12 randomized 1803 hormone-receptor positive EBC patients on ovarian suppression between 1999 and 2006 to receive 4 mg zoledronic acid 6-monthly or not (and tamoxifen or anastrozole, 2:2 factorial design). In the current study, we evaluated whether the number of zoledronate infusions had an impact on breast cancer-specific outcomes. We hypothesized that amongst patients who received at least one zoledronate infusion, the number of infusions had no effect on outcomes. Time-to-event endpoints were analysed with Cox models and Kaplan Meier curves starting from a 3-year landmark. BMD analysis was restricted to patients who participated in the BMD sub-study. RESULTS: 725 patients who received at least one zoledronate infusion were included in the time-to-event analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in disease-free or overall survival in the patients who received ≤6 zoledronate infusions (n = 170) compared to those who received ≥7 zoledronate infusions (n = 555). CONCLUSIONS: Comparable to efforts to de-escalate treatment duration in metastatic bone disease, there was no evidence to indicate that a reduced number of zoledronate infusions is associated with reduced adjuvant efficacy. Further studies to define optimal regimens of adjuvant bone-targeted therapies are required.

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.

Time to Update Evidence-Based Guideline Recommendations About Concurrent Tamoxifen and Antidepressant Use? A Systematic Review.

Concerns around pharmacological interaction between tamoxifen and antidepressants have resulted in evidence-base guidelines that recommend avoidance or caution with concurrent use. It remains unclear however whether this interaction is clinically important. A systematic review of studies comparing endocrine therapy (including tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors) alone or concurrent with antidepressants in breast cancer patients was performed. The literature search sought studies within MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library published from database inception until December 1, 2020. Outcomes of interest included recurrence, breast cancer-specific survival, overall mortality, quality of life, and treatment compliance. Studies were assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle Ottawa tool for case-control and cohort studies. From 695 citations, we included 15 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [255 patients], 10 retrospective cohort studies [75,678 patients], and 3 case-control studies [18,836 patients]). While between-study clinical and methodologic differences (including analysis of confounding variables) precluded formal meta-analysis, findings from included studies did not find consistent evidence that concurrent use of antidepressants (including paroxetine) with tamoxifen therapy has negative impacts on the outcomes of interest. In this systematic review, despite data from nearly 100,000 patients, concurrent use of tamoxifen and antidepressants showed no consistent negative effect on clinical outcomes. Given the recognized harm to patients of changing either endocrine therapy or antidepressants to avoid concurrent use, current evidence-based guidelines should be updated accordingly. More rigorously designed pharmacoepidemiologic studies are needed.

Does the Time of Day at Which Endocrine Therapy Is Taken Affect Breast Cancer Patient Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Non-compliance and non-persistence with endocrine therapy for breast cancer is common and usually related to treatment-induced side effects. There are anecdotal reports that simply changing the time of day when taking endocrine therapy (i.e., changing morning dosing to evening dosing or vice versa) can reduce side effects. LITERATURE REVIEW: We conducted a literature review to evaluate whether changing the timing of tamoxifen and/or aromatase inhibitor administration impacted patient outcomes. No randomized control trials or prospective cohort studies that looked at time of day of endocrine therapy were identified through our review of literature from 1947 until August 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Given the rates of endocrine therapy non-compliance and non-persistence reported in the literature, ranging from 41-72% and 31-73%, respectively, simply changing the time of day when medications are taken could be an important strategy. We could identify no trials evaluating the effect of changes in timing of administration of endocrine therapy on breast cancer patient outcomes. Randomized control trials are clearly indicated for this simple and cost-effective intervention.

Lost in Transition? Thoughts on Retirement, Part 2. "Should I Stay or Should I Go Now?"

Although it is accepted that oncologists should plan for a future beyond full-time oncology, there is little practical guidance for a successful transition into retirement. Previously, we provided strategies for various aspects of retirement planning. However, this became significantly more complicated as we face newer issues such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the move to virtual patient care, greater awareness of burnout, and the increasing burden of regulatory issues such as the electronic medical record. It is evident that more prospective information is needed to guide oncologists in planning their retirement.

The COVID-19 pandemic: An opportunity to rethink and harmonise the frequency of follow-up visits for patients with early stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: While routine, in-person follow-up of early-stage breast cancer patients (EBC) after completion of initial treatment is common, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented changes in clinical practice. A systematic review was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting different frequencies of routine follow-up. METHODS: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library were searched from database inception to July 16, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies (PCS) evaluating different frequencies of routine follow-up. Citations were assessed by pairs of independent reviewers. Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies. Findings were summarized narratively. RESULTS: The literature search identified 3316 studies, of which 7 (6 RCTs and 1 PCS) were eligible. Study endpoints included; quality of life (QoL; 5 RCTs and 1 PCS), disease free survival (DFS) (1 RCT), overall survival (OS) (1 RCT) and cost-effectiveness (1 RCT). The results showed reduction in follow-up frequency had no adverse effect on: QoL (6 studies, n = 920), DFS (1 trial, n = 472) or OS (1 trial, n = 472), but improved cost-effectiveness (1 trial, n = 472). Four RCTs specifically examined follow-up on-demand versus scheduled follow-up visits and found no statistically significant differences in QoL (n = 544). CONCLUSION: While no evidence-based guidelines suggest that follow-up of EBC patients improves DFS or OS, routinely scheduled in-person assessment is common. RCT data suggests that reduced frequency of follow-up has no adverse effects.