Symptomatic skeletal-related events in patients receiving longer term bone-modifying agents for bone metastases from breast and castration resistant prostate cancers.

BACKGROUND: The effect of longer-term use of bone-modifying agent (BMA) on symptomatic skeletal event (SSE) rates in patients with bone metastases remains unclear. This retrospective study of a cohort of patients in a randomized controlled trial evaluated SSEs in patients receiving BMAs at a single cancer center. METHODS: Data from patients with metastatic breast and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) were interrogated to evaluate the effects of longer-term use of BMAs on incidence, type, and risk factors for SSEs. RESULTS: Of 162 patients, 109 (67%) had breast cancer (BC) and 53 (33%) CRPC. Median age at diagnosis of bone metastases was 61.9 years (range 27.5-97.2) for BC patients and 72.1 (range 37.0-92.2) for CRPC patients. Median duration of BMA use was 2.3 years (range 0.1-9.9 years) for BC and 3.8 years (range 1.5-9.4) for CRPC patients. The initial BMAs in BC patients were pamidronate (46.8%), denosumab (31.2%), and zoledronate (22%). All CRPC patients received denosumab. During follow-up, 59% of BC and 75% of CRPC patients had at least one SSE. The number of patients experiencing ≥ 1 SSE per year was higher in the first year after bone metastasis diagnosis (63/162; 38.9%) compared with that in the second (26/149; 17.5%) and third years (30/123; 24.4%). Neither age, visceral disease, multiple bone metastases, nor biological markers for BC had a significant impact on time to first SSE. CONCLUSIONS: The risk for SSEs was greatest in the first year after diagnosis of bone metastasis. Studies evaluating de-escalation and even stopping of BMAs with longer-term use may therefore be warranted.

A randomized clinical trial comparing physician-directed or fixed-dose steroid replacement strategies for incomplete dexamethasone dosing prior to docetaxel chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Prior to docetaxel chemotherapy, incomplete dosing of steroid premedication is common. The lack of standardized steroid replacement strategies can lead to variability in care and delays in starting docetaxel. METHODS: This randomized trial compared physician-directed with fixed-dose dexamethasone. Patients who had missed at least one dose of steroid premedication were randomized to physician-directed replacement (any choice of steroid, dose or route) or to dexamethasone 8 mg oral before starting docetaxel. The primary outcome was time from randomization to starting docetaxel. Secondary outcomes included rates of acute and delayed hypersensitivity reactions, fluid retention and skin toxicity. RESULTS: Of 60 eligible patients, 30 (50%) and 30 (50%) were randomized to physician-directed and fixed-dose arms, respectively. Overall tumour types: breast (42 [70%]), gastrointestinal (7 [12%]), prostate (7 [12%]) and lung (3 [7%]). Dexamethasone was most commonly incompletely taken with cycles 1 (28 [48%]) and 2 (13 [22%]) of docetaxel. Seven different replacement strategies were used in the physician-choice arm. Patients in the fixed-dose arm received docetaxel a mean of 21.2 (95% CI for the difference is 2.1 to 44.6) minutes earlier than the physician-choice arm (p = 0.033 Wilcoxon rank sum test or p = 0.073 two-sample t test). Median time to docetaxel was 47.5 vs 61 min (mean 62.2 vs 83.4 min) by arm, respectively. No significant difference in toxicity rates was observed. CONCLUSION: While not meeting our predefined criteria of improving the time from randomization to starting docetaxel by 30 min, the fixed-dose replacement strategy reduced both the time to starting docetaxel and treatment variability. Fixed dosing with oral dexamethasone 8 mg should be the preferred standard of care. REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02815319 REGISTRATION DATE: June 28, 2016.

Long-term impact of bone-modifying agents for the treatment of bone metastases: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) for bone metastases are commonly prescribed for many years even though randomized clinical trials are only 1-2 years in duration. A systematic review on the risk-benefit of BMA use for > 2 years in breast cancer or castrate-resistant prostate cancer was conducted. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched (1970-February 2019) for randomized and observational studies, and case series reporting on BMA efficacy (skeletal-related events and quality of life) and toxicity (osteonecrosis of the jaw, renal impairment, hypocalcemia, and atypical femoral fractures) beyond 2 years. RESULTS: Of 2107 citations, 64 studies were identified. Three prospective and 9 retrospective studies were eligible. Data beyond 2 years was limited to subgroup analyses in all studies. Only one study (n = 181) reported skeletal-related event rates based on bisphosphonate exposure, with decreased rates from 27.6% (0-24 months) to 15.5% (> 24 months). None reported on quality of life. All 12 studies (denosumab (n = 948), zoledronate (n = 1036), pamidronate (n = 163), pamidronate-zoledronate (n = 522), ibandronate (n = 118)) reported ≥ 1 toxicity outcome. Seven bisphosphonate studies (n = 1077) and one denosumab study (n = 948) reported on osteonecrosis of the jaw. Across three studies (n = 1236), osteonecrosis of the jaw incidence ranged from 1 to 4% in the first 2 years to 3.8-18% after 2 years. Clinically significant hypocalcemia ranged from 1 to 2%. Severe renal function decline was ≤ 3%. Atypical femoral fractures were rare. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence informing the use of BMA beyond 2 years is heterogeneous and based on retrospective analysis. Prospective randomized studies with greater emphasis on quality of life are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019126813.

A randomized trial comparing vascular access strategies for patients receiving chemotherapy with trastuzumab for early-stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Trastuzumab-based chemotherapy is usually administered through either a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) or a totally implanted vascular access device (PORT). As the most effective type of access is unknown, a feasibility trial, prior to conducting a large pragmatic trial, was undertaken. METHODS: The trial methodology utilized the integrated consent model incorporating oral consent. Patients receiving trastuzumab-based neo/adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer were randomized to a PICC or PORT insertion. Feasibility was reflected through a combination of endpoints; however, the a priori definition of feasibility was > 25% of patients approached agreed to randomization and > 25% of physicians approached patients. Secondary outcomes included rates of line-associated complications such as thrombotic events requiring anticoagulation, line infections or phlebitis. RESULTS: During the study period, 4/15 (26.7%) medical oncologists approached patients about study participation. Of 59 patients approached, 56 (94.9%) agreed to randomization, 29 (51.8%) were randomized to PICC and 27 (48.2%) to PORT access. Overall, 17.2% (5/29) and 14.8% (4/27) of patients had at least one line-associated complication in the PICC and PORT arms respectively. The study was terminated early due to slow accrual. CONCLUSION: The study met its feasibility endpoints with respect to patient and physician engagement. However, the slow rate of accrual (56 patients in 2 years) means that conducting a large pragmatic trial would require additional strategies to make such a study possible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02632435.

De-escalation of bone-modifying agents in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) such as bisphosphonates and denosumab are usually administered every 4 weeks (standard) in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs). Recent randomized controlled trials suggest every 12-week (de-escalated) dosing interval may be non-inferior. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and harms of standard with de-escalated administration of BMA's in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. METHODS: We searched Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials from 1947 to March 14, 2018 and conference abstracts from (2014-March 14, 2018) for randomized clinical trials comparing every 4-week and every 12-week dosing interval of bone-modifying agents. Using PRISMA guidelines, meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models, with findings reported as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: From a total of 1311 citations, we identified 8 full-text articles and 1 abstract comprising data from 5 completed randomized clinical trials (n = 1807). Zoledronate administration every 12 weeks compared to every 4 weeks produced a summary risk ratio of 1.05 (95% CI 0.88-1.25) for patients with ≥ 1 on-study SRE indicating similar efficacy. These results did not differ whether patients had received prior intravenous bisphosphonate. De-escalation was associated with a non-statistically significant lower risk of increased creatinine (summary risk ratio 0.41 [95% CI 0.15-1.16]). Currently, there are insufficient data for pamidronate and denosumab de-escalation. CONCLUSIONS: These data are supportive of de-escalation of zoledronate from onset for patients with bone metastases from breast cancer.

Creating a pragmatic trials program for breast cancer patients: Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT).

BACKGROUND: The proportion of breast cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials is falling. The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) program was developed to challenge some of the contemporary barriers responsible for this fall in accrual. In this article, we review the successes and challenges our program has faced. METHODS: The REaCT program was created to improve care and outcomes for cancer patients through surveys of patients and healthcare providers, systematic reviews, economic evaluations, and the performance of pragmatic randomized trials with patient-centered outcomes. Likely, the greatest difference to conventional trial methodologies has been our widespread use of the integrated consent model (ICM) incorporating oral consent. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2018, the program has recruited over 2000 patients to 15 randomized studies at 11 Canadian cancer centers. The REaCT program has completed and published five patient surveys, six healthcare provider surveys, ten systematic reviews, performed four economic evaluations, opened 15 clinical trials comparing standard of care interventions (two surgical, two adjuvant chemotherapy, five adjuvant supportive care, one radiology, two vascular devices, two palliative supportive care, and one molecular diagnostics). Patient surveys have shown high levels of satisfaction with the ICM. CONCLUSION: The REaCT program was developed to tackle important practice questions that will better guide optimal practice and to increase the availability of pragmatic clinical trials. While many challenges remain, future strategies will involve including more study sites and efforts to integrate novel information technology strategies.

A multicentre, randomized pilot trial comparing vascular access strategies for early stage breast cancer patients receiving non-trastuzumab containing chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: All vascular access strategies foradministering chemotherapy in early stage breast cancer (EBC) are associated with risks and benefits. As the most effective type of access is unknown a feasibility trial, prior to conducting a large pragmatic trial, was undertaken. METHODS: The trial methodology utilized broad eligibility criteria and the integrated consent model incorporating oral consent. EBC patients receiving non-trastuzumab-containing chemotherapy were randomized to peripheral access or central line insertion. The a priori definition of feasibility was: > 25% of patients approached agreed to randomisation and > 25% of physicians approached patients. Secondary outcomes included rates of line-associated complications. RESULTS: Of 159 patients approached, 150 (94.3%) agreed to randomisation, 77 (51.3%) were randomized to peripheral and 73 (48.7%) to central access. 6/26 (23.1%) of medical oncologists approached patients. Rates of complications per chemotherapy cycles in the peripheral vs central access groups with risk difference (RD) (95% CI) were: thrombotic events requiring anticoagulation [1 (0.3%) vs. 3 (1.0%), RD - 0.7(- 1.9,0.5)], line infections [0 (0%) vs. 1 (0.3%), RD - 0.3(- 0.9,0.3)], phlebitis [2 (0.6%) vs. 0 (0%), RD 0.3(- 0.3,0.8)], and tissue infiltrations [4 (1.1%) vs. 1 (0.3%), RD 0.8(- 0.4,2.1)]. Overall, 8.0% (6/75) and 7.7% (5/65) of patients had at least one of these complications in the peripheral and central access arms respectively [RD - 0.9(- 9.4,7.6)]. The study was terminated early due to slow accrual. CONCLUSION: While meeting its a priori feasibility criteria for patient engagement, the slow accrual means that conducting a large pragmatic trial would require overcoming the barriers to physician recruitment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02688998.

Feasibility of using a pragmatic trials model to compare two primary febrile neutropenia prophylaxis regimens (ciprofloxacin versus G-CSF) in patients receiving docetaxel-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for breast cancer (REaCT-TC).

PURPOSE: Optimal primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis (i.e. ciprofloxacin or granulocyte-colony stimulating factors [G-CSF]) for patients receiving docetaxel-cyclophosphamide (TC) chemotherapy is unknown. We assessed the feasibility of using a novel pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial to compare these standard-of-care options. METHODS: Early-stage breast cancer patients receiving TC chemotherapy were randomised to either ciprofloxacin or G-CSF. Trial methodology consists of broad eligibility criteria, simply-defined endpoints, integrated consent model incorporating oral consent, and web-based randomisation in the clinic. Primary feasibility endpoints included patient and physician engagement (if > 50% of patients approached agree to participate and if > 50% of physicians approached patients for the study). Secondary clinical endpoints included the following: first occurrence rates of FN, treatment-related hospitalisation, or chemotherapy dose reduction/delay/discontinuation, as well as patient satisfaction with the oral consent process. RESULTS: Of 204 patients approached, 91.2% (186/204) agreed to randomisation. Sixteen of twenty (80%) participating medical oncologists randomised patients. Median patient age was 57.7 (range 31.8-84.1). The 186 patients received 557 cycles of chemotherapy. Overall incidences of first events by patient (n = 186) were as follows: FN (18/186, 21.43%), treatment-related hospitalisation (11/186, 13.10%), chemotherapy reduction (19/186, 22.62%), chemotherapy discontinuation (16/186, 19.05%), and chemotherapy delays (5/186, 5.95%). A total of 37.77% (69/186) of patients and 12.39% (69/557) of chemotherapy cycles had at least one of these first events. Patients were highly satisfied with the oral consent process. CONCLUSION: This study met its feasibility endpoints. This model offers a means of comparing standard-of-care treatments in a practical and cost-efficient manner. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02173262.

Optimal vascular access strategies for patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review.

IMPORTANCE: Systemic chemotherapy can be administered either through a peripheral vein (IV), or centrally through peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), totally implanted vascular access devices (PORTs) or tunnelled cuffed catheters. Despite the widespread use of systemic chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer, the optimal choice of vascular access is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review evaluated complication rates and patient satisfaction with different access strategies for administering neo/adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. EVIDENCE REVIEWED: Ovid Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1946 to September 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed each citation. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of cohort and case-control studies. FINDINGS: Of 1584 citations identified, 15 unique studies met the pre-specified eligibility criteria. There were no randomised studies comparing types of vascular access. Reports included six single-institution retrospective cohort studies, one retrospective multi-institution cohort, one retrospective cohort database study, five prospective single-institution studies, one prospective multi-institution study and one nested case-control study. Median complication rates were infection: 6.0% PICC (2 studies) versus 2.1% PORT (8 studies); thrombosis: 8.9% PICC (2 studies) versus 2.6% PORT (9 studies); extravasation: 0 PICC (1 study) versus 0.4% PORT (4 studies) and mechanical issues: PICC 3.8% (1 study) versus 1.8% PORT (9 studies). Satisfaction/quality of life appeared high with each device. CONCLUSION: In the absence of high-quality data comparing vascular access strategies, randomised, adequately powered, prospective studies would be required to help inform clinical practice and reduce variation.

A multi-center pragmatic, randomized, feasibility trial comparing standard of care schedules of filgrastim administration for primary febrile neutropenia prophylaxis in early-stage breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The most effective duration of filgrastim as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in early breast cancer (EBC) patients is unknown. Despite significant differences in cost and toxicity, no prospective trial has been performed to optimize practice. We assessed the feasibility of using a novel pragmatic trial model to compare the most commonly used schedules of filgrastim. METHODS: Early breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy were randomized to 5, 7, or 10 days of filgrastim as primary FN prophylaxis. The trial methodology integrated broad eligibility criteria, simply defined endpoints, an integrated consent model incorporating oral consent, and web-based randomization in the clinic. Feasibility was reflected through a combination of primary endpoints including patient and physician engagement (if > 50% of appropriate patients approached agree to participate, and if > 50% of physicians approached patients for the study). Secondary endpoints included the first occurrence rates of FN, treatment-related hospital admission, or chemotherapy dose reductions/delays/discontinuation. RESULTS: From May 2015 to August 2016, 142/149 (95.3%) patients approached agreed to participate and were randomized. Seventeen of 24 (70.8%) medical oncologists approached and randomized patients. The 142 patients received a total of 495 cycles of chemotherapy. Aggregate incidences of a first event by patient were FN (8/142, 5.6%), treatment-related hospitalization (6/142, 4.2%), chemotherapy discontinuation (7/142, 4.9%), chemotherapy delays (5/142, 3.5%), and chemotherapy dose reduction (18/142, 12.7%). Overall, 31.7% (45/142) of patients and 9.0% (45/495) of chemotherapy cycles were associated with one of these first events. CONCLUSION: This study met its feasibility endpoints. This novel pragmatic trial approach offers a means of comparing standard of care treatments in a practical and cost-effective manner. The trial will now be expanded to compare rates of FN between the three filgrastim schedules. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02428114.

Filgrastim use in patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer-a survey of physicians and patients.

PURPOSE: Despite its widespread use as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis during chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer, the optimal duration of daily filgrastim is unknown. Using the minimum effective duration may improve patient comfort and acceptability while reducing costs. Yet, suboptimal dosing may also negatively impact patient care. A survey was performed to obtain information regarding current practices for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use. METHODS: Canadian oncologists involved in the treatment of breast cancer patients, as well as patients who had received neo/adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, were surveyed. Standardized surveys were designed to collect information on perceived reasons for G-CSF use and current practices. RESULTS: The surveys were completed by 38/50 (76%) physicians and 95/97 (98%) patients. For physicians, there was variability in the choice of chemotherapy regimens that required G-CSF support, the dose of filgrastim prescribed and the number of days prescribed. The majority of physicians reported using 5 (31.6%), 7 (47.4%), or 10 (13.2%) days of therapy. Nearly half of the patients (46.3%) recalled having experienced at least one of the chemotherapy-related complications including chemotherapy delays, dose reductions, and FN. While on filgrastim, 66.3% of patients reported myalgia and bone pain. Both physicians and patients expressed interest in participating in clinical trials designed to optimize the duration of filgrastim administration. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variability in practice exists with respect to filgrastim administration. Definitive studies are therefore required to standardize and improve care, as this has the potential to impact treatment outcomes, patient quality of life, and cost savings.

Predatory Invitations from Journals: More Than Just a Nuisance?

Physicians and academic researchers are frequently targeted with spam invitations to submit manuscripts to predatory journals. This study was conducted to understand the nature and characteristics of these invitations. All spam e-mails received by an academic medical oncologist over a 3-month period were collected and categorized. Presumed predatory journal invitations were analyzed and cross-checked against Beall's list of "potential, probable, or possible predatory" journals and publishers. Invitations to submit to predatory journals were the most common single type of spam received. The Oncologist 2017;22:236-240.

Optimal primary febrile neutropenia prophylaxis for patients receiving docetaxel-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for breast cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Due to the high rate of febrile neutropenia (FN) with docetaxel-cyclophosphamide (DC) chemotherapy, primary FN prophylaxis is recommended. However, the optimal choice of prophylaxis [i.e., granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) or antibiotics] is unknown. A systematic review was performed to address this knowledge gap. METHODS: Embase, Ovid Medline, Pubmed, the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, and Cochrane register of controlled trials were searched from 1946 to April 2016 for studies evaluating primary prophylactic FN treatments in breast cancer patients receiving DC chemotherapy. Outcome measures evaluated included: incidence of FN and treatment-related hospitalizations, chemotherapy dose reduction/delays/discontinuations, and adverse events. Screening and data collection were performed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Of 2105 identified records, 7 studies (n = 2535) met the pre-specified eligibility criteria. Seven additional studies (n = 621) were identified from prior systematic reviews. There were 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2256) and 11 retrospective studies (n = 900). Study sample sizes ranged from 30 to 982 patients (median 99.5), evaluating pegfilgrastim (n = 1274), filgrastim (n = 1758), and oral ciprofloxacin (n = 108). Given the heterogeneity of patients and study design, a narrative synthesis of results was performed. Median FN rates with and without primary prophylaxis were 6.6 % (IQR 3.9-10.6 %) and 31.3 % (IQR 25-33 %), respectively. No FN-related deaths were reported. No RCT directly compared G-CSF with antibiotic interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Primary FN prophylaxis reduces the incidence of FN. Despite considerable cost and toxicity differences between G-CSF and antibiotics, there is insufficient data to make a recommendation of one strategy over another.

A Multi-Centre Randomized Study Comparing Two Standard of Care Chemotherapy Regimens for Lower-Risk HER2-Positive Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neither paclitaxel plus trastuzumab (P-H) nor docetaxel-cyclophosphamide plus trastuzumab (TC-H) have been prospectively compared in HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer (EBC). A randomized trial was performed to assess the feasibility of a larger study. METHODS: Lower-risk HER2-positive EBC patients were randomized to either P-H or TC-H treatment arms. The co-primary feasibility outcomes were: ≥75% patient acceptability rate, active trial participation of ≥50% of medical oncologists, ≥75% and ≥90% treatment completion, and receipt rate of planned cycles of chemotherapy, respectively. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Febrile neutropenia (FN) rate, treatment-related hospitalizations, health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) questionnaires. Analyses were performed by per protocol and intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Between May 2019 and March 2021, 49 of 52 patients agreed to study participation (94% acceptability rate). Fifteen (65%) of 23 medical oncologists approached patients. Rates of FN were higher (8.3% vs. 0%) in the TC-H vs. P-H arm. Median (IQR) changes in scores from baseline in FACT-Taxane Trial Outcome Index at 24 weeks were -4 (-10, -1) vs. -6.5 (-15, -2) for TC-H and P-H arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A randomized trial comparing P-H and TC-H was feasible. Expansion to a larger trial would be feasible to explore patient-reported outcomes of these adjuvant HER2 chemotherapy regimens.

Feasibility outcomes of a randomised, multicentre, pilot trial comparing standard 6-monthly dosing of adjuvant zoledronate with a single one-time dose in patients with early stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant zoledronate is widely used in patients with early stage breast cancer (EBC), but its optimal duration and dosing interval is still unknown. While a single-dose of zoledronate can improve bone density for many years, a proper evaluation of its effects on breast cancer-related outcomes would require a large trial. In this pilot study we evaluated the feasibility of performing such a trial. METHODS: Eligible patients with EBC were randomised to receive either one dose of zoledronate or 7 doses (6-monthly dosing for 3 years). Feasibility was assessed by a combination of primary outcomes including: activation of at least 6 Ontario sites within a year, active participation (i.e. approaching eligible patients for study participation) of at least half of the medical oncologists, and enrolment of at least 100 patients across all sites within 9 months of the sixth site being activated. RESULTS: All 6 sites were activated within 1 year and of 47 medical oncologists, 27 (57%) approached patients. Between November 2018 and April 2020, 211 eligible patients were randomised, 106 (50.2%) to a single dose of zoledronate and 105 (49.8%) to 6-monthly dosing. Baseline characteristics of randomised patients included; median age 59 (range 36-88), ER and/or PR positive (85%), Her2 positive (23%), menopausal status (premenopausal [19%], perimenopausal [6.7%] and postmenopausal [74%]) and 74% received neo/adjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: All study feasibility endpoints were met in this trial comparing alternative schedules for adjuvant zoledronate. We will now seek funding for performing a larger efficacy trial.Trial registration: NCT03664687.

Optimising weight-loss interventions in cancer patients-A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Excess weight has been associated with increased morbidity and a worse prognosis in adult patients with early-stage cancer. The optimal lifestyle interventions to optimize anthropometric measures amongst cancer patients and survivors remain inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of exercise and dietary interventions alone or in combination on anthropometric measures of adult cancer patients and survivors. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Trials Registry was performed. Outcomes of interest included changes in weight, body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference. Screening and data collection were performed by two reviewers. Bayesian NMAs were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 98 RCTs were included; 75 were incorporated in NMAs (n = 12,199). Groups of intervention strategies included: 3 exercise interventions, 8 dietary interventions, 7 combination interventions of diet and exercise and standard care. Median intervention duration was 26 weeks. NMA suggested that diet alone (mean difference [MD] -2.25kg, 95% CrI -3.43 to -0.91kg) and combination strategies (MD -2.52kg, 95% CrI -3.54 to -1.62kg) were associated with more weight loss compared to standard care. All dietary interventions achieved a similar magnitude of weight loss (MD range from -2.03kg to -2.52kg). Both diet alone and combination strategies demonstrated greater BMI reductions versus standard care, and each of diet alone, exercise alone and combination strategies demonstrated greater reductions in waist circumference than standard care. CONCLUSION: Diet and exercise alone or in combination are effective lifestyle interventions to improve anthropometric measures in cancer patients and survivors. All reputable diets appear to be similarly effective to achieve weight loss.

Two-year results of a randomised trial comparing 4- versus 12-weekly bone-targeted agent use in patients with bone metastases from breast or castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: We present the 2-year results of a randomised trial comparing 4- versus 12-weekly bone-targeting agents (BTAs) in patients with bone metastases from breast or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with bone metastases from breast or CRPC, who were going to start or were already receiving BTAs, were randomised to 4- or 12-weekly BTA treatment for 2 years. The endpoints were: symptomatic skeletal events (SSE) rates, time to SSEs, toxicity and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Of 263 patients (160 breast cancer, 103 CRPC), 133 (50.6%) and 130 (49.4%) were randomised to the 4- and 12-weekly groups, respectively. BTAs included denosumab (56.3%), zoledronate (24.0%) and pamidronate (19.8%). After 2 years, the cumulative incidence rate (95% CI) of SSEs was 32.7% (24.6% to 41.1%) and 28.1% (20.3% to 36.4%) for the 4- and 12-weekly intervention groups respectively. The hazard ratio for time to first SSE was 0.96 (95% CI = 0.63 to 1.47). However, in a post hoc analysis, those patients who had an on-study SSE, there was a small non-statistical increased risk of subsequent SSEs among patients on the 12-weekly dosing arm (HR = 1.14; 95% CI - 0.90-1.44). BTA-related toxicity rates were similar between study arms. A cost-utility analysis showed that 12-weekly BTA is cost-effective from a public payer's perspective. CONCLUSION: These results in addition to those previously reported for de-escalating zoledronate, would support that de-escalation of commonly used BTAs is a reasonable and economically valid treatment option. While not statistically significant, the increase in subsequent SSEs in the 12-weekly arm requires further exploration.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 12-Versus 4-Weekly Administration of Bone-Targeted Agents in Patients with Bone Metastases from Breast and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

A cost-utility analysis was performed based on the Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) bone-targeted agents (BTA) clinical trial that compared 12-weekly (once every 12 weeks) (n = 130) versus 4-weekly (once every 4 weeks) (n = 133) BTA dosing for metastatic breast and castration-resistant prostate (CRPC) cancer. Using a decision tree model, we calculated treatment and symptomatic skeletal event (SSE) costs as well as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each treatment option. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the study findings. The total cost of BTA treatment in Canadian dollars (C$) and estimated QALYs was C$8965.03 and 0.605 QALY in the 4-weekly group versus C$5669.95 and 0.612 QALY in the 12-weekly group, respectively. De-escalation from 4-weekly to 12-weekly BTA reduces cost (C$3293.75) and improves QALYs by 0.008 unit, suggesting that 12-weekly BTA dominates 4-weekly BTA in breast and CRPC patients with bone metastases. Sensitivity analysis suggests high levels of uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness findings. De-escalation of bone-targeted agents is cost-effective from the Canadian public payer's perspective.

De-escalating adjuvant therapies in older patients with lower risk estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy (RT) and endocrine therapy (ET) are standard treatments for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). However, many older patients are at greater risk of treatment-related toxicities and non-cancer related death, and less likely to benefit from these standard treatments. A systematic review was performed evaluating outcomes of omitting RT or ET in older patients aged ≥50 treated with BCS for lower-risk breast cancer. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were queried from 1980 to April 30th, 2020 for randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies (PCSs) evaluating omission of RT and/or ET compared to RT plus ET in patients. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models with findings reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: From 3860 citations, 10 prospective studies met eligibility criteria. Omission of RT alone was evaluated in 7 RCTs (n = 4604) and one PCS (n = 667); omission of ET alone was assessed in 1 PCS (n = 271); and omission of either ET or RT was compared to ET plus RT in 1 RCT (n = 495). Adjuvant RT compared to no RT reduced 5- and 10-year in-breast tumor recurrence [5-year: RR 0.16, 95 %CI 0.09-0.27 l 10-year: 0.28, 95 %CI 0.16-0.5], but had no effect on survival [5-year: RR 0.94, 95 %CI 0.77-1.15; 10-year: 1.01, 95 %CI 0.9-1.12]. CONCLUSION: The current body of evidence suggests that RT can be omitted in older patients with lower-risk disease. However, more trials on the omission of ET are required to better inform treatment decisions.

Oral magnesium supplements for cancer treatment-induced hypomagnesemia: Results from a pilot randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Optimal management of cancer treatment-induced hypomagnesemia (hMg) is not known. We assessed the feasibility of using a novel pragmatic clinical trials model to compare two commonly used oral Mg replacement strategies. METHODS: Patients with grade 1 to 3 hMg while receiving either platinum-based chemotherapy or epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRI) were randomized to oral magnesium oxide (MgOx) or oral magnesium citrate (MgCit). The trial methodology utilized the integrated consent model. Feasibility would be successful if; accrual rate was ≥5 patients a month and if measures of patient and physician engagement, were > 50%. Secondary endpoints included; comparison of Mg levels, cardiac arrhythmias, and rates of treatment delay/hospitalizations. RESULTS: From July 2016 to December 2017, an average of 1 patient a month was accrued. All 15 eligible and approached patients consented to participate in the study (100% engagement) and 7/15 were randomized to MgOx and 8/15 to MgCit. The percentage of physicians who approached patients for the study was 4 of 6 (66.6% engagement). The mean slope of change in Mg (mmol/L/day) was 0.0022 (95% CI: -0.0001 to 0.0044) for MgOx and 0.0006 (95% CI, -0.0012 to 0.0024) for MgCit (P = .2123). Three patients (20%) required IV magnesium while on the study (2 MgCit and 1 MgOx). Grade 1 diarrhea occurred in 3 patients in the MgCit arm. CONCLUSION: Despite oral magnesium tolerability and meeting most of its feasibility endpoints, this study did not meet its target accrual rate. Alternative designs would be necessary for a definitive efficacy study.