Endocrine Treatment and Targeted Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update recommendations of the ASCO systemic therapy for hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) guideline. METHODS: An Expert Panel conducted a systematic review to identify new, potentially practice-changing data. RESULTS: Fifty-one articles met eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: Alpelisib in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) should be offered to postmenopausal patients, and to male patients, with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, PIK3CA-mutated, ABC, or MBC following prior endocrine therapy with or without a cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor. Clinicians should use next-generation sequencing in tumor tissue or cell-free DNA in plasma to detect PIK3CA mutations. If no mutation is found in cell-free DNA, testing in tumor tissue, if available, should be used as this will detect a small number of additional patients with PIK3CA mutations. There are insufficient data at present to recommend routine testing for ESR1 mutations to guide therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative MBC. For BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer, olaparib or talazoparib should be offered in the 1st-line through 3rd-line setting. A nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) and a CDK4/6 inhibitor should be offered to postmenopausal women with treatment-naïve HR-positive MBC. Fulvestrant and a CDK4/6 inhibitor should be offered to patients with progressive disease during treatment with AIs (or who develop a recurrence within 1 year of adjuvant AI therapy) with or without one line of prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, or as first-line therapy. Treatment should be limited to those without prior exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors in the metastatic setting.Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

The development and initial evaluation of the Diarrhoea Management Diary (DMD) in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea (CID) is a common, but often underreported problem in patients with breast cancer that has a profound effect on quality of life. It is best measured from a patient's perspective, but tools are limited. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the Diarrhoea Management Diary (DMD), a self-report measure to assess CID, use of self-management strategies and treatment adherence. METHODS: The DMD was constructed using an iterative process of instrument development: concept elicitation (literature review), item generation and reduction (cognitive debriefing), and pilot testing in the target population. After translation into eight languages, the DMD was used in an international randomised trial for women receiving lapatinib and capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer with or without prophylactic octreotide. Patterns of missing data and sensitivity to change were examined. RESULTS: The understandability and completeness of the 8-item DMD was confirmed in cognitive interviews and pilot testing. Practicability of the DMD was evaluated in 62 women with metastatic breast cancer (median age 57). Up to 68% reported CID at any given time-point, and 19% had diarrhoea at each time-point. Patients also described efficacy of different strategies for diarrhoea management. Missing data were associated with study discontinuation. DMD missing item response was 0.9%. Sensitivity to change was good at most assessment points. CONCLUSIONS: Although further psychometric testing is recommended, initial evaluation of the DMD showed good content validity and practicability in international research with cancer patients.

Sexual functioning in 4,418 postmenopausal women participating in UKCTOCS: a qualitative free-text analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Sexual well-being can contribute significantly to the overall quality of women's lives. This qualitative study aimed to examine sexual activity, functioning, and satisfaction in a large sample of postmenopausal women from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) METHODS:: Thematic analysis was used to evaluate the free-text data of the Fallowfield Sexual Activity Questionnaire (FSAQ) completed by UKCTOCS participants at baseline before annual screening. RESULTS: A total of 24,305 women completed the baseline FSAQ and 4,525 (19%) provided free-text data, with 4,418 comments eligible for analysis. Median age was 64 years; 65% had a partner and 22.5% were sexually active. Four interrelated themes were derived: partner availability, physical and sexual health, mental well-being, and interpersonal relationships. Primary reason for absence of sexual activity was lack of a partner, mainly due to widowhood (n = 1,000). Women discussed how partner's medical condition (27%) or sexual dysfunction (13.5%), their own physical health (18%) or menopause-related symptoms (12.5%), and prescribed medication (7%) affected sexual activity. Impact of low libido in self (16%) or partner (7%), relationship problems (10.5%) or logistics (6%), and perceptions of ageing (9%) were also mentioned. Few (3%) referred to positive sexual experiences or had sought medical help for sexual problems (6%). CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative analysis explored postmenopausal women's perspective on their sexual functioning. Having an intimate partner and good physical health are key factors for continuation of sexual activity and satisfaction. Further sexual education for healthcare professionals is needed to raise awareness about sexuality and sexual difficulties in later life. : Video Summary: Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/MENO/A426.

For the Benefit of Others: Reasons Why Women with Breast Cancer Participate in RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Appreciation of the barriers and drivers affecting enrolment in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) is important for future trial design, communication and information provision. METHODS: As part of an intervention to facilitate UK multidisciplinary team communication about RCTs, women with breast cancer who discussed trials with doctors or research nurses completed questionnaires examining i) clarity of trial information and ii) reasons for their trial decision. RESULTS: 152 women completed the questionnaires; 113/152 (74%) consented to RCT enrolment. Patients' satisfaction with communication about the trial information was very good, irrespective of participation decisions. Acceptors' and decliners' responses to 9/16 statements concerning decisions about trial participation differed significantly. 'Wanting to help with doctor's research' influenced 100% acceptors compared to 57% of decliners (p < 0.001). Decliners were more likely to be 'worried about randomisation' (20 vs. 39%; p < 0.035) and to 'want doctor to choose treatment rather than be randomised' (31 vs. 53%; p < 0.031). Primary reason for trial acceptance was altruism; 'I feel that others with my illness will benefit from the results of the trial', 58/108 (54%). CONCLUSION: A majority of women accepted RCT entry citing altruistic motivations as the primary driver for participation. Trial design and setting (metastatic or adjuvant) had little impact on participation.

Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Drug Administration. Which Do Patients Prefer? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) drug delivery is commonly used for its rapid administration and immediate drug effect. Most studies compare IV to subcutaneous (SC) delivery in terms of safety and efficacy, but little is known about what patients prefer. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by searching seven electronic databases for articles published up to February 2014. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and/or crossover designs investigating patient preference for SC versus IV administration. The risk of bias in the RCTs was determined using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: The search identified 115 publications, but few (6/115) met the inclusion criteria. Patient populations and drugs investigated were diverse. Four of six studies demonstrated a clear patient preference for SC administration. Main factors associated with SC preference were time saving and the ability to have treatment at home. Only three studies used study-specific instruments to measure preference. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that patients prefer SC over IV delivery. Patient preference has clearly been neglected in clinical research, but it is important in medical decision making when choosing treatment methods as it has implications for adherence and quality of life. If the safety and efficacy of both administration routes are equivalent, then the most important factor should be patient preference as this will ensure optimal treatment adherence and ultimately improve patient experience or satisfaction. Future drug efficacy and safety studies should include contemporaneous, actual patient preference where possible, utilizing appropriate measures.

Pain and health-related quality of life in patients with advanced solid tumours and bone metastases: integrated results from three randomized, double-blind studies of denosumab and zoledronic acid.

PURPOSE: This analysis evaluated patient-reported outcomes and analgesic use in patients with bone metastases from solid tumours across three comparative studies of denosumab and zoledronic acid. METHODS: Pooled data were analysed from three identically designed double-blind phase III studies comparing subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg with intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg monthly in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer (n = 2,046), castration-resistant prostate cancer (n = 1,901) or other solid tumours (n = 1,597). Pain severity, pain interference, health-related quality of life and analgesic use were quantified. RESULTS: At baseline, approximately half of patients had no/mild pain (53 % [1,386/2,620] denosumab; 50 % [1,297/2,578] zoledronic acid). Denosumab delayed onset of moderate/severe pain by 1.8 months (median, 6.5 vs 4.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95 % CI, 0.76-0.92; p < 0.001; 17 % risk reduction) and clinically meaningful increases in overall pain interference by 2.6 months (median, 10.3 vs 7.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95 % CI, 0.75-0.92; p < 0.001; 17 % risk reduction) compared with zoledronic acid. Strong opioid use and worsening of health-related quality of life were less common with denosumab. CONCLUSIONS: Across three large studies of patients with advanced solid tumours and bone metastases, denosumab prevented progression of pain severity and pain interference more effectively than zoledronic acid.

Adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly women with breast cancer: patients' perspectives on information giving and decision making.

BACKGROUND: Decisions about adjuvant chemotherapy in older women with early stage breast cancer (EBC) are often challenging. Uncertainty about benefits due to limited data about treatment efficacy and outcomes complicates decision making. This qualitative study explored older patients' experiences and preferences towards information giving and ultimate decisions about adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Clinicians from 24 UK breast cancer teams reported on adjuvant chemotherapy decisions for women aged ≥70 years with EBC from April 2010 to December 2011. Women who were offered chemotherapy were invited to participate in structured interviews. Self-reported quality of life (QoL) and functional ability were assessed. Qualitative methods were used to identify themes associated with information giving and decision making. RESULTS: A total of 58/95 eligible women (61%) participated. Median age was 73 years (range 70-83). Mean total scores for QoL and functional ability were average. The majority of women preferred to make their treatment decisions collaboratively with a clinician (59%) or on their own (19%). The main reasons influencing decisions to accept chemotherapy were categorised as prevention of recurrence and clinician recommendation. Side effects, length of treatment, impact on QoL, low survival benefits and clinician recommendation influenced decisions to decline chemotherapy. The majority (80%) were satisfied with information provision, the communication with their clinician and explanation of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Older women with EBC preferred to be involved in clinical decision making. Clinician recommendation plays a significant role in either accepting or declining chemotherapy. Well-informed decision making and effective communication between clinicians, older women and their family members are therefore important.

Evaluation of an educational program to improve communication with patients about early-phase trial participation.

BACKGROUND: Discussing early-phase cancer trials is challenging; most offer little personal benefit to patients with life-limiting illnesses who frequently have a poor understanding of and misconceptions about the therapeutic aims. We evaluated an evidence-based training program aimed at enhancing communication. METHODS: Prior to and after the intervention, 47 health care professionals (HCPs) experienced in early-phase trial recruitment were audio taped discussing trials with patient simulators who completed postinterview evaluations. Coders rated the interviews for the presence of information areas required to elicit ethical consent. HCPs reported their self-confidence on 15 different aspects of trial discussion. RESULTS: Significant objective and subjective improvements in communication were found after the workshop. Analyses of audio tapes showed positive shifts in: establishing the patient's knowledge of their prognosis (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; p = .002), discussing symptomatic care (OR, 3.8; p < .001), the aims of the trial (OR, 2.6; p =.002), and the unlikelihood of medical benefit (OR, 3.0; p = .021). Patient simulator ratings showed improvements in: the awareness of palliative care and symptom control (OR, 2.1; p = .004), the voluntariness of participation (OR, 3.7; p = .015), the opportunity to ask questions (OR, 2.9; p = .044), and the time to consider participation (OR, 6.1; p = .009). HCPs' self-confidence increased significantly for all 15 items (OR range, 1.5-2.9; p ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: This short, intensive workshop changed communication skills competency and self-efficacy in ways likely to promote valid, ethically informed consent from patients contemplating trial entry.

Patient-reported outcome instruments used to assess pain and functioning in studies of bisphosphonate treatment for bone metastases.

PURPOSE: When treating metastatic bone disease, relief of bone pain is often a key outcome. Because pain cannot be quantified with objective clinical measures, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are required to assess patients' subjective experience. The goal of the current review was to examine measures used to assess pain, as well as the impact of pain on functional status and health-related quality of life (HRQL), in trials of bisphosphonates for the treatment of bone metastases. METHODS: A literature search focused on articles published from January 1999 to April 2009. RESULTS: A total of 49 articles were located that used PROs to assess pain-related outcomes of bisphosphonate treatment for bone metastases. The Brief Pain Inventory was the most commonly used multi-item instrument. However, the most common approach for assessing pain was to administer a single-item scale such as a visual analog scale, numerical rating scale, or verbal rating scale. Of the 49 studies, 19 included a PRO assessing functional status or HRQL. CONCLUSIONS: Although pain is an important outcome of trials examining treatment for bone metastases, the current review suggests that there is little consistency in PRO measurement across studies. Furthermore, presentation of measures often lacked clear description, information on measurement properties, citations, clarity regarding method of administration, and consistent instrument names. Recommendations are provided for instrument validation within the target population, assessment of content validity, use of PRO instruments recently developed for patients with bone metastases, clear description of instruments, and implementation of measures consistent with recommendations from instrument developers.

The views of patients and the general public about expensive anti-cancer drugs in the NHS: a questionnaire-based study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the views of patients and members of the public about who should pay for expensive new cancer drugs not recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). DESIGN: A study-specific questionnaire was used to elicit the views of patients and the general public between April and June 2010. It examined whether participants thought patients should be told about all possible cancer treatments, if the NHS should always fund non-NICE recommended drugs and attitudes towards self-funding/co-payments. The influence of sociodemographic factors on responses was also examined. SETTING: Oncology clinics in Sussex and various locations including old persons' lunch clubs, parks, sports venues and support groups. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and 10 patients with common solid tumours, and 416 members of the general public MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequencies of responses to items regarding payments for expensive anti-cancer drugs stratified by sociodemographic factors and comparison of responses between patients and members of the public. RESULTS: Most respondents (70% [147/210] of patients and 64% [266/416] of the general public) had heard of NICE. Both groups believed that doctors should tell patients about all available cancer treatments even if the NHS cannot pay (94%, 196/208; 93%, 388/415). However, only 49% (101/207) of patients and 36% (146/409) of the public believed that the NHS should always fund all new cancer drugs that have failed health technology assessments. Strong predictors of willingness to purchase expensive new cancer drugs included younger age (<45 years), sex (female) and higher educational level. CONCLUSION: The general population appear realistic about the difficulties of providing funding for expensive new drugs. A communication skills training course has been developed to help clinicians with these difficult consultations.

The value of progression-free survival to patients with advanced-stage cancer.

Progression-free survival (PFS) is frequently used as a primary end point in oncology clinical trials. Employing PFS instead of overall survival as the primary outcome has the advantage that trial completion can be quicker with fewer patients required, and it is cheaper. PFS is sensitive to cytostatic as well as cytotoxic mechanisms of therapeutic intervention and directly measures the effect of the investigational treatment. Despite these practical advantages, it is unclear whether or not extending PFS provides discernable clinical benefit. New treatments that increase PFS may not be of sufficient value to patients with advanced-stage cancer unless accompanied by tangible quantity or quality of life advantages. Any symptom relief that patients gain from treatment resulting in tumor shrinkage or stabilization must be balanced against the toxic effects that drug therapy itself creates. Consequently, improved assessment of new treatments using patient-reported outcomes alongside PFS is crucial to enable communication between clinicians and patients and optimal decision-making about therapeutic options.

A UK-wide survey of follow-up practices for patients with high-grade glioma treated with radical intent.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: High-grade glioma profoundly affects patients and their families. The best ongoing care for patients completing radical treatment is uncertain. To address this issue a UK-wide audit surveying the follow-up practices of multidisciplinary cancer teams was conducted. METHOD: An online survey package was used with a paper version available. RESULTS: Of 102 clinicians approached 86 replied, a response rate of 84%. Three-monthly outpatient department appointments led by an oncologist and a specialist nurse were the norm, but more controversially, some centres conduct joint clinics with the whole neurosurgical/oncology team present or available. Nurse-led telephone follow-up in place of hospital visits is uncommon. Regular scanning is conducted despite the clinical benefits being contentious. Access to a range of allied services providing supportive care is considered, but the actual levels of need and the efficiency with which they are delivered require further investigation. CONCLUSIONS: The picture of UK follow-up practices revealed by this survey demonstrates that research is now needed to determine what preferences patients and families have for follow-up and their satisfaction with these.

What oncologists believe they said and what patients believe they heard: an analysis of phase I trial discussions.

UNLABELLED: PURPOSE; Evaluation of the communication and informed consent process in phase I clinical trial interviews to provide authentic, practice-based content for inclusion in a communication skills training intervention for health care professionals. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventeen oncologists and 52 patients from five United Kingdom cancer centers consented to recording of phase I trial discussions. Following each consultation, clinicians completed questionnaires indicating areas they felt they had discussed, and researchers conducted semistructured interviews with patients examining their recall and understanding. Patients and oncologists also completed the Life Orientation Test-Revised questionnaire, measuring predisposition toward optimism. Independent researchers coded the consultations identifying discussion of key information areas and how well this was done. Observed levels of agreement were analyzed for each consultation between oncologist-coder, oncologist-patient, and patient-coder pairs. RESULTS: In several key areas, information was either missing or had been explained but was interpreted incorrectly by patients. Discussion of prognosis was a frequent omission, with patients and coders significantly more likely to agree that oncologists had not discussed it (odds, 4.8; P < .001). In contrast, coders and oncologists were more likely to agree that alternate care plans to phase I trial entry had been explained (odds, 2.5; P = .023). CONCLUSION: These data indicate that fundamental components of communication and information sharing about phase I trial participation are often missing from interviews. Important omissions included discussion of prognosis and ensuring patient understanding about supportive care. These findings will inform educational initiatives to assist communication about phase I trials.

Anastrozole and letrozole: an investigation and comparison of quality of life and tolerability.

Previous studies have demonstrated that both anastrozole and letrozole are well tolerated. Letrozole suppresses estrogen to a greater degree than anastrozole in the serum and breast tumor. Concerns have been raised that greater potency may adversely affect patients' quality of life (QOL). One hundred eighty-one postmenopausal women with invasive estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers were randomized to receive either 12 weeks of letrozole followed by 12 weeks of anastrozole or the reverse sequence. One hundred and six received immediate adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AIs) following surgery, and 75 received extended adjuvant therapy. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Endocrine Subscale (FACT-B-ES) QOL questionnaires were completed to assess QOL on each drug. Additional side-effect profiles were collected. Each patient completed a patient preference form. Twenty-one patients withdrew before study end, 10/179 (5.6%) while taking letrozole and 4/173 (2.3%) while taking anastrozole (P = 0.12). Tamoxifen-naïve patients had a higher mean ES (endocrine symptoms subscale) score at entry versus those having extended therapy (66.0 vs. 61.9; P = 0.001). There was no significant change in FACT-B-ES (overall) scores or ES scores while patients were taking anastrozole or letrozole and no significant differences between drugs. Nearly 80% of patients reported one or more side effects with either agent. No differences in frequency, grade, or range of side effects were seen between drugs. Of 160 patients, 49 (30.6%) preferred letrozole, 57 (35.6%) preferred anastrozole, and 54 (33.8%) had no preference (P = 0.26, Pearson's Chi-squared test). In conclusion, both AIs are equally well tolerated. There were no significant differences in QOL scores between the two drugs.

A Rasch and confirmatory factor analysis of the general health questionnaire (GHQ)--12.

BACKGROUND: The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) - 12 was designed as a short questionnaire to assess psychiatric morbidity. Despite the fact that studies have suggested a number of competing multidimensional factor structures, it continues to be largely used as a unidimensional instrument. This may have an impact on the identification of psychiatric morbidity in target populations. The aim of this study was to explore the dimensionality of the GHQ-12 and to evaluate a number of alternative models for the instrument. METHODS: The data were drawn from a large heterogeneous sample of cancer patients. The Partial Credit Model (Rasch) was applied to the 12-item GHQ. Item misfit (infit mean square >or= 1.3) was identified, misfitting items removed and unidimensionality and differential item functioning (age, gender, and treatment aims) were assessed. The factor structures of the various alternative models proposed in the literature were explored and optimum model fit evaluated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis. RESULTS: The Rasch analysis of the 12-item GHQ identified six misfitting items. Removal of these items produced a six-item instrument which was not unidimensional. The Rasch analysis of an 8-item GHQ demonstrated two unidimensional structures corresponding to Anxiety/Depression and Social Dysfunction. No significant differential item functioning was observed by age, gender and treatment aims for the six- and eight-item GHQ. Two models competed for best fit from the confirmatory factor analysis, namely the GHQ-8 and Hankin's (2008) unidimensional model, however, the GHQ-8 produced the best overall fit statistics. CONCLUSIONS: The results are consistent with the evidence that the GHQ-12 is a multi-dimensional instrument. Use of the summated scores for the GHQ-12 could potentially lead to an incorrect assessment of patients' psychiatric morbidity. Further evaluation of the GHQ-12 with different target populations is warranted.

Communication and informed consent in phase 1 trials: a review of the literature from January 2005 to July 2009.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: A review conducted in 2005 identified many of the communication difficulties experienced by patients and doctors when discussing phase 1 (P1) oncology trials. The current paper is an update of the area and focuses on studies that measure patient comprehension of information given during the P1 trial discussion and ways to enhance understanding. A literature search was performed for relevant articles published between January 2005 and July 1st 2009. RESULTS: Only 12/109 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. One study recorded the actual trial discussion and compared patients' understanding with what the clinician had communicated. The others used interview techniques and surveys to elicit patients' understanding of P1 trials, motivations for considering trials and expectations of benefit. Two examined interventions to aid patient understanding. CONCLUSION: Explaining potential participation in a P1 trial with a patient with cancer is not an easy task: the doctor must ensure that the patient has an accurate understanding of their condition and that standard treatments have now been exhausted. This must be followed by admission of the probable lack of any therapeutic benefit from the P1 drug together with the possibility that there might be unwanted side effects, many of which are unknown. These are all challenging subjects. New educational initiatives informed through research conducted with patients and health care professionals are currently being developed and clearly much needed.

International guidelines for management of metastatic breast cancer: combination vs sequential single-agent chemotherapy.

Compared with treatment options for early-stage breast cancer, few data exist regarding the optimal use of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The choice of using a combination of cytotoxic chemotherapies vs sequential single agents is controversial. At the 6th European Breast Cancer Conference, the European School of Oncology Metastatic Breast Cancer Task Force convened an open debate on the relative benefits of combination vs sequential therapy. Based on the available data, the Task Force recommends sequential monotherapy as the preferred choice in advanced disease, in the absence of rapid clinical progression, life-threatening visceral metastases, or the need for rapid symptom and/or disease control. Patient- and disease-related factors should be used to choose between combination and sequential single-agent chemotherapy for MBC. Additional research is needed to determine the impact of therapy on patient-rated quality of life and to identify predictive factors that can be used to guide therapy.

Effects of anastrozole on cognitive performance in postmenopausal women: a randomised, double-blind chemoprevention trial (IBIS II).

BACKGROUND: Mild cognitive impairments have been recorded in cross-sectional studies of women with breast cancer receiving endocrine treatment. More comprehensive studies were warranted because aromatase inhibitors are being used increasingly in both chemoprevention and adjuvant settings. We report findings from the cognitive subprotocol of the International Breast Intervention Study (IBIS II), a double-blind placebo-controlled trial of anastrozole in postmenopausal women at high risk of developing breast cancer. We aimed to study and compare the effect of anastrozole versus placebo on memory and attention in these women. METHODS: Between Jan 3, 2003, and Dec 21, 2005, participants were recruited into the cognitive subprotocol from five UK centres. Cognitive assessments were done before randomisation, at 6 months, and at 24 months. 227 of 249 women approached completed a comprehensive set of standardised cognitive tasks at baseline and were randomly assigned to receive anastrozole (1 mg/day for 5 years) or placebo. Psychological morbidity, endocrine symptoms, and self-reported cognitive complaints were also measured. The main outcomes were cognitive task scores at baseline, 6 months, and 24 months. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN31488319. FINDINGS: 111 women were assigned to anastrozole and 116 women to placebo. At 6 months, ten women in each group were excluded from analysis, leaving a total of 207 of 227 (91%) women available for further assessments. At 24 months, 24 women were excluded from the anastrozole group and 32 from the placebo group, leaving 151 of 227 (67%) women. We did not note any significant differences between the groups for any of the cognitive tasks. By 6 months, 13 women in both groups reported changes to their memory and this had decreased to five women in the placebo group and three women in the anastrozole group by the 24-month assessment. Significantly more women in the anastrozole group complained of hot flushes at 24 months (23 of 76 [30%] vs 11 of 73 [15%], p=0.032, not corrected for multiple comparison), but this was the only difference in reported endocrine symptoms. INTERPRETATION: These findings show little or no impairment of cognitive performance with the use of anastrozole compared with placebo in postmenopausal women at high risk of developing breast cancer who were able to tolerate endocrine-related side-effects. Future studies assessing cognition should be done within randomised trials with baseline assessments to ascertain the true extent of the putative effects that treatments for breast cancer might have on memory and attention. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, London, UK (grant numbers C6280/A3162 and C6280/A6764).