Protocol for the development of a core outcome set and reporting guidelines for locoregional treatment in neoadjuvant systemic breast cancer treatment trials: the PRECEDENT project.

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant systemic anticancer therapy (neoSACT) is increasingly used in the treatment of early breast cancer. Response to therapy is prognostic and allows locoregional and adjuvant systemic treatments to be tailored to minimise morbidity and optimise oncological outcomes and quality of life. Accurate information about locoregional treatments following neoSACT is vital to allow the translation of downstaging benefits into practice and facilitate meaningful interpretation of oncological outcomes, particularly locoregional recurrence. Reporting of locoregional treatments in neoSACT studies, however, is currently poor. The development of a core outcome set (COS) and reporting guidelines is one strategy by which this may be improved. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A COS for reporting locoregional treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) in neoSACT trials will be developed in accordance with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development guidelines. Reporting guidance will be developed concurrently.The project will have three phases: (1) generation of a long list of relevant outcome domains and reporting items from a systematic review of published neoSACT studies and interviews with key stakeholders. Identified items and domains will be categorised and formatted into Delphi consensus questionnaire items. (2) At least two rounds of an international online Delphi survey in which at least 250 key stakeholders (surgeons/oncologists/radiologists/pathologists/trialists/methodologists) will score the importance of reporting each outcome. (3) A consensus meeting with key stakeholders to discuss and agree the final COS and reporting guidance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the consensus process will be obtained from the Queen's University Belfast Faculty Ethics Committee. The COS/reporting guidelines will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. Dissemination materials will be produced in collaboration with our steering group and patient advocates so the results can be shared widely. REGISTRATION: The study has been prospectively registered on the COMET website (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2854).

Fear of Cancer Recurrence in Differentiated Thyroid Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review.

Background: Despite excellent survival rates, health-related quality of life detriments are common in differentiated thyroid cancer survivors and can be driven by fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). This review aims to report the incidence of FCR in thyroid cancer survivors and synthesize evidence regarding contributing factors. An overview and appraisal of the range of tools used to measure FCR is presented. Methods: A systematic review of the English literature was performed. The search across six electronic databases generated 3414 studies. Two reviewers independently screened the citations and full-text articles, of which 31 were included. The data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Results: The incidence of FCR was reported in 27/31 studies and ranged from 15% to 91%. Direct comparisons regarding incidence and severity of FCR were not possible due to heterogeneity in cut-points used to define FCR. A total of eight validated tools were used to measure FCR across all studies, with five studies using self-developed nonvalidated items. There was minimal repetition of validated tools and no clear consensus as to a preferred survey tool. Factors influencing FCR were reported in 11 studies. There was minimal overlap of factors influencing FCR. Risk factors contributing to increased FCR reported in more than one study included young age and an upcoming clinical appointment. Male gender and higher education levels were reported in more than one article as protective. No literature evaluating interventions to address FCR in thyroid cancer survivors was found. Conclusion: FCR is common in thyroid cancer survivors, but significant heterogeneity in the current evidence base limits assessment of incidence, severity, or risk factors. There is a need to use validated tools to assess FCR in both research and clinical contexts. Reliable assessment of FCR may permit routine assessment of FCR in clinical practice and allow interventions to be prospectively evaluated to optimize the holistic well-being of thyroid cancer survivors.

Effect of baseline oestradiol serum concentration on the efficacy of anastrozole for preventing breast cancer in postmenopausal women at high risk: a case-control study of the IBIS-II prevention trial.

BACKGROUND: An increased risk of breast cancer is associated with high serum concentrations of oestradiol and testosterone in postmenopausal women, but little is known about how these hormones affect response to endocrine therapy for breast cancer prevention or treatment. We aimed to assess the effects of serum oestradiol and testosterone concentrations on the efficacy of the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole for the prevention of breast cancer in postmenopausal women at high risk. METHODS: In this case-control study we used data from the IBIS-II prevention trial, a randomised, controlled, double-blind trial in postmenopausal women aged 40-70 years at high risk of breast cancer, conducted in 153 breast cancer treatment centres across 18 countries. In the trial, women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive anastrozole (1 mg/day, orally) or placebo daily for 5 years. In this pre-planned case-control study, the primary analysis was the effect of the baseline oestradiol to sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) ratio (oestradiol-SHBG ratio) on the development of all breast cancers, including ductal carcinoma in situ (the primary endpoint in the trial). Cases were participants in whom breast cancer was reported after trial entry and until the cutoff on Oct 22, 2019, and who had valid blood samples and no use of hormone replacement therapy within 3 months of trial entry or during the trial. For each case, two controls without breast cancer were selected at random, matched on treatment group, age (within 2 years), and follow-up time (at least that of the matching case). For each treatment group, we applied a multinominal logistic regression likelihood-ratio trend test to assess what change in the proportion of cases was associated with a one-quartile change in hormone ratio. Controls were used only to determine quartile cutoffs. Profile likelihood 95% CIs were used to indicate the precision of estimates. A secondary analysis also investigated the effect of the baseline testosterone-SHBG ratio on breast cancer development. We also assessed relative benefit of anastrozole versus placebo (calculated as 1 - the ratio of breast cancer cases in the anastrozole group to cases in the placebo group). The trial was registered with ISRCTN (number ISRCTN31488319) and completed recruitment on Jan 31, 2012, but long-term follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: 3864 women were recruited into the trial between Feb 2, 2003, and Jan 31, 2012, and randomly assigned to receive anastrozole (n=1920) or placebo (n=1944). Median follow-up time was 131 months (IQR 106-156), during which 85 (4·4%) cases of breast cancer in the anastrozole group and 165 (8·5%) in the placebo group were identified. No data on gender, race, or ethnicity were collected. After exclusions, the case-control study included 212 participants from the anastrozole group (72 cases, 140 controls) and 416 from the placebo group (142 cases, 274 controls). A trend of increasing breast cancer risk with increasing oestradiol-SHBG ratio was found in the placebo group (trend per quartile 1·25 [95% CI 1·08 to 1·45], p=0·0033), but not in the anastrozole group (1·06 [0·86 to 1·30], p=0·60). A weaker effect was seen for the testosterone-SHBG ratio in the placebo group (trend 1·21 [1·05 to 1·41], p=0·011), but again not in the anastrozole group (trend 1·18 [0·96 to 1·46], p=0·11). A relative benefit of anastrozole was seen in quartile 2 (0·55 [95% CI 0·13 to 0·78]), quartile 3 (0·54 [0·22 to 0·74], and quartile 4 (0·56 [0·23 to 0·76]) of oestradiol-SHBG ratio, but not in quartile 1 (0·18 [-0·60 to 0·59]). INTERPRETATION: These results suggest that serum hormones should be measured more routinely and integrated into risk management decisions. Measuring serum hormone concentrations is inexpensive and might help clinicians differentiate which women will benefit most from an aromatase inhibitor. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and DaCosta Fund.

Postoperative radiotherapy omission in selected patients with early breast cancer following preoperative breast MRI (PROSPECT): primary results of a prospective two-arm study.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant breast radiotherapy as a standard component of breast-conserving treatment for early cancer can overtreat many women. Breast MRI is the most sensitive modality to assess local tumour burden. The aim of this study was to determine whether a combination of MRI and pathology findings can identify women with truly localised breast cancer who can safely avoid radiotherapy. METHODS: PROSPECT is a prospective, multicentre, two-arm, non-randomised trial of radiotherapy omission in patients selected using preoperative MRI and postoperative tumour pathology. It is being conducted at four academic hospitals in Australia. Women aged 50 years or older with cT1N0 non-triple-negative breast cancer were eligible. Those with apparently unifocal cancer had breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and, if pT1N0 or N1mi, had radiotherapy omitted (group 1). Standard treatment including excision of MRI-detected additional cancers was offered to the others (group 2). All were recommended systemic therapy. The primary outcome was ipsilateral invasive recurrence rate (IIRR) at 5 years in group 1. Primary analysis occurred after the 100th group 1 patient reached 5 years follow-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness of the PROSPECT pathway were analysed. This study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12610000810011). FINDINGS: Between May 17, 2011, and May 6, 2019, 443 patients with breast cancer underwent MRI. Median age was 63·0 years. MRI detected 61 malignant occult lesions separate from the index cancer in 48 patients (11%). Of 201 group 1 patients who had BCS without radiotherapy, the IIRR at 5 years was 1·0% (upper 95% CI 5·4%). In group 1, one local recurrence occurred at 4·5 years and a second at 7·5 years. In group 2, nine patients had mastectomy (2% of total cohort), and the 5-year IIRR was 1·7% (upper 95% CI 6·1%). The only distant metastasis in the entire cohort was genetically distinct from the index cancer. The PROSPECT pathway increased QALYs by 0·019 (95% CI 0·008-0·029) and saved AU$1980 (95% CI 1396-2528) or £953 (672-1216) per patient. INTERPRETATION: PROSPECT suggests that women with unifocal breast cancer on MRI and favourable pathology can safely omit radiotherapy. FUNDING: Breast Cancer Trials, National Breast Cancer Foundation, Cancer Council Victoria, the Royal Melbourne Hospital Foundation, and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

Impact of BMI in Patients With Early Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer Receiving Endocrine Therapy With or Without Palbociclib in the PALLAS Trial.

PURPOSE: BMI affects breast cancer risk and prognosis. In contrast to cytotoxic chemotherapy, CDK4/6 inhibitors are given at a fixed dose, irrespective of BMI or weight. This preplanned analysis of the global randomized PALLAS trial investigates the impact of BMI on the side-effect profile, treatment adherence, and efficacy of palbociclib. METHODS: Patients were categorized at baseline according to WHO BMI categories. Neutropenia rates were assessed with univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Time to early discontinuation of palbociclib was analyzed with Fine and Gray competing risk models. Unstratified Cox models were used to investigate the association between BMI category and time to invasive disease-free survival (iDFS). 95% CIs were derived. RESULTS: Of 5,698 patients included in this analysis, 68 (1.2%) were underweight, 2,082 (36.5%) normal weight, 1,818 (31.9%) overweight, and 1,730 (30.4%) obese at baseline. In the palbociclib arm, higher BMI was associated with a significant decrease in neutropenia (unadjusted odds ratio for 1-unit change, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.94; adjusted for age, race ethnicity, region, chemotherapy use, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group at baseline, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.95). This translated into a significant decrease in treatment discontinuation rate with higher BMI (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for 10-unit change, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.83). There was no significant improvement in iDFS with the addition of palbociclib to ET in any weight category (normal weight HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.12; overweight HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.49; and obese HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.30) in this analysis early in follow-up (31 months). CONCLUSION: This preplanned analysis of the PALLAS trial demonstrates a significant impact of BMI on side effects, dose reductions, early treatment discontinuation, and relative dose intensity. Additional long-term follow-up will further evaluate whether BMI ultimately affects outcome.

Finding My Way-Advanced: can a web-based psychosocial intervention improve the mental quality of life for women with metastatic breast cancer vs attention-control? Study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women living with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are at risk of significantly impaired quality of life (QOL), symptom burden, distress and fear of progression, and unmet needs, yet they face barriers to accessing evidence-based psychosocial treatments. Our group therefore developed Finding My Way-Advanced (FMW-A), a web-based self-guided psychosocial program for women with MBC. This study aims to assess its efficacy in improving mental and other QOL domains, distress, fear of progression, unmet needs, and health service utilisation. METHODS: The multi-site randomised controlled trial (RCT) will enrol 370 Australian participants. Eligible participants are adult (18 years +) women diagnosed with MBC, with a life expectancy of 6 months or more, with sufficient English-language literacy to provide informed consent. Participants will be identified, screened and referred from one of 10 Australian sites, or via self-referral in response to advertisements. Participants complete four online questionnaires: prior to accessing their program ('baseline'), 6 weeks later ('post-intervention'), then 3 months and 6 months post-intervention. Consenting participants will be randomised to either FMW-A (intervention), or Breast Cancer Network Australia's (BCNA) online/app resource My Journey (minimal intervention attention-control). This is a single-blind study, with randomisation computer-generated and stratified by site. FMW-A is a 6-module program addressing some of the most common issues experienced by women with MBC, with BCNA control resources integrated within the 'resources' section. All modules are immediately accessible, with an additional booster module released 10 weeks later. The primary outcome is mental QOL; statistical criteria for superiority is defined as a 4-point difference between groups at post-treatment. Secondary outcomes include other QOL domains, distress, fear of progression, health service use, intervention adherence, and user satisfaction. DISCUSSION: This will be the first adequately powered RCT of a self-directed online intervention for women with MBC. If efficacious, FMW-A will help address two national key priorities for management of MBC - enhancing QOL and reducing symptom burden. FMW-A has the potential to address unmet needs and overcome access barriers for this overlooked population, while reducing health system burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered prospectively with the ANZCTR on 29/10/2021. Trial ID ACTRN12621001482853p.  https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=382714&isReview=true.

What is the prevalence of fear of cancer recurrence in cancer survivors and patients? A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Care for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is considered the most common unmet need among cancer survivors. Yet the prevalence of FCR and predisposing factors remain inconclusive. To support targeted care, we provide a comprehensive overview of the prevalence and severity of FCR among cancer survivors and patients, as measured using the short form of the validated Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI-SF). We also report on associations between FCR and clinical and demographic characteristics. METHODS: This is a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis on the prevalence of FCR. In the review, we included all studies that used the FCRI-SF with adult (≥18 years) cancer survivors and patients. Date of search: 7 February 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. RESULTS: IPD were requested from 87 unique studies and provided for 46 studies comprising 11,226 participants from 13 countries. 9311 respondents were included for the main analyses. On the FCRI-SF (range 0-36), 58.8% of respondents scored ≥13, 45.1% scored ≥16 and 19.2% scored ≥22. FCR decreased with age and women reported more FCR than men. FCR was found across cancer types and continents and for all time periods since cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: FCR affects a considerable number of cancer survivors and patients. It is therefore important that healthcare providers discuss this issue with their patients and provide treatment when needed. Further research is needed to investigate how best to prevent and treat FCR and to identify other factors associated with FCR. The protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42020142185).

Treatment Exposure and Discontinuation in the PALbociclib CoLlaborative Adjuvant Study of Palbociclib With Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive/Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Early Breast Cancer (PALLAS/AFT-05/ABCSG-42/BIG-14-03).

PURPOSE: The PALLAS study investigated whether the addition of palbociclib, an oral CDK4/6 inhibitor, to adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) improves invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in early hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer. In this analysis, we evaluated palbociclib exposure and discontinuation in PALLAS. METHODS: Patients with stage II-III HR+, HER2- disease were randomly assigned to 2 years of palbociclib with adjuvant ET versus ET alone. The primary objective was to compare iDFS between arms. Continuous monitoring of toxicity, dose modifications, and early discontinuation was performed. Association of baseline covariates with time to palbociclib reduction and discontinuation was analyzed with multivariable competing risk models. Landmark and inverse probability weighted per-protocol analyses were performed to assess the impact of drug persistence and exposure on iDFS. RESULTS: Of the 5,743 patient analysis population (2,840 initiating palbociclib), 1,199 (42.2%) stopped palbociclib before 2 years, the majority (772, 27.2%) for adverse effects, most commonly neutropenia and fatigue. Discontinuation of ET did not differ between arms. Discontinuations for non-protocol-defined reasons were greater in the first 3 months of palbociclib, and in the first calendar year of accrual, and declined over time. No significant relationship was seen between longer palbociclib duration or ≥ 70% exposure intensity and improved iDFS. In the weighted per-protocol analysis, no improvement in iDFS was observed in patients receiving palbociclib versus not (hazard ratio 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.11). CONCLUSION: Despite observed rates of discontinuation in PALLAS, analyses suggest that the lack of significant iDFS difference between arms was not directly related to inadequate palbociclib exposure. However, the discontinuation rate illustrates the challenge of introducing novel adjuvant treatments, and the need for interventions to improve persistence with oral cancer therapies.

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab plus trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy regimen in Chinese patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer: a real-world retrospective multi-center cohort study.

Background: Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab combined with chemotherapy has become a standard neoadjuvant therapy option for patients with high-risk human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC). There is still not enough evidence for the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in HER2-positive BC patients in China, both in clinical trials and real-world settings. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab plus trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy in Chinese patients with HER2-positive BC in real-world clinical application. Methods: We retrospectively collected the data from the electronic medical records of HER2-positive patients treated with neoadjuvant trastuzumab and pertuzumab plus chemotherapy from December 2018 to May 2021 at 21 hospitals located in Hunan Province, China, including age, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, clinical tumor size, clinical lymph node status, pathological characteristics (before neoadjuvant systemic therapy), treatment approach, adverse events to neoadjuvant therapy, and achievement of pathological complete response (pCR). The primary endpoint was the total rate of pCR, and the secondary endpoints were the rate of pCR of each subgroup and the safety of dual anti-HER2 therapy. Results: A total of 188 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Of the 188 patients, 119 (63.3%) were diagnosed at stage II and 64 (34.0%) at stage III; 163 (86.7%) were cT2-3; 149 patients (79.3%) were ≥ cN1; 84 patients (44.7%) were hormone receptor (HR)-positive. pCR was observed in 88 of 188 patients (46.8%). The pCR rate of HR-negative patients (54.8%) was higher (P=0.014) than that of HR-positive patients (36.9%). Patients with Ki-67 <15% achieved a higher (P=0.033) pCR rate (68.2%) than those with Ki-67 ≥15% (44.0%). Anemia was the most common adverse event (63.4%), and the most common grade 3-4 adverse event was nausea and vomiting (8.5%). Conclusions: Our study confirmed the benefit of neoadjuvant pertuzumab plus trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy on pCR with a tolerable safety profile in routine clinical practice in Chinese patients with HER2-positive BC. HR-negativity and Ki-67 <15% were associated with pCR in these patients.

Facilitating High Quality Cancer Care: A Qualitative Study of Australian Chairpersons' Perspectives on Multidisciplinary Team Meetings.

AIM: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs) are a critical element of quality care for people diagnosed with cancer. The MDM Chairperson plays a significant role in facilitating these meetings, which are often time-poor environments for clinical decision making. This study examines the perceptions of MDM Chairpersons including their role and the factors that determine the quality of a Chair, as well as the Chairperson's perception of the value of personally attending meetings. METHODS: This qualitative study used telephone interviews to explore the experiences of MDM Chairpersons from metropolitan and regional New South Wales, Australia. Using a state-wide register, 43 clinicians who chaired lung, genitourinary, gastrointestinal, and breast cancer meetings were approached to participate. Thematic data analysis was used to develop and organise themes. RESULTS: Themes from the 16 interviews identified the perceived need for an expert and efficient MDM Chairperson with emphasis on personal rather than technical skills. The remaining themes related to the benefits of meetings to ensure quality and consistency of care; improve inter-professional relationships; and provide communication with and reassurance for patients. CONCLUSION: The role of the MDM Chairperson requires expert management and leadership skills to ensure meetings support quality patient-centred care. MDMs are perceived to provide multiple benefits to both clinicians and patients. Efforts to train Chairs and to maximise clinician and patient benefits may be warranted given the costly and time-consuming nature of MDMs.

Palbociclib with adjuvant endocrine therapy in early breast cancer (PALLAS): interim analysis of a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Palbociclib added to endocrine therapy improves progression-free survival in hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer. The PALLAS trial aimed to investigate whether the addition of 2 years of palbociclib to adjuvant endocrine therapy improves invasive disease-free survival over endocrine therapy alone in patients with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: PALLAS is an ongoing multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study that enrolled patients at 406 cancer centres in 21 countries worldwide with stage II-III histologically confirmed hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, within 12 months of initial diagnosis. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) in permuted blocks of random size (4 or 6), stratified by anatomic stage, previous chemotherapy, age, and geographical region, by use of central telephone-based and web-based interactive response technology, to receive either 2 years of palbociclib (125 mg orally once daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) with ongoing standard provider or patient-choice adjuvant endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor, with or without concurrent luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonist), or endocrine therapy alone, without masking. The primary endpoint of the study was invasive disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who started palbociclib or endocrine therapy. This report presents results from the second pre-planned interim analysis triggered on Jan 9, 2020, when 67% of the total number of expected invasive disease-free survival events had been observed. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02513394) and EudraCT (2014-005181-30). FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2015, and Nov 30, 2018, 5760 patients were randomly assigned to receive palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (n=2883) or endocrine therapy alone (n=2877). At the time of the planned second interim analysis, at a median follow-up of 23·7 months (IQR 16·9-29·2), 170 of 2883 patients assigned to palbociclib plus endocrine therapy and 181 of 2877 assigned to endocrine therapy alone had invasive disease-free survival events. 3-year invasive disease-free survival was 88·2% (95% CI 85·2-90·6) for palbociclib plus endocrine therapy and 88·5% (85·8-90·7) for endocrine therapy alone (hazard ratio 0·93 [95% CI 0·76-1·15]; log-rank p=0·51). As the test statistic comparing invasive disease-free survival between groups crossed the prespecified futility boundary, the independent data monitoring committee recommended discontinuation of palbociclib in patients still receiving palbociclib and endocrine therapy. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (1742 [61·3%] of 2840 patients on palbociclib and endocrine therapy vs 11 [0·3%] of 2903 on endocrine therapy alone), leucopenia (857 [30·2%] vs three [0·1%]), and fatigue (60 [2·1%] vs ten [0·3%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 351 (12·4%) of 2840 patients on palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus 220 (7·6%) of 2903 patients on endocrine therapy alone. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: At the planned second interim analysis, addition of 2 years of adjuvant palbociclib to adjuvant endocrine therapy did not improve invasive disease-free survival compared with adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. On the basis of these findings, this regimen cannot be recommended in the adjuvant setting. Long-term follow-up of the PALLAS population and correlative studies are ongoing. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Simplified phenotyping of CYP2D6 for tamoxifen treatment using the N-desmethyl-tamoxifen/ endoxifen ratio.

INTRODUCTION: CYP2D6 protein activity can be inferred from the ratio of N-desmethyl-tamoxifen (NDMT) to endoxifen (E). CYP2D6 polymorphisms are common and can affect CYP2D6 protein activity and E level. Some retrospective studies indicate that E < 16 nM may relate to worse outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A target NDMT/E ratio was defined as associated with an E level of 15 nM in the 161 patient Test cohort of tamoxifen-treated patients, dichotomizing them into 'Normal' (NM) and 'Slow' (SM) CYP2D6 metabolizer groups. This ratio was then tested on a validation cohort of 52 patients. Patients were phenotyped based on the standard method (ultrarapid/extensive, intermediate or poor metabolizers; UM/EM, IM, PM) or a simplified system based on whether any variant allele (V) vs wildtype (wt) was present (wt/wt, wt/V, V/V). Comprehensive CYP2D6 genotyping was undertaken on germline DNA. RESULTS: A target NDMT/E ratio of 35 correlated with the 15 nM E level, dichotomizing patients into NM (<35; N = 117) and SM (>35; N = 44) groups. The ratio was independently validated by a validation cohort. The simplified system was better in predicting patients without slow metabolism, with specificity and sensitivity of 96% and 44% respectively, compared with the standard method - sensitivity 81% and specificity 83%. CONCLUSIONS: The simplified classification system based on whether any variant was present better identified patients who were truly not CYP2D6 slow metabolizers more accurately than the current system. However, as CYP2D6 genotype is not the only determinant of endoxifen level, we recommend that direct measurement of endoxifen should also be considered.

Optimizing care for younger women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Treatment strategies for hormone receptor-positive (HR+ ), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2- ) metastatic breast cancer in young women (<40 years at diagnosis) have traditionally been extrapolated from data obtained from trials conducted either exclusively or predominantly in the postmenopausal setting. These young patients are usually treated with ovarian function suppression (OFS) + endocrine therapy (ET) ± targeted therapy, except if there is a concern about endocrine resistance or a need to gain rapid disease control due to the onset of visceral crisis. This review examines evidence that supports the use of a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, in combination with OFS and ET, when treating premenopausal or perimenopausal women with HR+ /HER2- metastatic breast cancer. This includes data from the MONALEESA-7 study (treating only premenopausal/perimenopausal women in the first-line setting), and the results of subgroup analyses from the PALOMA-3 and MONARCH-2 trials. We also consider a number of age-specific challenges that younger breast cancer patients can face, highlighting the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to ongoing care.

A retrospective analysis of nadir-neutropenia directed pegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor on febrile neutropenia rates in (neo)adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy regimens.

BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim, a pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating-factor (GCSF), reduces chemotherapy morbidity and mortality in early stage breast cancer. The optimal approach to individual patient selection for GCSF is unknown, in particular whether secondary GCSF should be given after asymptomatic neutropenia, or only after febrile neutropenia (FN). AIMS: To determine if preplanned nadir blood counts and subsequent nadir-neutropenia directed GCSF was effective to reduce rates of FN associated with (neo)adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy. We also aimed to describe (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and GCSF prescribing practices at our institution. METHODS: This was a retrospective electronic medical record review. The rate of FN with secondary GCSF after cycle 1 nadir-neutropenia <1.0 × 109 cells/L was compared with the rate of FN in patients who did not have cycle 1 nadir blood counts or secondary GCSF, and analyzed according to patient and treatment data. RESULTS: Between 11/4/2011 and 22/4/2018, 584 patients received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Over all rates of FN were 17%, compared with 9% in patients who received primary GCSF. Rates of FN were highest in docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab (TCH, 27%) and docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC, 27%). There were 268 patients (46%) who received primary GCSF and 238 patients (41%) who received secondary GCSF. Rates of FN did not differ between patients who received nadir-neutropenia directed secondary GCSF (6/125, 5%, 95% CI 1.1-8.6), and those who did not have nadir blood counts or secondary GCSF (0/49, 0%, 95% CI not calculable) (P = .1186). GCSF use was associated with lower rates of non-FN hospital admissions. Patients ≥65 years were more likely to have FN and non-FN admissions. Two of three treatment related deaths occurred due to FN. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, nadir-neutropenia directed secondary GCSF was not associated with reduced rates of FN. Observed rates of FN >20% in TC and TCH in routine clinical practice should guide primary GCSF use in accordance with international guidelines.

Results of a survey of cancer patients' willingness to travel to participate in a clinical trial.

Only 2-3% of cancer patients enrol in a trial. We surveyed patients' willingness to change clinician or treating centre, or to travel, to participate in trials, to improve trial recruitment. Of 188 respondents, 79% were willing to participate in a trial in at least one scenario. Increasing travel time, change in oncologist, private health insurance and out of pocket expenses decreased likelihood of joining a trial. Rural and regional patients, and those from lower socio-economic areas, were more willing to travel. To optimise access to trials, clinicians should refer within and between institutions.

Patient-reported outcomes with neoadjuvant vs adjuvant systemic therapy for operable breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) is used for large operable or highly proliferative breast cancers. It is not known whether psychological outcomes differ according to the treatment sequence (chemotherapy or surgery first) or tumour response. METHODS: This was a planned analysis of a multi-institutional single arm longitudinal study of patients considering NAST for operable breast cancer. Participants completed patient reported outcome questionnaires before and after the decision about NAST, between chemotherapy and surgery, and 12 months after diagnosis. RESULTS: Fifty-nine women enrolled. Fourteen of 51 (28%) who received NAST experienced pathological complete response (pCR). Patients who had surgery first (n = 7) had higher baseline anxiety, and a greater decrease in anxiety at 12 months follow up, compared with patients who received NAST (n = 50) (a decrease from baseline of 34 pts vs 17 points; p = 0.033). Distress declined at a similar rate in surgery first and NAST groups. Mean satisfaction with decision score post-decision was significantly lower in the adjuvant group compared with NAST (22 vs 26, p = 0.02). No differences were seen between patients with pCR vs residual cancer in: distress, anxiety, satisfaction with decision, fear of progression, and decision regret. CONCLUSION: Most patients in this study proceeded with NAST when their surgeon offered it as an option. This exploratory analysis suggests that patients who chose surgery first tended to be more anxious, and had lower satisfaction with their decision, than those who had NAST. In patients who had NAST, lack of pCR does not appear to correlate with adverse psychological outcomes.

Heading in a new direction? Recommendations for future research on patient decision aids.

Decision aids can improve a number of patient outcomes, but they are not commonly used in clinical practice. This commentary paper provides suggestions for potential next steps of decision aid research, with the aim to facilitate their implementation. We suggest to further standardise clinically meaningful outcomes and outcome measures that should be used to examine the impact of decision aids. Second, using mediation analysis and active control groups could help tease out and explore variables that influence decision aids' effectiveness to help healthcare providers decide when and how to use them in clinical practice. Third, effectiveness trials should be clearly reported and replicated to investigate under what circumstances decision aids work best. Specific checklists for decision aid trials should be used to ensure that all relevant factors are reported in detail. Addressing the above issues will help identify what specific components of decision aids are effective and should be implemented. We can then move towards conducting implementation trials which help increase the use of decision aids in "real-world" healthcare.

Support persons' preferences for the type of consultation and the format of information provided when making a cancer treatment decision.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients and their support persons commonly feel overwhelmed when being confronted with their diagnosis and treatment options. We used a DCE to examine patients' and support persons' preferences for: (i) attending one 40 min consultation or two 20 min consultations when making a cancer treatment decision; and for (ii) receiving additional information in written form only or in both written and online forms. Here we focus on support persons' preferences and whether they differ from patients' preferences. RESULTS: 159 adult medical oncology patients and 64 of their support persons took part in this study. Participants were presented with a set of hypothetical scenarios and asked to indicate their most and least preferred scenario. 92% of support persons (n = 59) completed the DCE. Most preferred to receive two consultations along with written and online information (n = 30, 51%). This was the only scenario that was chosen by statistically significantly more support persons (p =0.037). The proportions of patients and support persons choosing each scenario did not differ significantly from each other (p >0.05). Our findings suggest that when making cancer treatment decisions, clinicians should consider offering patients and support persons written and online information, combined with two shorter consultations.

Not asking cancer patients about their preferences does make a difference. A cross-sectional study examining cancer patients' preferred and perceived role in decision-making regarding their last important cancer treatment.

We examined whether not having been asked by their clinicians about how involved cancer patients would like to be in their treatment decisions is related to discordance between patients' preferred and perceived involvement in treatment decision-making. This was a cross-sectional survey of adult cancer patients recruited from five medical and radiation oncology outpatient clinics in Australia. Discordance of patients' preferred and perceived decision-making roles was assessed via an adapted version of the Control Preferences Scale. Logistic regression modelling was conducted to assess the relationship between role discordance and whether patients were not asked but wanted to be asked about how involved they would like to be in deciding on their treatment. Of 423 study participants, almost a third (n = 128, 31%) reported discordance between their preferred and perceived involvement in their treatment decisions. Of those reporting discordance, 72% (n = 92) were less involved than they would have liked to have been. Not being asked about their preferences for involvement in treatment decisions, despite wanting this, was associated with discordance between patients' preferred and perceived involvement in treatment decision-making (p < 0.04). To achieve patient-centred care, it is vital that clinicians seek patients' views about how involved they would like to be in deciding on their cancer treatment.

Dances With Denial: Have Medical Oncology Outpatients Conveyed Their End-of-Life Wishes and Do They Want To?

Objectives: This study surveyed a sample of medical oncology outpatients to determine (1) the proportion who have already discussed and documented their end-of-life (EOL) wishes; (2) when and with whom they would prefer to convey their EOL wishes; (3) the EOL issues they would want to discuss; and (4) the association between perceived cancer status and advance care planning (ACP) participation. Methods: Adult medical oncology outpatients were approached in the waiting room of an Australian tertiary treatment center. Consenting participants completed a pen-and-paper survey assessing participation in ACP, preferences for conveying EOL wishes, timing of EOL discussions, and EOL issues they want to be asked about. Results: A total of 203 patients returned the survey (47% of eligible). EOL discussions occurred more frequently with support persons (47%) than with doctors (7%). Only 14% had recorded their wishes, and 45% had appointed an enduring guardian. Those who perceived their cancer as incurable were more likely to have participated in ACP. If facing EOL, patients indicated that they would want family involved in discussions (85%), to be able to write down EOL wishes (82%), and to appoint enduring guardians (91%). Many (45%) preferred the first discussion to happen when their disease became incurable. Slightly less than one-third thought discussions regarding EOL should be patient-initiated. Most agreed doctors should ask about preferred decision-making involvement (92%), how important it is that pain is managed well (95%), and how important it is to remain conscious (82%). Fewer (55%) wanted to be asked about the importance of care extending life. Conclusions: Many patients would like to have discussions regarding EOL care with their doctor and involve their support persons in this process. Only a small percentage of respondents had discussed EOL care with their doctors, recorded their wishes, or appointed an enduring guardian. The first step requires clinicians to ask whether an individual patient wishes to discuss EOL issues, in what format, and at what level of detail.