Positive effects of acupressure bands combined with relaxation music/instructions on patients most at risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea.

PURPOSE: Research by our group has shown that acupressure bands are efficacious in reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) for breast cancer patients who expect nausea, and that their effectiveness in controlling CIN can largely be accounted for by patients' expectations of efficacy, i.e., a placebo effect. The present research examined if the effectiveness of acupressure bands could be enhanced by boosting patients' expectation of the bands' efficacy. METHODS: Two hundred forty-two chemotherapy-naïve patients with breast cancer who expected nausea were randomized. Arms 1 and 2 received acupressure bands, plus a relaxation MP3 and written handout that were either expectancy-enhancing (arm 1) or expectancy-neutral (arm 2). Arm 3 was the control without bands or MP3 and received standard care. All participants received guideline-specified antiemetics. RESULTS: Peak CIN for arms 1, 2, and 3 on a 1-7 scale was 3.52, 3.55, and 3.87, respectively (p = 0.46). Because no differences were observed between arms 1 and 2 (primary analysis), we combined these two arms (intervention) and compared them to controls for the following analyses. A significant interaction was found between intervention/control and receiving doxorubicin-based chemotherapy (yes/no) and pre-treatment anxiety (high/low). Intervention patients receiving doxorubicin had lower peak CIN than controls (3.62 vs. 4.38; p = 0.02). Similarly, intervention patients with high pre-treatment anxiety had a lower peak CIN than controls (3.62 vs. 4.62; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and having high CIN expectation, acupressure bands combined with a relaxation recording were effective in reducing CIN for patients who received doxorubicin or had high anxiety.

NOLAN: a randomized, phase 2 study to estimate the effect of prophylactic naproxen or loratadine vs no prophylactic treatment on bone pain in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim.

PURPOSE: Mild-to-moderate bone pain is a commonly reported adverse event (AE) associated with pegfilgrastim. We evaluated the effect of prophylactic naproxen or loratadine vs no prophylactic treatment on pegfilgrastim-associated bone pain. METHODS: In this open-label study (NCT01712009), women ≥ 18 years of age with newly diagnosed stage I-III breast cancer and an ECOG performance status ≤ 2 who were planning ≥ 4 cycles of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim support starting in cycle 1 were randomized 1:1:1 to receive naproxen, loratadine, or no treatment to prevent pegfilgrastim-associated bone pain. The primary endpoint was all-grade bone pain in cycle 1 from AE reporting. Secondary endpoints included bone pain in cycles 2-4 and across all cycles from AE reporting and patient-reported bone pain by cycle and across all cycles. RESULTS: Six hundred patients were enrolled. Most patients (83.0%) were white, and mean (SD) age was 54.2 (11.1) years. The percentage of patients with all-grade bone pain in cycle 1 from AE reporting in the naproxen, loratadine, and no prophylaxis groups was 40.3, 42.5, and 46.6%, respectively; differences between the treatment groups were not statistically significant. Maximum, mean, and area under the curve for patient-reported bone pain were consistently lower in the naproxen and loratadine groups than in the no prophylaxis group; some of these differences were significant. Loratadine was associated with fewer treatment-related AEs and discontinuations than naproxen. CONCLUSIONS: Given its tolerability, its ease of administration, and its potential benefit, treatment with loratadine should be considered to help prevent bone pain in patients receiving chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ; NCT01712009.

Screening for depression in cancer patients receiving radiotherapy: Feasibility and identification of effective tools in the NRG Oncology RTOG 0841 trial.

BACKGROUND: Brief tools are needed to screen oncology outpatients for depressive symptoms. METHODS: Patients starting radiotherapy for the first diagnosis of any tumor completed distress screening tools, including the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (NCCN-DT), and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL) (25-item version). Patients exceeding validated cutoff scores and a systematic sample of patients whose screening was negative completed the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) mood disorder modules via telephone. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-three patients from 35 community-based radiation oncology sites and 2 academic radiation oncology sites were recruited. Sixty-six percent of the 455 eligible patients (n = 299) were women, and the eligible patients had breast (45%), gastrointestinal (11%), lung (10%), gynecologic (6%), or other cancers (27%). Seventy-five (16.5%) exceeded screening cutoffs for depressive symptoms. Forty-two of these patients completed the SCID. Another 37 patients whose screening was negative completed the SCID. Among the 79 patients completing the SCID, 8 (10.1%) met the criteria for major depression, 2 (2.5%) met the criteria for dysthymia, and 6 (7.6%) met the criteria for an adjustment disorder. The PHQ-2 demonstrated good psychometric properties for screening for mood disorders with a cutoff score of ≥3 (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [AUC], 0.83) and was comparable to the PHQ-9 ( > 9; AUC = 0.85). The NCCN-DT did not detect depression (AUC = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ-2 demonstrated good psychometric properties for screening for mood disorders, which were equivalent to the PHQ-9 and superior to the NCCN-DT. These findings support using the PHQ-2 to identify patients in need of further assessment for depression, which has a low prevalence but is a clinically significant comorbidity. These findings could inform the implementation of distress screening accreditation standards. Cancer 2017;123:485-493. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Postmastectomy Radiotherapy: An American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology Focused Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: A joint American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology panel convened to develop a focused update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline concerning use of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). METHODS: A recent systematic literature review by Cancer Care Ontario provided the primary evidentiary basis. The joint panel also reviewed targeted literature searches to identify new, potentially practice-changing data. RECOMMENDATIONS: The panel unanimously agreed that available evidence shows that PMRT reduces the risks of locoregional failure (LRF), any recurrence, and breast cancer mortality for patients with T1-2 breast cancer with one to three positive axillary nodes. However, some subsets of these patients are likely to have such a low risk of LRF that the absolute benefit of PMRT is outweighed by its potential toxicities. In addition, the acceptable ratio of benefit to toxicity varies among patients and physicians. Thus, the decision to recommend PMRT requires a great deal of clinical judgment. The panel agreed clinicians making such recommendations for individual patients should consider factors that may decrease the risk of LRF, attenuate the benefit of reduced breast cancer-specific mortality, and/or increase risk of complications resulting from PMRT. When clinicians and patients elect to omit axillary dissection after a positive sentinel node biopsy, the panel recommends that these patients receive PMRT only if there is already sufficient information to justify its use without needing to know additional axillary nodes are involved. Patients with axillary nodal involvement after neoadjuvant systemic therapy should receive PMRT. The panel recommends treatment generally be administered to both the internal mammary nodes and the supraclavicular-axillary apical nodes in addition to the chest wall or reconstructed breast.

Buspirone for management of dyspnea in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a randomized placebo-controlled URCC CCOP study.

PURPOSE: Cancer-related dyspnea is a common, distressing, and difficult-to-manage symptom in cancer patients, resulting in diminished quality of life and poor prognosis. Buspirone, a non-benzodiazepine anxiolytic which does not suppress respiration and has proven efficacy in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder, has been suggested to relieve the sensation of dyspnea in patients with COPD. The main objective of our study was to evaluate whether buspirone alleviates dyspnea in cancer patients. METHODS: We report on a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 432 patients (mean age 64, female 51%, lung cancer 62%) from 16 participating Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) sites with grade 2 or higher dyspnea, as assessed by the Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale. Dyspnea was assessed by the Oxygen Cost Diagram (OCD; higher scores are better) and anxiety by the state subscale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S; lower scores are better) at baseline and after the 4-week intervention (post-intervention). RESULTS: Mean scores from baseline to post-intervention for buspirone were OCD 8.7 to 9.0 and STAI-S 40.5 to 40.1 and for placebo were OCD 8.4 to 9.3 and STAI-S 40.9 to 38.6 with raw improvements over time on both measures being greater in the placebo group. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) controlling for baseline scores showed no statistically significant difference between groups for OCD (P = 0.052) or STAI-S (P = 0.062). CONCLUSION: Buspirone did not result in significant improvement in dyspnea or anxiety in cancer patients. Thus, buspirone should not be recommended as a pharmacological option for dyspnea in cancer patients.

The effect of YOCAS©® yoga for musculoskeletal symptoms among breast cancer survivors on hormonal therapy.

Up to 50% of breast cancer survivors on aromatase inhibitor therapy report musculoskeletal symptoms such as joint and muscle pain, significantly impacting treatment adherence and discontinuation rates. We conducted a secondary data analysis of a nationwide, multi-site, phase II/III randomized, controlled, clinical trial examining the efficacy of yoga for improving musculoskeletal symptoms among breast cancer survivors currently receiving hormone therapy (aromatase inhibitors [AI] or tamoxifen [TAM]). Breast cancer survivors currently receiving AI (N = 95) or TAM (N = 72) with no participation in yoga during the previous 3 months were randomized into 2 arms: (1) standard care monitoring and (2) standard care plus the 4-week yoga intervention (2x/week; 75 min/session) and included in this analysis. The yoga intervention utilized the UR Yoga for Cancer Survivors (YOCAS©(®)) program consisting of breathing exercises, 18 gentle Hatha and restorative yoga postures, and meditation. Musculoskeletal symptoms were assessed pre- and post-intervention. At baseline, AI users reported higher levels of general pain, muscle aches, and total physical discomfort than TAM users (all P ≤ 0.05). Among all breast cancer survivors on hormonal therapy, participants in the yoga group demonstrated greater reductions in musculoskeletal symptoms such as general pain, muscle aches and total physical discomfort from pre- to post-intervention than the control group (all P ≤ 0.05). The severity of musculoskeletal symptoms was higher for AI users compared to TAM users. Among breast cancer survivors on hormone therapy, the brief community-based YOCAS©® intervention significantly reduced general pain, muscle aches, and physical discomfort.

A phase III randomized, placebo-controlled study of topical amitriptyline and ketamine for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN): a University of Rochester CCOP study of 462 cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) occurs in as high as 70% of patients receiving certain types of chemotherapy agents. The FDA has yet to approve a therapy for CIPN. The aim of this multicenter, phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to investigate the efficacy of 2% ketamine plus 4% amitriptyline (KA) cream for reducing CIPN. METHODS: Cancer survivors who completed chemotherapy at least 1 month prior and had CIPN (>4 out of 10) were enrolled (N=462). CIPN was assessed using average scores from a 7-day daily diary that asks patients to rate the average "pain, numbness, or tingling in [their] hands and feet over the past 24 h" on an 11-point numeric rating scale at baseline and 6 weeks post intervention. ANCOVA was used to measure differences in 6-week CIPN with effects including baseline CIPN, KA treatment arm, and previous taxane therapy (Y/N). RESULTS: The KA treatment showed no effect on 6-week CIPN scores (adjusted mean difference=-0.17, p=0.363). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that KA cream does not decrease CIPN symptoms in cancer survivors.

A randomized, controlled, double-blinded clinical trial of gabapentin 300 versus 900 mg versus placebo for anxiety symptoms in breast cancer survivors.

Gabapentin is used for the treatment of hot flashes and neuropathic pain in breast cancer survivors, and is commonly used off-label for the treatment of anxiety. Yet, clinical trial evidence to support the use of gabapentin for anxiety symptoms is lacking. In a randomized, double-blinded controlled trial we compared 300 mg gabapentin versus 900 mg gabapentin versus placebo. Subjects were 420 breast cancer patients who had completed all chemotherapy cycles. Anxiety traits and current (state) anxiety were measured using the Speilberger Strait-Trait Anxiety Inventory at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks. Pain was measured at baseline using a 10-point scale. Analyses included analysis of covariance and ordinary least squares regression. At 4 weeks, state anxiety change scores were significantly better for gabapentin 300 and 900 mg (p = 0.005) compared to placebo. The magnitude of improvement was proportional to baseline state anxiety. At 8 weeks, the anxiolytic effects of gabapentin compared to placebo persisted (p < 0.005). We found no significant interactions. The lower dose (300 mg) was associated with the best treatment outcomes for all patients except those with the highest baseline anxiety. Given its similar pharmacology, efficacy in the treatment of hot flashes, and low cost, gabapentin may provide a low cost and parsimonious alternative treatment choice for breast cancer survivors presenting in primary care practices with anxiety symptoms. Gabapentin is effective for hot flashes, and, therefore, may provide therapeutic benefit for both anxiety and hot flashes at a generic drug price. For patients reluctant to take a controlled substance, such as a benzodiazepine, gabapentin may offer an alternative therapy. Similarly, patients with a history of substance use may benefit from gabapentin without risk of addiction or abuse. For cancer survivors experiencing both hot flashes and anxiety, gabapentin may provide a single effective treatment for both and is an alternative therapy for anxiety for patients unwilling to take a benzodiazepine or those with a history of substance use.

Ginger (Zingiber officinale) reduces acute chemotherapy-induced nausea: a URCC CCOP study of 576 patients.

PURPOSE: Despite the widespread use of antiemetics, nausea continues to be reported by over 70% of patients receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: In this double blind, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 744 cancer patients to four arms: 1) placebo, 2) 0.5 g ginger, 3) 1.0 g ginger, or 4) 1.5 g ginger. Nausea occurrence and severity were assessed at a baseline cycle and the two following cycles during which patients were taking their assigned study medication. All patients received a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist antiemetic on Day 1 of all cycles. Patients took three capsules of ginger (250 mg) or placebo twice daily for 6 days starting 3 days before the first day of chemotherapy. Patients reported the severity of nausea on a 7-point rating scale ("1" = "Not at all Nauseated" and "7" = "Extremely Nauseated") for Days 1-4 of each cycle. The primary outcomes were to determine the dose and efficacy of ginger at reducing the severity of chemotherapy-induced nausea on Day 1 of chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 576 patients were included in final analysis (91% female, mean age = 53). Mixed model analyses demonstrated that all doses of ginger significantly reduced acute nausea severity compared to placebo on Day 1 of chemotherapy (p = 0.003). The largest reduction in nausea intensity occurred with 0.5 g and 1.0 g of ginger (p = 0.017 and p = 0.036, respectively). Anticipatory nausea was a key factor in acute chemotherapy-induced nausea (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Ginger supplementation at a daily dose of 0.5 g-1.0 g significantly aids in reduction of the severity of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea in adult cancer patients.

Management of Advanced Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer and Brain Metastases: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To provide updated evidence- and consensus-based guideline recommendations to practicing oncologists and others on the management of brain metastases for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced breast cancer up to 2021. METHODS: An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review (for both systemic therapy for non-CNS metastases and for CNS metastases of HER2+ guideline updates) that identified 545 articles. Outcomes of interest included overall survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 545 publications identified and reviewed, six on systemic therapy were identified to form the evidentiary basis for the systemic therapy for CNS metastases guideline recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: Patients with brain metastases should receive appropriate local therapy and systemic therapy, if indicated. Local therapies include surgery, whole-brain radiotherapy, and stereotactic radiosurgery. Memantine and hippocampal avoidance should be added to whole-brain radiotherapy when possible. Treatments depend on factors such as patient prognosis, presence of symptoms, resectability, number and size of metastases, prior therapy, and whether metastases are diffuse. Other options include systemic therapy, best supportive care, enrollment onto a clinical trial, and/or palliative care. There are insufficient data to recommend for or against performing routine magnetic resonance imaging to screen for brain metastases; clinicians should have a low threshold for magnetic resonance imaging of the brain because of the high incidence of brain metastases among patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update evidence-based guideline recommendations to practicing oncologists and others on systemic therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced breast cancer. METHODS: An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review (for both systemic treatment and CNS metastases) and identified 545 articles. Outcomes of interest included efficacy and safety. RESULTS: Of the 545 publications identified and reviewed, 14 were identified to form the evidentiary basis for the guideline recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: HER2-targeted therapy is recommended for patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, except for those with clinical congestive heart failure or significantly compromised left ventricular ejection fraction, who should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and taxane for first-line treatment and trastuzumab deruxtecan for second-line treatment are recommended. In the third-line setting, clinicians should offer other HER2-targeted therapy combinations. There is a lack of head-to-head trials; therefore, there is insufficient evidence to recommend one regimen over another. The patient and the clinician should discuss differences in treatment schedule, route, toxicities, etc during the decision-making process. Options include regimens with tucatinib, trastuzumab emtansine, trastuzumab deruxtecan (if either not previously administered), neratinib, lapatinib, chemotherapy, margetuximab, hormonal therapy, and abemaciclib plus trastuzumab plus fulvestrant, and may offer pertuzumab if the patient has not previously received it. Optimal duration of chemotherapy is at least 4-6 months or until maximum response, depending on toxicity and in the absence of progression. HER2-targeted therapy can continue until time of progression or unacceptable toxicities. For patients with HER2-positive and estrogen receptor-positive or progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer, clinicians may recommend either standard first-line therapy or, for selected patients, endocrine therapy plus HER2-targeted therapy or endocrine therapy alone.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Automated Electronic Health Record-Based Tool for Identification of Patients With Metastatic Disease to Facilitate Clinical Trial Patient Ascertainment.

PURPOSE: To facilitate identification of clinical trial participation candidates, we developed a machine learning tool that automates the determination of a patient's metastatic status, on the basis of unstructured electronic health record (EHR) data. METHODS: This tool scans EHR documents, extracting text snippet features surrounding key words (such as metastatic, progression, and local). A regularized logistic regression model was trained and used to classify patients across five metastatic categories: highly likely and likely positive, highly likely and likely negative, and unknown. Using a real-world oncology database of patients with solid tumors with manually abstracted information as reference, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV). We validated the performance in a real-world data set, evaluating accuracy gains upon additional user review of tool's outputs after integration into clinic workflows. RESULTS: In the training data set (N = 66,532), the model sensitivity and specificity (% [95% CI]) were 82.4 [81.9 to 83.0] and 95.5 [95.3 to 96.7], respectively; the PPV was 89.3 [88.8 to 90.0], and the NPV was 94.0 [93.8 to 94.2]. In the validation sample (n = 200 from five distinct care sites), after user review of model outputs, values increased to 97.1 [85.1 to 99.9] for sensitivity, 98.2 [94.8 to 99.6] for specificity, 91.9 [78.1 to 98.3] for PPV, and 99.4 [96.6 to 100.0] for NPV. The model assigned 163 of 200 patients to the highly likely categories. The error prevalence was 4% before and 2% after user review. CONCLUSION: This tool infers metastatic status from unstructured EHR data with high accuracy and high confidence in more than 75% of cases, without requiring additional manual review. By enabling efficient characterization of metastatic status, this tool could mitigate a key barrier for patient ascertainment and clinical trial participation in community clinics.

Psychological Treatment for Patients Receiving Radiation: Results of NRG Oncology/RTOG 0841.

PURPOSE: NRG/RTOG 0841 assessed the feasibility of a depression screening procedure in patients receiving radiation therapy (RT). As a secondary endpoint, availability and barriers to psychosocial care data were collected in hopes of providing recommendations for improved psychosocial care among patients receiving RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients starting RT were prospectively recruited and assessed with self-reported distress screening tools. Patients exceeding a validated cutoff and a sample of patients who screened negative received the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) mood disorder modules via telephone. During that SCID evaluation, patients completed a validated scale ranking interview on barriers to psychosocial care and interest in various psychosocial intervention modalities. RESULTS: A total of 463 patients from 35 community-based and 2 academic RT oncology sites were recruited. Of the 455 eligible, 75 (16%) exceeded screening cutoffs for depressive symptoms. From this group, 78 patients completed the SCID; most were female (76%), white (88%), and had breast cancer (55%). Overall, the most common barriers to treatment, regardless of insurance, were costs (58%), daily responsibilities (44%), and physical health symptoms (38%). Patients from RT facilities without mental health services were significantly more likely to report difficulty with physical health problems, specifically serious illness and walking, compared with those treated at RT facilities with services (P = .013 and P = .039, respectively). Overall, there was interest in obtaining psychosocial services with face-to-face counseling at the cancer center and printed educational materials as the most commonly preferred interventions. Patients with difficult barriers to psychosocial interventions were significantly less interested in support away from the cancer center (P = .016), telephone and Internet counseling (P = .0062 &P = .011), and Internet support (P = .0048). CONCLUSION: Radiation oncology patients are interested in obtaining psychosocial services but face barriers to access to mental health services including cost, debilitating symptoms, and time constraints that prevent adequate care.

Race/ethnicity-based concerns over understanding cancer diagnosis and treatment plan.

BACKGROUND: Race/ethnicity and culture influence illness perceptions, health beliefs and behaviors, and communication with health care providers. However, information about the impact of race/ethnicity on the understanding of cancer diagnosis and treatment plan is limited. METHODS: Nine hundred seventy-three cancer patients completed an information needs-assessment questionnaire prior to starting treatment at 20 geographically distinct clinical cancer sites within the University of Rochester Community Clinical Oncology Program network. Chi2 Test was used to examine the association between race/ethnicity and education, occupation, and perception and use of available information. T test and analysis of covariance were used to examine race/ethnicity-based differences in concerns over understanding cancer diagnosis/treatment plan and the effect of race/ethnicity controlling for demographics. RESULTS: There were 904 non-Hispanic white and 69 nonwhite (blacks, Latinos, and others) patients in the sample. Whites and nonwhites were comparable in educational attainment and occupation. However, there was a statistically significant race/ethnicity-based difference in concerns over understanding the diagnosis and treatment plan for cancer, even after controlling for sex (male, female), age, education, and occupation (p < .001). More nonwhite patients indicated that additional information would have been helpful in dealing with these concerns (p <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Nonwhite cancer patients reported more concerns about understanding their diagnosis and treatment plan and were more likely to indicate that additional information would have been helpful. The findings emphasize the need for oncology professionals to confirm patients' understanding and ensure patients' information needs have been met, particularly when working with racial/ethnic minorities.

Sexual Adjustment and Body Image Scale (SABIS): a new measure for breast cancer patients.

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a self-report measure of body image and sexual adjustment in breast cancer patients: the Sexual Adjustment and Body Image Scale (SABIS). Three hundred and fifty three women diagnosed with primary breast cancer that had completed initial surgical treatment completed the SABIS and five measures of psychological, psychosocial, and sexual functioning. Psychometric properties of the SABIS were examined and it was found to be a reliable and valid means of assessing body image and sexuality in breast cancer patients following surgery.

Management of Osteoporosis in Survivors of Adult Cancers With Nonmetastatic Disease: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline.

PURPOSE: The aim of this work is to provide evidence-based guidance on the management of osteoporosis in survivors of adult cancer. METHODS: ASCO convened a multidisciplinary Expert Panel to develop guideline recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: The literature search of the 2018 systematic review by the US Preventive Services Task Force in the noncancer population was used as the evidentiary base upon which the Expert Panel based many of its recommendations. A total of 61 additional studies on topics and populations not covered in the US Preventive Services Task Force review were also included. Patients with cancer with metastatic disease and cancer survival outcomes related to bone-modifying agents are not included in this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS: Patients with nonmetastatic cancer may be at risk for osteoporotic fractures due to baseline risks or due to the added risks that are associated with their cancer therapy. Clinicians are advised to assess fracture risk using established tools. For those patients with substantial risk of osteoporotic fracture, the clinician should obtain a bone mineral density test. The bone health of all patients may benefit from optimizing nutrition, exercise, and lifestyle. When a pharmacologic agent is indicated, bisphosphonates or denosumab at osteoporosis-indicated dosages are the preferred interventions.

Effect of a nausea expectancy manipulation on chemotherapy-induced nausea: a university of Rochester cancer center community clinical oncology program study.

Several studies have shown that patients' expectancies for the development of nausea following chemotherapy are robust predictors of that treatment-related side effect, and some studies have shown that interventions designed to influence expectancies can affect patients' reports of symptoms. In this randomized, multicenter, Community Clinical Oncology Program trial, we investigated the effect of an expectancy manipulation designed to reduce nausea expectancy on chemotherapy-induced nausea in 358 patients scheduled to receive chemotherapy treatment. Patients in the intervention arm received general cancer-related educational material plus specific information about the efficacy of ondansetron, specifically designed to diminish nausea expectancy. Patients in the control arm received only the general cancer-related educational material. Nausea expectancy was assessed both prior to and following the educational intervention. We observed a significant reduction in nausea expectancy in the intervention group (P=0.024) as compared to the control group (P=0.34). In the intervention group, patients' expectations of nausea assessed prior to the intervention correlated significantly with average nausea (r=0.27, P=0.001), whereas nausea expectancy assessed following the intervention did not (r=0.1, P=0.22). Although the expectancy manipulation reduced patients' reported expectations for the development of nausea, the occurrence of nausea was not reduced. Furthermore, post-intervention nausea expectancy compared to pre-intervention expectancy was less predictive of subsequent nausea. Explanations for these findings include the possibility that the expectancy manipulation was not strong enough, and the possibility that changing nausea expectancies does not change occurrence of nausea.

Systemic Therapy for Patients With Advanced Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

Purpose To update evidence-based guideline recommendations for practicing oncologists and others on systemic therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced breast cancer to 2018. Methods An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review (for both systemic treatment and CNS metastases) and identified 622 articles. Outcomes of interest included overall survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events. Results Of the 622 publications identified and reviewed, no additional evidence was identified that would warrant a change to the 2014 recommendations. Recommendations HER2-targeted therapy is recommended for patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, except for those with clinical congestive heart failure or significantly compromised left ventricular ejection fraction, who should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and taxane for first-line treatment and trastuzumab emtansine for second-line treatment are recommended. In the third-line setting, clinicians should offer other HER2-targeted therapy combinations or trastuzumab emtansine (if not previously administered) and may offer pertuzumab if the patient has not previously received it. Optimal duration of chemotherapy is at least 4 to 6 months or until maximum response, depending on toxicity and in the absence of progression. HER2-targeted therapy can continue until time of progression or unacceptable toxicities. For patients with HER2-positive and estrogen receptor-positive/progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer, clinicians may recommend either standard first-line therapy or, for selected patients, endocrine therapy plus HER2-targeted therapy or endocrine therapy alone. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

Recommendations on Disease Management for Patients With Advanced Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer and Brain Metastases: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

Purpose To update the formal expert consensus-based guideline recommendations for practicing oncologists and others on the management of brain metastases for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced breast cancer to 2018. Methods An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review (for both systemic treatment and CNS metastases) and identified 622 articles. Outcomes of interest included overall survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events. In 2014, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) convened a panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, guideline implementation, and advocacy experts, and conducted a systematic review of the literature. When that failed to yield sufficiently strong quality evidence, the Expert Panel undertook a formal expert consensus-based process to produce these recommendations. ASCO used a modified Delphi process. The panel members drafted recommendations, and a group of other experts joined them for two rounds of formal ratings of the recommendations. Results Of the 622 publications identified and reviewed, no additional evidence was identified that would warrant a change to the 2014 recommendations. Recommendations Patients with brain metastases should receive appropriate local therapy and systemic therapy, if indicated. Local therapies include surgery, whole-brain radiotherapy, and stereotactic radiosurgery. Treatments depend on factors such as patient prognosis, presence of symptoms, resectability, number and size of metastases, prior therapy, and whether metastases are diffuse. Other options include systemic therapy, best supportive care, enrollment in a clinical trial, and/or palliative care. Clinicians should not perform routine magnetic resonance imaging to screen for brain metastases, but rather should have a low threshold for magnetic resonance imaging of the brain because of the high incidence of brain metastases among patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

A multi-center phase II study of weekly topotecan as second-line therapy for small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the response rate, toxicity, failure free and overall survival of weekly topotecan in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer who received one prior platinum based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty two patients with relapsed disease after response to one prior chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy and patients with relapse more than 90 days after their last therapy received topotecan 4mg/m(2) intravenous over 30min on days 1,8,15; every 4 weeks (3 weeks on and 1 weeks off). Chemotherapy was given until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Of 22 patients, none of the patients responded to weekly topotecan therapy. Four patients had stable disease. After a median follow up of 1 year, median time to progression was 6 weeks and median survival was 5 months. The common toxicities associated with this regimen were anemia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, GI side effects and alopecia. CONCLUSION: Weekly topotecan was well tolerated but ineffective in this trial. Although commonly used, weekly regimen of topotecan should be used with caution in relapsed SCLC.