Search

Objectives: To better understand the type of care offered to Italian patients with advanced breast cancer at the End-of-Life (EoL), we conducted a retrospective observational study. EoL was defined as the period of six months before death. Methods: One hundred and twenty-one patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated at IRCCS San Martino Policlinic Hospital who died between 2017 and 2021 were included. Data about patient, disease, and treatment characteristics from breast cancer diagnosis to death, along with information about comorbidities, medications, imaging, specialist evaluations, hospitalization, palliative care and home care, hospice admissions, and site of death were collected. Results: 98.3% of the patients received at least one line of active treatment at EoL; 52.8% were hospitalized during the selected period. Palliative (13.9%), psychological (7.4%), and nutritional evaluations (8.2%) were underutilized. Palliative home care was provided to 52% of the patients. Most of the patients died at home (66.1%) and fewer than one out of five (18.2%) died at the hospital. Among the patients who died at home, 27.3% had no palliative support. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that palliative care in EoL breast cancer patients is still inadequate. Only a minority of patients had psychological and nutritional support While low nutritional support may be explained by the fact that typical symptoms of ABC do not involve the gastrointestinal tract, the lack of psychological support suggests that significant barriers still exist. Data on the site of death are encouraging, indicating that EoL management is increasingly home centered in Italy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Breast cancer is one of the most common oncological diseases among women in Western Countries and Italy as well. GIM 13-AMBRA is a patient journey study regarding how the prognosis of metastatic breast cancer patients has changed in the last decades as a result of the introduction of new drugs in clinical practice. This study also provides information regarding the different natural histories of breast cancer according to the presence or absence of hormone receptors and HER2 receptors. GIM 13-AMBRA is a longitudinal cohort study aimed at describing therapeutic strategies and the relative outcome parameters in 939 HER2-ve MBC patients. Taxanes–based regimens, or taxanes + targeted agents, mainly Bevacizumab, were the preferred first choice in both Luminal (30.2%) and TNBC (33.3%) patients. The median PFS1 was 12.5 months (95% CI 16.79–19.64), without any significant difference according to subtypes, while the median Time to first Treatment Change (TTC1) was significantly lower in TNBC patients (7.7 months—95% CI 5.7–9.2) in comparison to Luminal A (13.2 months, 95% CI 11.7–15.1) and Luminal B patients (11.8 months, 95% CI 10.3–12.8). PFS2 was significantly shorter in TNBC patients (5.5 months, 95% CI 4.3–6.5 vs. Luminal A—9.4, 95% CI 8.1–10.7, and Luminal B—7.7 95% CI 6.8–8.2, F-Ratio 4.30, p = 0.014). TTC2 was significantly lower in patients with TNBC than in those with the other two subtypes. The median OS1 was 35.2 months (95% CI 30.8–37.4) for Luminal A patients, which was significantly higher than that for both Luminal B (28.9 months, 95% CI 26.2–31.2) and TNBC (18.5 months, 95% CI 16–20.1, F-ratio 7.44, p = 0.0006). The GIM 13—AMBRA study is one of the largest collections ever published in Italy and provides useful results in terms of time outcomes for first, second, and further lines of treatment in HER2- MBC patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of an aromatase inhibitor (AI) in combination with ovarian function suppression (OFS) has become the mainstay of adjuvant endocrine therapy in high-risk premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Although five years of such therapy effectively reduces recurrence rates, a substantial risk of late recurrence remains in this setting. Multiple trials have shown that extending AI treatment beyond five years could offer further protection. However, as these studies comprised only postmenopausal patients, no direct evidence currently exists to inform about the potential benefits and/or side effects of extended AI + OFS therapies in premenopausal women. Given these grey areas, we conducted a Delphi survey to report on the opinion of experts in breast cancer treatment and summarize a consensus on the discussed topics. A total of 44 items were identified, all centred around two main themes: 1) defining reliable prognostic factors to pinpoint premenopausal patients eligible for endocrine therapy extension; 2) designing how such therapy should optimally be administered in terms of treatment combinations and duration based on patients' menopausal status. Each item was separately discussed and anonymously voted by 12 experts representing oncological institutes spread across Italy. The consensus threshold was reached in 36 out of 44 items (82%). Herein, we discuss the levels of agreement/disagreement achieved by each item in relation to the current body of literature. In the absence of randomized trials to guide the tailoring of extended AI treatment in premenopausal women, conclusions from our study provide a framework to assist routine clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Offering ovarian function and/or fertility preservation strategies in premenopausal women with newly diagnosed breast cancer candidates to undergo chemotherapy is standard of care. However, few data are available on uptake and main reasons for refusing these options. Methods: The PREFER study (NCT02895165) is an observational, prospective study enrolling premenopausal women with early breast cancer, aged between 18 and 45 years, candidates to receive (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Primary objective is to collect information on acceptance rates and reasons for refusal of the proposed strategies for ovarian function and/or fertility preservation available in Italy. Results: At the study coordinating center, 223 patients were recruited between November 2012 and December 2020. Median age was 38 years (range 24 – 45 years) with 159 patients (71.3%) diagnosed at ≤40 years. Temporary ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) was accepted by 58 out of 64 (90.6%) patients aged 41-45 years and by 151 out of 159 (95.0%) of those aged ≤40 years. Among patients aged ≤40 years, 57 (35.8%) accepted to access the fertility unit to receive a complete oncofertility counseling and 29 (18.2%) accepted to undergo a cryopreservation technique. Main reasons for refusal were fear of delaying the initiation of antineoplastic treatments and contraindications to the procedure or lack of interest in future childbearing. Patients with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer had a tendency for a higher acceptance rates of ovarian function and/or fertility preservation strategies than those with hormone-receptor negative disease. Conclusions: More than 90% of premenopausal women with early breast cancer, and particularly those with hormone receptor-positive disease, were concerned about the potential risk of chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian insufficiency and/or infertility and accepted GnRHa administration. Less than 1 out of 5 women aged ≤40 years accepted to undergo cryopreservation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE To investigate the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the attitudes and practice of Italian oncologists toward breast cancer care and related research activities. METHODS A 29-question anonymous online survey was sent by e-mail to members of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology and the Italian Breast Cancer Study Group on April 3, 2020. Only medical oncologists (both those in training and specialists) were invited to complete the questionnaire. RESULTS Out of 165 responding oncologists, 121 (73.3.%) worked in breast units. In the (neo)adjuvant setting, compared with before the emergency, fewer oncologists adopted weekly paclitaxel (68.5% v 93.9%) and a dosedense schedule for anthracycline-based chemotherapy (43% v 58.8%) during the COVID-19 outbreak. In the metastatic setting, compared with before the emergency, fewer oncologists adopted first-line weekly paclitaxel for HER2-positive disease (41.8% v 53.9%) or CDK4/6 inhibitors for luminal tumors with less-aggressive characteristics (55.8% v 80.0%) during the COVID-19 outbreak. A significant change was also observed in delaying the timing for monitoring therapy with CDK4/6 inhibitors, assessing treatment response with imaging tests, and flushing central venous devices. Clinical research and scientific activities were reduced in 80.3% and 80.1% of respondents previously implicated in these activities, respectively. CONCLUSION Medical oncologists face many challenges in providing cancer care during the COVID-19 outbreak. Although most of the changes in their attitudes and practice were reasonable responses to the current health care emergency without expected major negative impact on patient outcomes, some potentially alarming signals of under treatment were observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of eribulin mesylate (EM) use in Italy, to describe the current practice for metastatic breast cancer patients (ESEMPiO) in the real-world.Patients& Methods: Baseline characteristics, treatment administration and safety were summarized using descriptive statistics.Results: No safety concerns were raised in the population enrolled in the ESEMPiO database and treated in a real-life practice. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.2 and 10.1 months, respectively. EM activity was similar between breast cancer subtypes.Conclusion: In metastatic breast cancer patients treated with EM in 'real-world' setting, the clinician-registered outcomes were comparable to those reported in pivotal trials. Furthermore, EM maintained clinical activity and a tolerable safety profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several trials evaluated the role of ovarian function suppression for the adjuvant treatment of premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. Based on the results of the SOFT and TEXT trials, international guidelines recommend the addition of ovarian function suppression to standard adjuvant endocrine therapy for patients at higher risk of relapse.Methods: The ERA project (Evaluation of Risk factors in the Adjuvant treatment of breast cancer in premenopausal patients) was devised with the objective of obtaining a consensus on the identification of risk factors and the use of ovarian function suppression in the adjuvant treatment of these women. To this aim, a panel of 31 Italian oncologists with expertise in breast cancer participated in a Delphi consensus study in June 2017.Results: A total of 29 statements related to prognostic factors, therapeutic strategies and ovarian function suppression were defined and voted to gain final consensus. For each topic we report data supporting the acquired consensus and the relevant issues discussed.Conclusions: The SOFT and TEXT trials have changed the standard adjuvant treatment of premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer, but the available treatment options require a careful risk assessment and toxicities evaluation to ensure the greatest clinical benefit for each patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fertility and pregnancy issues are of key importance for young breast cancer patients. Despite several advances in the field, there are still multiple unmet needs and barriers in discussing and dealing with these concerns. To address the significant challenges related to fertility and pregnancy issues, the PREgnancy and FERtility (PREFER) study was developed as a national comprehensive program aiming to optimize care and improve knowledge around these topics.Methods: The PREFER study is a prospective cohort study conducted across several Italian institution affiliated with the Gruppo Italiano Mammella (GIM) group evaluating patterns of care and clinical outcomes of young breast cancer patients dealing with fertility and pregnancy issues. It is composed of two distinctive studies: PREFER-FERTILITY and PREFER-PREGNANCY. The PREFER-FERTILITY study is enrolling premenopausal patients aged 18-45 years, diagnosed with non-metastatic breast cancer, who are candidates to (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and not previously exposed to anticancer therapies. The primary objective is to obtain and centralize data about patients' preferences and choices towards the available fertility preserving procedures. The success and safety of these strategies and the hormonal changes during chemotherapy and study follow-up are secondary objectives. The PREFER-PREGNANCY study is enrolling survivors achieving a pregnancy after prior history of breast cancer and patients diagnosed with pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC). The primary objectives are to obtain and centralize data about the management and clinical outcomes of these women. Patients' survival outcomes, and the fetal, obstetrical and paediatric care of their children are secondary objectives. For both studies, the initial planned recruitment period is 5 years and patients will remain in active follow-up for up to 15 years. The PREFER-FERTILITY study was first activated in November 2012, and the PREFER-PREGNANCY study in May 2013.Discussion: The PREFER study is expected to support and improve oncofertility counseling in Italy, to explore the real need of fertility preserving procedures, and to acquire prospectively more robust data on the efficacy and safety of the available strategies for fertility preservation, on the management of breast cancer survivors achieving a pregnancy and of women with PABC (including the possible short- and long-term complications in their children).Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02895165 (Retrospectively registered in August 2016). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the safest timing of pegfilgrastim administration in dose-dense anthracycline- and taxane-based chemotherapy, three different cohorts of patients enrolled in the Gruppo Italiano Mammella (GIM) 2 study and treated at the coordinating center received pegfilgrastim 24 h (cohort A) or 72 h (cohort B) or 96 h (cohort C) after chemotherapy.Methods: A total of 41 patients were included. The safety of pegfilgrastim administration in terms of occurrence of early and late leukocytosis and the behavior of white blood cells (WBC) counts in the three cohorts across all chemotherapy cycles were evaluated. Anthracycline and taxane cycles were analyzed separately.Results: The occurrence of early leukocytosis was a more common event in patients in cohort A in both anthracycline and taxane cycles (75 and 66.7%) as compared to cohort B (50 and 60%) and cohort C (66.7 and 33.3%). More patients in cohort C developed late leukocytosis in both anthracycline and taxane cycles (50 and 100%) as compared to cohort A (0 and 66.7%) and cohort B (35.7 and 86.7%). Patients in cohort A experienced the highest median value of WBC count 24 h after pegfilgrastim administration in both anthracycline and taxane cycles (61.2 × 10(3)/μl and 67.8 × 10(3)/μl). Patients in cohort C experienced the highest median value of WBC count at day 13 in both anthracycline and taxane cycles (19.4 × 10(3)/μl and 24.2 × 10(3)/μl).Conclusions: For the prevention of leukocytosis, the safest timing of pegfilgrastim administration based on WBC count in dose-dense anthracycline- and taxane-based regimens seems to be 72 h after chemotherapy.Trial Registration: This study is registered with https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00433420. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. We evaluated the patterns of care and clinical outcomes of metastatic breast cancer patients treated with first-line trastuzumab-based therapy after previous (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab. Materials and Methods. A total of 416 consecutive, HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients who had received first-line trastuzumab-based therapy were identified at 14 Italian centers. A total of 113 patients had presented with de novo stage IV disease and were analyzed separately. Dichotomous clinical outcomes were analyzed using logistic regression and time-to-event outcomes using Cox proportional hazards models. Results. In the 202 trastuzumab-naïve patients and 101 patients with previous trastuzumab exposure, we observed the following outcomes, respectively: overall response rate, 69.9% versus 61.3% (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.62; p = .131), clinical benefit rate, 79.1% versus 72.5% (adjusted OR, 0.73; p = .370), median progression-free survival (PFS), 16.1 months versus 12.0 months (adjusted hazards ratio [HR], 1.33; p 5 .045), and median overall survival (OS), 52.2 months versus 48.2 months (adjusted HR, 1.18; p 5 .404). Patients with a trastuzumab-free interval (TFI) <6 months, visceral involvement, and hormone receptor-negative disease showed a worse OS compared with patients with aTFI of ≥6 months (29.5 vs. 48.3 months; p = .331), nonvisceral involvement (48.0 vs. 60.3 months; p = .270), and hormone receptor-positive disease (39.8 vs. 58.6 months; p = .003), respectively. Conclusion. Despite the inferior median PFS, trastuzumab-based therapy was an effective first-line treatment for patients relapsing after (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab. Previous trastuzumab exposure and the respective TFI, type of first site of disease relapse, and hormone receptor status should be considered in the choice of the best first-line treatment option for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented commenting on pharmacokinetics of Trastuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody, in haemodialysis.

The development of premature ovarian failure and subsequent infertility are possible consequences of chemotherapy use in pre-menopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Among the available strategies for fertility preservation, pharmacological protection of the ovaries using luteinising hormone-releasing hormone analogues (LHRHa) during chemotherapy has the potential to restore ovarian function and fertility after anticancer treatments; however, the possible efficacy and clinical application of this strategy has been highly debated in the last years. Following the availability of new data on this controversial topic, the Panel of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) Clinical Practice Guideline on fertility preservation in cancer patients decided to apply the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology around the relevant and current question on the clinical utility of temporary ovarian suppression with LHRHa during chemotherapy as a strategy to preserve ovarian function and fertility in breast cancer patients. To answer this question, preservation of ovarian function and fertility were judged as critical outcomes for the decision-making. Three possible outcomes of harm were identified: LHRHa-associated toxicities, potential antagonism between concurrent LHRHa and chemotherapy, and lack of the prognostic impact of chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian failure. According to the GRADE evaluation conducted, the result was a strong positive recommendation in favour of using this option to preserve ovarian function and fertility in breast cancer patients. The present manuscript aims to update and summarise the evidence for the use of this strategy in light of the new data published up to January 2016, according to the GRADE process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer may cause financial difficulties, but its impact in countries with public health systems is unknown. We evaluated the association of financial difficulties with clinical outcomes of cancer patients enrolled in academic clinical trials performed within the Italian public health system. Patients and methods: Data were pooled from 16 prospective multicentre trials in lung, breast or ovarian cancer, using the EORTC quality of life (QOL) C30 questionnaire. Question 28 scores financial difficulties related to disease or treatment in four categories from 'not at all' to 'very much'. We defined financial burden (FB) as any financial difficulty reported at baseline questionnaire, and financial toxicity (FT) as score worsening in a subsequent questionnaire. We investigated (i) the association of FB with clinical outcomes (survival, global QOL response [questions 29/30] and severe toxicity), and (ii) the association of FT with survival. Multivariable analyses were performed using logistic regression models or the Cox model adjusting for trial, gender, age, region and period of enrolment, baseline global QOL and, where appropriate, FB and global QOL response. Results are reported as odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: At baseline 26% of the 3670 study patients reported FB, significantly correlated with worse baseline global QOL. FB was not associated with risks of death (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85-1.04, P = 0.23) and severe toxicity (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76-1.06, P = 0.19) but was predictive of a higher chance of worse global QOL response (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08-1.70, P = 0.009). During treatment, 2735 (74.5%) patients filled in subsequent questionnaires and 616 (22.5%) developed FT that was significantly associated with an increased risk of death (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05-1.37, P = 0.007). Several sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. Conclusion: Even in a public health system, financial difficulties are associated with relevant cancer patients outcomes like QOL and survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]