Absolute lymphocyte count predicts efficacy of palbociclib in patients with metastatic luminal breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) is a predictive and prognostic factor for various tumor types, including breast cancer. Palbociclib is a CDK4/6 inhibitor widely used for the treatment of metastatic estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. However, predictive biomarkers of the efficacy of palbociclib remain unelucidated. We conducted a retrospective study to examine the predictive value of the baseline ALC in patients treated with palbociclib. METHODS: The medical records of patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer treated with palbociclib plus hormonal therapy between December 2017 and December 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. The cutoff value of ALC was set at 1800 cells/µL at the initiation of palbociclib treatment. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was defined as the rate of complete or partial response or stable disease for at least 6 months. Progression-free survival (PFS) rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: All of the 202 patients were women, with a median age of 59 years and a performance status (PS) of ≤ 2. The median numbers of lines of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy before palbociclib treatment were 0 (range, 0-9) and 1 (range, 0-7), respectively. Fifty-one patients had liver metastases. Forty-six patients tested negative for progesterone receptor (PgR) expression. The median follow-up time was 9.1 months. The CBR was significantly higher in the ALC-high group than in the ALC-low group (79% vs. 60%; P = 0.018). The median PFS was significantly longer in the ALC-high group than in the ALC-low group (26.8 months vs. 8.4 moths, respectively; P = 0.000013). ALC, age, PS, PgR status, prior chemotherapy, prior endocrine therapy, and liver metastasis were entered into the multivariate analysis. ALC was identified as an independent factor for PFS (P = 0.00085), along with liver metastasis (P = 0.0020), PS (P = 0.026), and prior endocrine therapy (P = 0.019). CONCLUSION: ALC can serve as a predictor of palbociclib efficacy in patients with metastatic ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis to develop clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is commonly administered to cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy, especially when incidence rate of febrile neutropenia (FN) surpasses 20%. While primary prophylaxis with G-CSF has been proven effective in preventing FN in patients with cancer, there is limited evidence regarding its efficacy in specifically, lung cancer. Our systematic review focused on the efficacy of G-CSF primary prophylaxis in lung cancer. METHODS: We extracted studies on non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) using the PubMed, Ichushi Web, and Cochrane Library databases. Two reviewers assessed the extracted studies for each type of lung cancer and conducted quantitative and meta-analyses of preplanned outcomes, including overall survival, FN incidence, infection-related mortality, quality of life, and musculoskeletal pain. RESULTS: A limited number of studies were extracted: two on NSCLC and six on SCLC. A meta-analysis was not conducted owing to insufficient data on NSCLC. Two case-control studies explored the efficacy of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF in patients with NSCLC (on docetaxel and ramucirumab therapy) and indicated a lower FN frequency with G-CSF. For SCLC, meta-analysis of five studies showed no significant reduction in FN incidence, with an odds ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval 0.03-5.56, P = 0.48). Outcomes other than FN incidence could not be evaluated due to low data availability. CONCLUSION: Limited data are available on G-CSF prophylaxis in lung cancer. Primary prophylaxis with G-CSF may be weakly recommended in Japanese patients with NSCLC undergoing docetaxel and ramucirumab combination therapy.

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF after induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan society of clinical oncology.

Although granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the incidence, duration, and severity of neutropenia, its prophylactic use for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains controversial due to a theoretically increased risk of relapse. The present study investigated the effects of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis for AML with remission induction therapy. A detailed literature search for related studies was performed using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted and assessed by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis of pooled data was conducted, and the risk ratio with corresponding confidence intervals was calculated in the meta-analysis and summarized. Sixteen studies were included in the qualitative analysis, nine of which were examined in the meta-analysis. Although G-CSF significantly shortened the duration of neutropenia, primary prophylaxis with G-CSF did not correlate with infection-related mortality. Moreover, primary prophylaxis with G-CSF did not affect disease progression/recurrence, overall survival, or adverse events, such as musculoskeletal pain. However, evidence to support or discourage the use of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis for adult AML patients with induction therapy remains limited. Therefore, the use of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis can be considered for adult AML patients with remission induction therapy who are at a high risk of infectious complications.

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis of G-CSF during chemotherapy for prostate cancer, Japanese clinical guideline for appropriate use of G-CSF: clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel (DTX) is commonly used as a primary chemotherapy, and cabazitaxel (CBZ) has shown efficacy in patients who are DTX resistant. Primary prophylactic granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) therapy is currently used with CBZ treatment in routine clinical care in Japan. METHODS: In this study, we performed a systematic review following the Minds guidelines to investigate the effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF during chemotherapy for prostate cancer and to construct G-CSF guidelines for primary prophylaxis use during chemotherapy. A comprehensive literature search of various electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi) was performed on January 10, 2020, to identify studies published between January 1990 and December 31, 2019 that investigate the impact of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF during CBZ administration on clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Ultimately, nine articles were included in the qualitative systematic review. Primary G-CSF prophylaxis during CBZ administration for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was difficult to assess in terms of correlation with overall survival, mortality from infection, and patients' quality of life. These difficulties were owing to the lack of randomized controlled trials comparing patients with and without primary prophylaxis of G-CSF during CBZ administration. However, some retrospective studies have suggested that it may reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSION: G-CSF may be beneficial as primary prophylaxis during CBZ administration for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer, and we made a "weak recommendation to perform" with an annotation of the relevant regimen.

Optimal timing of prophylactic pegylated G-CSF after chemotherapy administration for patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.

INTRODUCTION: The timing of prophylactic pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration during cancer chemotherapy varies, with Day 2 and Days 3-5 being the most common schedules. Optimal timing remains uncertain, affecting efficacy and adverse events. This systematic review sought to evaluate the available evidence on the timing of prophylactic pegylated G-CSF administration. METHODS: Based on the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development, we searched the PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and Cochrane Library databases for literature published from January 1990 to December 2019. The inclusion criteria included studies among the adult population using pegfilgrastim. The search strategy focused on timing-related keywords. Two reviewers independently extracted and assessed the data. RESULTS: Among 300 initial search results, only four articles met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis for febrile neutropenia incidence suggested a potential higher incidence when pegylated G-CSF was administered on Days 3-5 than on Day 2 (odds ratio: 1.27, 95% CI 0.66-2.46, p = 0.47), with a moderate certainty of evidence. No significant difference in overall survival or mortality due to infections was observed. The trend of severe adverse events was lower on Days 3-5, without statistical significance (odds ratio: 0.72, 95% CI 0.14-3.67, p = 0.69) and with a moderate certainty of evidence. Data on pain were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Both Day 2 and Days 3-5 were weakly recommended for pegylated G-CSF administration post-chemotherapy in patients with cancer. The limited evidence highlights the need for further research to refine recommendations.

Effectiveness of G-CSF in chemotherapy for digestive system tumors: a systematic review of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 delineated by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reportedly reduces the risk of neutropenia and subsequent infections caused by cancer chemotherapy. Although several guidelines recommend using G-CSF in primary prophylaxis according to the incidence rate of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), the effectiveness of G-CSF in digestive system tumor chemotherapy remains unclear. To address these clinical questions, we conducted a systematic review as part of revising the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 published by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology. METHODS: This systematic review addressed two main clinical questions (CQ): CQ1: "Is primary prophylaxis with G-CSF effective in chemotherapy?", and CQ2: "Is increasing the intensity of chemotherapy with G-CSF effective?" We reviewed different types of digestive system tumors, including esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, biliary tract, colorectal, and neuroendocrine carcinomas. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases were searched for information sources. Independent systematic reviewers conducted two rounds of screening and selected relevant records for each CQ. Finally, the working group members synthesized the strength of evidence and recommendations. RESULTS: After two rounds of screening, 5/0/3/0/2/0 records were extracted for CQ1 of esophageal/gastric/pancreatic/biliary tract/colorectal/ and neuroendocrine carcinoma, respectively. Additionally, a total of 2/6/1 records were extracted for CQ2 of esophageal/pancreatic/colorectal cancer, respectively. The strength of evidence and recommendations were evaluated for CQ1 of colorectal cancer; however, we could not synthesize recommendations for other CQs owing to the lack of records. CONCLUSION: The use of G-CSF for primary prophylaxis in chemotherapy for colorectal cancer is inappropriate.

Comparison between a single dose of PEG G-CSF and multiple doses of non-PEG G-CSF: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.

BACKGROUD: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is widely used for the primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN). Two types of G-CSF are available in Japan, namely G-CSF chemically bound to polyethylene glycol (PEG G-CSF), which provides long-lasting effects with a single dose, and non-polyethylene glycol-bound G-CSF (non-PEG G-CSF), which must be sequentially administrated for several days. METHODS: This current study investigated the utility of these treatments for the primary prophylaxis of FN through a systematic review of the literature. A detailed literature search for related studies was performed using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted and assessed by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis or meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate six outcomes. RESULTS: Through the first and second screenings, 23 and 18 articles were extracted for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis, respectively. The incidence of FN was significantly lower in the PEG G-CSF group than in the non-PEG G-CSF group with a strong quality/certainty of evidence. The differences in other outcomes, such as overall survival, infection-related mortality, the duration of neutropenia (less than 500/µL), quality of life, and pain, were not apparent. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of PEG G-CSF is strongly recommended over multiple-dose non-PEG G-CSF therapy for the primary prophylaxis of FN.

Therapeutic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with febrile neutropenia: a comprehensive systematic review for clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia represents a critical oncologic emergency, and its management is pivotal in cancer therapy. In several guidelines, the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is not routinely recommended except in high-risk cases. The Japan Society of Clinical Oncology has updated its clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF, incorporating a systematic review to address this clinical question. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted by performing a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web, focusing on publications from January 1990 to December 2019. Selected studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and cohort and case-control studies. Evaluated outcomes included overall survival, infection-related mortality, hospitalization duration, quality of life, and pain. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 332 records. Following two rounds of screening, two records were selected for both qualitative and quantitative synthesis including meta-analysis. Regarding infection-related mortality, the event to case ratio was 5:134 (3.73%) in the G-CSF group versus 6:129 (4.65%) in the non-G-CSF group, resulting in a relative risk of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-2.58; p = 0.54), which was not statistically significant. Only median values for hospitalization duration were available from the two RCTs, precluding a meta-analysis. For overall survival, quality of life, and pain, no suitable studies were found for analysis, rendering their assessment unfeasible. CONCLUSION: A weak recommendation is made that G-CSF treatment not be administered to patients with febrile neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy. G-CSF treatment can be considered for patients at high risk.

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during dose-dense chemotherapy for urothelial cancer: Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) decreases the incidence, duration, and severity of febrile neutropenia (FN); however, dose reduction or withdrawal is often preferred in the management of adverse events in the treatment of urothelial cancer. It is also important to maintain therapeutic intensity in order to control disease progression and thereby relieve symptoms, such as hematuria, infection, bleeding, and pain, as well as to prolong the survival. In this clinical question, we compared treatment with primary prophylactic administration of G-CSF to maintain therapeutic intensity with conventional standard therapy without G-CSF and examined the benefits and risks as major outcomes. A detailed literature search for relevant studies was performed using PubMed, Ichu-shi Web, and Cochrane Library. Data were extracted and evaluated independently by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis of the pooled data was performed, and the risk ratios with corresponding confidence intervals were calculated and summarized in a meta-analysis. Seven studies were included in the qualitative analysis, two of which were reviewed in the meta-analysis of dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) therapy, and one randomized controlled study showed a reduction in the incidence of FN. Primary prophylactic administration of G-CSF may be beneficial, as shown in a randomized controlled study of dose-dense MVAC therapy. However, there are no studies on other regimens, and we made a "weak recommendation to perform" with an annotation of the relevant regimen (dose-dense MVAC).

Effectiveness and safety of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor priming regimen for acute myeloid leukemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Clinical Practice Guideline for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remain poor. Although the concomitant use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and anti-chemotherapeutic agents has been investigated to improve the antileukemic effect on AML, its usefulness remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the effects of G-CSF priming as a remission induction therapy or salvage chemotherapy. METHODS: We performed a thorough literature search for studies related to the priming effect of G-CSF using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. A qualitative analysis of the pooled data was performed, and risk ratios (RRs) with confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and summarized. RESULTS: Two reviewers independently extracted and accessed the 278 records identified during the initial screening, and 62 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility in second screening. Eleven studies were included in the qualitative analysis and 10 in the meta-analysis. A systematic review revealed that priming with G-CSF did not correlate with an improvement in response rate and overall survival (OS). The result of the meta-analysis revealed the tendency for lower relapse rate in the G-CSF priming groups without inter-study heterogeneity [RR, 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-1.01), p = 0.08; I2 = 4%, p = 0.35]. In specific populations, including patients with intermediate cytogenetic risk and those receiving high-dose cytarabine, the G-CSF priming regimen prolonged OS. CONCLUSIONS: G-CSF priming in combination with intensive remission induction treatment is not universally effective in patients with AML. Further studies are required to identify the patient cohort for which G-CSF priming is recommended.

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF during chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy for breast cancer can cause neutropenia, increasing the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) and serious infections. The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) as primary prophylaxis has been explored to mitigate these risks. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of primary G-CSF prophylaxis in patients with invasive breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted according to the "Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development" using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies assessing using G-CSF as primary prophylaxis in invasive breast cancer were included. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and FN incidence. Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes with sufficient data. RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis, and five RCTs were meta-analyzed for FN incidence. The meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in FN incidence with primary G-CSF prophylaxis (risk difference [RD] = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.01-0.43, p = 0.04). Evidence for improvement in OS with G-CSF was inconclusive. Four RCTs suggested a tendency for increased pain with G-CSF, but statistical significance was not reported. CONCLUSIONS: Primary prophylactic use of G-CSF is strongly recommended for breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, as it has been shown to reduce the incidence of FN. While the impact on OS is unclear, the benefits of reducing FN are considered to outweigh the potential harm of increased pain.

Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF for patients with Ewing sarcomas: a systematic review for the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 of the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Multidrug chemotherapy for Ewing sarcoma can lead to severe myelosuppression. We proposed two clinical questions (CQ): CQ #1, "Does primary prophylaxis with G-CSF benefit chemotherapy for Ewing sarcoma?" and CQ #2, "Does G-CSF-based intensified chemotherapy improve Ewing sarcoma treatment outcomes?". METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi web databases, including English and Japanese articles published from 1990 to 2019. Two reviewers assessed the extracted papers and analyzed overall survival (OS), febrile neutropenia (FN) incidence, infection-related mortality, quality of life (QOL), and pain. RESULTS: Twenty-five English and five Japanese articles were identified for CQ #1. After screening, a cohort study of vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide chemotherapy with 851 patients was selected. Incidence of FN was 60.8% with G-CSF and 65.8% without; statistical tests were not conducted. Data on OS, infection-related mortality, QOL, or pain was unavailable. Consequently, CQ #1 was redefined as a future research question. As for CQ #2, we found two English and five Japanese papers, of which one high-quality randomized controlled trial on G-CSF use in intensified chemotherapy was included. This trial showed trends toward lower mortality and a significant increase in event-free survival for 2-week interval regimen with the G-CSF primary prophylactic use compared with 3-week interval. CONCLUSION: This review indicated that G-CSF's efficacy as primary prophylaxis in Ewing sarcoma, except in children, is uncertain despite its common use. This review tentatively endorses intensified chemotherapy with G-CSF primary prophylaxis for Ewing sarcoma.

Primary prophylaxis with G-CSF for patients with non-round cell soft tissue sarcomas: a systematic review for the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 of the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is an essential supportive agent for chemotherapy-induced severe myelosuppression. We proposed two clinical questions (CQ): CQ #1, "Does primary prophylaxis with G-CSF benefit chemotherapy for non-round cell soft tissue sarcoma (NRC-STS)?" and CQ #2, "Does G-CSF-based intensified chemotherapy improve NRC-STS treatment outcomes?" for the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 of the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology. METHODS: A literature search was performed on the primary prophylactic use of G-CSF for NRC-STSs. Two reviewers assessed the extracted papers and analyzed overall survival, incidence of febrile neutropenia, infection-related mortality, quality of life, and pain. RESULTS: Eighty-one and 154 articles were extracted from the literature search for CQs #1 and #2, respectively. After the first and second screening, one and two articles were included in the final evaluation, respectively. Only some studies have addressed these two clinical questions through a literature review. CONCLUSION: The clinical questions were converted to future research questions because of insufficient available data. The statements were proposed: "The benefit of primary G-CSF prophylaxis is not clear in NRC-STS" and "The benefit of intensified chemotherapy with primary G-CSF prophylaxis is not clear in NRC-STSs." G-CSF is often administered as primary prophylaxis when chemotherapy with severe myelosuppression is administered. However, its effectiveness and safety are yet to be scientifically proven.

Transcriptomic intratumor heterogeneity of breast cancer patient-derived organoids may reflect the unique biological features of the tumor of origin.

BACKGROUND: The intratumor heterogeneity (ITH) of cancer cells plays an important role in breast cancer resistance and recurrence. To develop better therapeutic strategies, it is necessary to understand the molecular mechanisms underlying ITH and their functional significance. Patient-derived organoids (PDOs) have recently been utilized in cancer research. They can also be used to study ITH as cancer cell diversity is thought to be maintained within the organoid line. However, no reports investigated intratumor transcriptomic heterogeneity in organoids derived from patients with breast cancer. This study aimed to investigate transcriptomic ITH in breast cancer PDOs. METHODS: We established PDO lines from ten patients with breast cancer and performed single-cell transcriptomic analysis. First, we clustered cancer cells for each PDO using the Seurat package. Then, we defined and compared the cluster-specific gene signature (ClustGS) corresponding to each cell cluster in each PDO. RESULTS: Cancer cells were clustered into 3-6 cell populations with distinct cellular states in each PDO line. We identified 38 clusters with ClustGS in 10 PDO lines and used Jaccard similarity index to compare the similarity of these signatures. We found that 29 signatures could be categorized into 7 shared meta-ClustGSs, such as those related to the cell cycle or epithelial-mesenchymal transition, and 9 signatures were unique to single PDO lines. These unique cell populations appeared to represent the characteristics of the original tumors derived from patients. CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed the existence of transcriptomic ITH in breast cancer PDOs. Some cellular states were commonly observed in multiple PDOs, whereas others were specific to single PDO lines. The combination of these shared and unique cellular states formed the ITH of each PDO.

[Challenges to International Collaborative Clinical Research and Approval Disparities].

The standard treatment and prognosis of breast cancer are improving as because of international collaborative clinical research. Generally, the standard treatment for breast cancer in Japan is not different from that in the US, Europe or other Asian countries, however, some novel agents have not been developed or have been delayed. For example, no institution in Japan has participated in the clinical trials of sacituzumab-govitecan. Institutions in Japan participated in the clinical trial of alpelisib and neratinib, however, the development of these drugs was delayed due to the racial difference and lack of a company in charge. On the other hand, there are international collaborative trials that Japan has participated in or has taken the lead, such as POSITIVE trial, CREATE-X trial, and PATHWAY trial. There are many challenges for Japan to participate in or lead international collaborative trials with Europe, US, or Asia. It is necessary to build a network and infrastructure for international collaborative trials based on the cooperation between the institutions and clinical trial groups in the world.

Clinical significance of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in oligometastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the clinical impact of pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) on survival in patients with oligometastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected data from 397 patients who underwent primary breast surgery from 2004 to 2015 and developed recurrence during the follow-up. We reviewed the images and clinical information and defined OMD according to the European Society for Medical Oncology advanced breast cancer guidelines. The NLR was calculated using pretreatment data of primary breast cancer. The cutoff value of the NLR was determined by receiver operating characteristic curve with Youden Index. RESULTS: Among 397 patients, 131 had OMD at recurrence. The low-NLR group included patients of significantly older age at primary cancer than those in the high-NLR group. A low NLR indicated a better overall survival (p = 0.023) after adjusting for relevant factors, including estrogen receptor status, surgical resection of metastatic disease, metastatic organ number, disease-free interval, and liver metastasis than did the high-NLR group. We developed prognostic models for OMD using six independent prognostic factors, including the NLR. The number of factors was associated with overall survival; patients with all six favorable factors showed a good overall survival of 90.9% at 8 years and those with four or more factors showed 70.4%. CONCLUSIONS: The NLR was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival in OMD. The number of favorable prognostic factors was associated with overall survival. A prognostic model, including the NLR, will help identify patients with a favorable prognosis.

Trastuzumab and fulvestrant combination therapy for women with advanced breast cancer positive for hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2: a retrospective single-center study.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab and fulvestrant combination therapy is one of the treatment options for patients with hormone receptor- and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer; however, there are limited studies evaluating the efficacy of this combination therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of women with hormone receptor- and HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who received trastuzumab and fulvestrant combination therapy between August 1997 and August 2020 at the Cancer Institute Hospital. The primary endpoint of this study was progression-free survival, and the secondary endpoints were response rate, overall survival and safety. RESULTS: We reviewed the data of 1612 patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, of which 118 patients were diagnosed with hormone receptor- and HER2-positive breast cancer. Of these, 28 patients who received trastuzumab and fulvestrant combination therapy were eligible for this study. The median treatment line for advanced breast cancer was 6 (range, 1-14), the median progression-free survival was 6.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.46-8.17), and the median overall survival was 35.3 months (95% CI, 20.0-46.7). Of the 28 patients, partial response was observed in 1 (4%), stable disease in 17 (61%), and progressive disease in 10 (36%) patients. The disease control rate was 64%. Adverse events of grade ≥ 3 were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: Trastuzumab and fulvestrant combination therapy showed moderate clinical efficacy and no severe toxicity after standard anti-HER2 treatment, which is a reasonable treatment option for patients with hormone receptor- and HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. These data contribute to understanding the efficacy of trastuzumab and fulvestrant combination therapy as control data for further development of anti-HER2 agents plus hormone therapy.

Current Status of Advance Care Planning and End-of-life Communication for Patients with Advanced and Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process that supports adults in understanding and sharing their personal values, life goals, and preferences regarding future medical care. We examined the current status of ACP and end-of-life (EOL) communication between oncologists and patients with metastatic breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a survey among 41 institutions that specialize in oncology by using an online tool in October 2019. Participants (118 physicians) from 38 institutions completed a 39-item questionnaire that measured facility type and function; physicians' background and clinical approach, education about EOL communication, and understanding about ACP; and the current situation of ACP and EOL discussions. RESULTS: Ninety-eight responses concerning physicians' engagement in ACP with patients were obtained. Seventy-one (72%) answered that they had engaged in ACP. Among these, 23 (33%) physicians used a structured format to facilitate the conversation in their institutions, and only 6 (8%) settled triggers or sentinel events for the initiation of ACP. In the multivariable analysis, only the opportunity to learn communication skills was associated with physicians' engagement with ACP (odds ratio: 2.8, 95% confidence interval: 1.1-7.0). The frequency and timing of communication about ACP and EOL care with patients substantially varied among the oncologists. Communication about patients' life expectancy was less frequent compared with other topics. CONCLUSION: The opportunity to improve EOL communication skills promoted physicians' engagement with ACP among patients with metastatic/advanced breast cancer. However, there were still substantial variabilities in the method, frequency, and timing of ACP and EOL communication among the oncologists. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study found that the opportunity to improve end-of-life (EOL) communication skills promoted physicians' engagement in advance care planning (ACP) among patients with metastatic/advanced breast cancer. All oncologists who treat said patients are encouraged to participate in effective education programs concerning EOL communication skills. In clinical practice, there are substantial variabilities in the method, frequency, and timing of ACP and EOL communication among oncologists. As recommended in several clinical guidelines, the authors suggest a system that identifies patients who require conversations about their care goals, a structured format to facilitate the conversations, and continuous measurement for improving EOL care and treatment.

Effectiveness of self-help workbook intervention on quality of life in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: results of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A self-help workbook is expected to support cancer patients to cope with physical and psychosocial distress, to facilitate communication with medical staff, and to improve quality of life (QOL). We conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a self-help workbook intervention on QOL and survival. METHODS: From June 2014 to March 2015, patients with breast, colorectal, gastric, and lung cancer receiving outpatient chemotherapy were randomized into an intervention group (n = 100) or control group (n = 100). Intervention group participants received workbooks originally made for this study, read advice on how to cope with distress, and filled out questionnaires on the workbooks periodically. EORTC QLQ-C30 was evaluated at baseline, at 12 weeks, and at 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was Global Health Status / QOL scale (GQOL). RESULTS: No significant interaction was observed between the intervention and time in terms of GQOL or any of the functional scales. Among the 69 patients who continued cytotoxic chemotherapy at 24 weeks, the intervention was significantly associated with improved emotional functioning scores (P = 0.0007). Overall survival was not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Self-help workbook intervention was feasible in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Although the effect of the intervention was limited, a post-hoc subset analysis suggested that the intervention may improve emotional functioning among patients who receive long-term cytotoxic chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000012842 . Registered 14 January 2014.

Taxane-induced sensory peripheral neuropathy is associated with an SCN9A single nucleotide polymorphism in Japanese patients.

BACKGROUND: Sodium channels located in the dorsal root ganglion, particularly Nav1.7 and Nav1.8, encoded by SCN9A and SCN10A, respectively, act as molecular gatekeepers for pain detection. Our aim was to determine the association between TIPN and SCN9A and SCN10A polymorphisms. METHODS: Three single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in SCN9A and two in SCN10A were investigated using whole-genome genotyping data from 186 Japanese breast or ovarian cancer patients classified into two groups as follows: cases that developed taxane-induced grade 2-3 neuropathy (N = 108) and controls (N = 78) with grade 0-1 neuropathy. Multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to evaluate associations between TIPN and SNP genotypes. RESULTS: SCN9A-rs13017637 was a significant predictor of grade 2 or higher TIPN (odds ratio (OR) = 3.463; P = 0.0050) after correction for multiple comparisons, and precision was improved when only breast cancer patients were included (OR 5.053, P = 0.0029). Moreover, rs13017637 was a significant predictor of grade 2 or higher TIPN 1 year after treatment (OR 3.906, P = 0.037), indicating its contribution to TIPN duration. CONCLUSION: SCN9A rs13017637 was associated with the severity and duration of TIPN. These findings are highly exploratory and require replication and validation prior to any consideration of clinical use.