Search

Simple Summary: Patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer develop brain metastases in up to 30% of cases. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effect of different systemic therapies in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and brain metastases, acknowledging the heterogeneity and sometimes low quality of 51 included studies. Tucatinib (combined with trastuzumab and capecitabine) and trastuzumab-deruxtecan appear to constitute the most effective systemic therapy, while pyrotinib might be an option in Asian patients. Preferably, future research will comprise of randomized controlled trials, including patients with active and/or inactive brain metastases. Aim: Patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) develop brain metastases (BM) in up to 30% of cases. Treatment of patients with BM can consist of local treatment (surgery and/or radiotherapy) and/or systemic treatment. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of different systemic therapies in patients with HER2+ mBC and BM. Methods: A systematic search was performed in the databases PubMed, Embase.com, Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science Core Collection and the Wiley/Cochrane Library. Eligible articles included prospective or retrospective studies reporting on the effect of systemic therapy on objective response rate (ORR) and/or median progression free survival (mPFS) in patients with HER2+ mBC and BM. The timeframe within the databases was from inception to 19 January 2022. Fixed-effects meta-analyses were used. Quality appraisal was performed using the ROBINS-I tool. Results: Fifty-one studies were included, involving 3118 patients. Most studies, which contained the largest patient numbers, but also often carried a moderate-serious risk of bias, investigated lapatinib and capecitabine (LC), trastuzumab-emtansine (T-DM1) or pyrotinib. The best quality data and/or highest ORR were described with tucatinib (combined with trastuzumab and capecitabine, TTC) and trastuzumab-deruxtecan (T-DXd). TTC demonstrated an ORR of 47.3% in patients with asymptomatic and/or active BM. T-DXd achieved a pooled ORR of 64% (95% CI 43–85%, I2 0%) in a heavily pretreated population with asymptomatic BM (3 studies, n = 96). Conclusions: Though our meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneity of included studies and a related serious risk of bias, this review provides a comprehensive overview of all currently available systemic treatment options. T-Dxd and TTC that appear to constitute the most effective systemic therapy in patients with HER2+ mBC and BM, while pyrotinib might be an option in Asian patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oncokompas, cancer survivors monitor their quality of life by completing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), followed by personalized feedback, self-care advice, and supportive care options to stimulate patient activation. The aim of this study was to investigate feasibility and pretest-posttest differences of Oncokompas including a newly developed breast cancer (BC) module among BC survivors. Material and methods: A pretest-posttest design was used. Feasibility was investigated by means of adoption, usage, and satisfaction rates. Several socio-demographic and clinical factors, and healthrelated quality of life (HRQOL) were explored that might be associated with patient satisfaction. Barriers and facilitators of Oncokompas feasibility were investigated by evaluating nurse consultation reports. Differences in patient activation (Patient Activation Measure) and patient-physician interaction (Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions) before and after Oncokompas use were investigated. Results: In total, 101 BC survivors participated. Oncokompas had an adoption rate of 75%, a usage rate of 75-84%, a mean satisfaction score of 6.9 (range 0-10) and a Net Promoter Score (NPS) of -36 (range -100-100) (N¼68). The BC module had a mean satisfaction score of 7.6. BC survivors who received surgery including chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were significantly more satisfied with Oncokompas than BC survivors with surgery alone (p¼.013). Six facilitators and 10 barriers of Oncokompas feasibility were identified. After using Oncokompas, BC survivors scored significantly higher on patient activation (p¼.007; r¼.24), but not on patient-physician interaction (p¼.75). Conclusion: Oncokompas including a BC module is considered feasible, but needs further optimization to increase user satisfaction. This study shows the value of tailoring eHealth applications for cancer survivors to their specific tumor type. Oncokompas including the BC module seems to improve patient activation among BC survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]