Search

Background: Genitourinary symptoms (GUS) such as vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, itching, urinary incontinence, urinary tract infections and discharge are common in patients with breast cancer (BC). Optimal management of GUS remains unclear. Our group previously published a systematic review (SR) on GUS management in 2014 which showed a paucity of RCT evidence addressing this knowledge gap (Mazzarello et al. 2015). We performed an updated SR to assess if more prospective trial data had been published in the past 7 years to inform management of this common complication of BC. Methods: EMBASE, Ovid Medline and the Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs evaluating treatments for GUS in BC patients from September 2014 to December 2021. A PICOS (population, intervention/comparators, outcomes and study design) framework was utilized. Population: women with breast cancer. Intervention/comparators: all forms of oral, intra-vaginal and topical hormonal and non-hormonal treatments. Outcomes of interest: improvements in vaginal symptoms (e.g., dryness, pain, dyspareunia, itching); vaginal hormone response, measured by validated scales [e.g., Vaginal Health Index (VHI) and Vaginal Maturation Index (VMI)] and quality of life [e.g., Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI)]. Study design: only RCTs were included. Two independent reviewers performed the tasks of study selection, data collection, and risk of bias assessment. Results: Of 842 unique citations identified (412 from this update, 430 from previous SR), eight studies (n = 539 patients) met inclusion criteria. Interventions included 0.005% estriol gel (EG; n=50 patients), intravaginal testosterone (IVT; n=21), intravaginal prebiotic (n=13), hyaluronic acid (HA; n=12), polyacrylic acid (PA; n=25), pH-balanced gel (two studies; n=118), Replens(n=24) and Lidocaine gel (n=22). These interventions were compared to placebo/saline/usual care (n=254). One study had three arms comparing prebiotics, HA and usual care. Study sample sizes ranged from 44 to 136 patients. Given the heterogeneity of the studies, a narrative synthesis was performed. Compared to placebo, FSFI total score was significantly improved by all interventions except IVT (which demonstrated significant improvement in only the satisfaction domain) and 4% aqueous lidocaine before vaginal penetration (which improved significantly all domains except for orgasm). FSFI changes were not reported for Replens. Significant improvements in vaginal hormone responses (VHI and VMI) were reported for 0.005% EG and pH-balanced gel; however, no significant effects were found for IVT, HA or prebiotics. Vaginal symptoms (vaginal dryness, dyspareunia and pruritis) were significantly improved by EG, IVT, and PA. Vaginal symptoms were significantly improved in the single study of pH-balanced gel that reported this outcome. Conclusion: GUS is reported in 75% of BC patients but despite its frequency, the management of GUS remains a challenging issue for patients and health care providers. Due to study heterogenicity, there remains insufficient RCT evidence to define optimal therapy. More prospective trials comparing commonly used interventions are needed. Keywords: Genitourinary symptoms, Topical moisturizers, Intra-vaginal testosterone Citation Format: Parvaneh Fallah, Dianna M. Wolfe, Brian Hutton, Mark Clemons, Risa Shorr, Lisa Vandermeer, Moira Rushton-Marovac. Management of genitourinary symptoms in breast cancer patients: An updated systematic review of available evidence from randomized trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-12-07.

Purpose Machine learning (ML) is a powerful tool for interrogating datasets and learning relationships between multiple variables. We utilized a ML model to identify those early breast cancer (EBC) patients at highest risk of developing severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS). Methods A gradient boosted decision model utilizing cross-sectional survey data from 360 EBC patients was created. Seventeen patient- and treatment-specific variables were considered in the model. The outcome variable was based on the Hot Flush Night Sweats (HFNS) Problem Rating Score, and individual scores were dichotomized around the median to indicate individuals with high and low problem scores. Model accuracy was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve, and conditional partial dependence plots were constructed to illustrate relationships between variables and the outcome of interest. Results The model area under the ROC curve was 0.731 (SD 0.074). The most important variables in the model were as follows: the number of hot flashes per week, age, the prescription, or use of drug interventions to manage VMS, whether patients were asked about VMS in routine follow-up visits, and the presence or absence of changes to breast cancer treatments due to VMS. A threshold of 17 hot flashes per week was identified as being more predictive of severe VMS. Patients between the ages of 49 and 63 were more likely to report severe symptoms. Conclusion Machine learning is a unique tool for predicting severe VMS. The use of ML to assess other treatment-related toxicities and their management requires further study.

Background: Current guidelines recommend the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) as primary prophylaxis to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) associated with commonly used breast cancer chemotherapy regimens. Filgrastim (FIL) is a short-acting G-CSF injection that requires daily subcutaneous injection starting 24-72 hours after chemotherapy for 5 to 10 days. Pegfilgrastim (PEG) is a long-acting, pegylated formulation that requires a single injection 24-72 hours after chemotherapy. G-CSF causes bone pain in approximately 70% of patients, which can be severe in over 25% of cases. While registration trials for PEG showed bone pain from PEG was comparable to FIL when given for a median duration of 11 days, many oncologists are now only prescribing FIL for 5 days based on a multicenter RCT showing that 5 days of FIL is non-inferior to 7 or 10 days of FIL in terms of FN and treatment-related hospitalizations. Furthermore, the cost of 5 days of FIL ($CA 721.55 for 300 mcg dose) is half of the price of a single dose of PEG ($CA 1424.63). Therefore, if 5 days of FIL leads to significantly less bone pain, this may improve health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) for patients, improve adherence to G-CSF, and improve cost-effectiveness. Methods: Patients receiving neo-/adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer requiring primary FN prophylaxis with G-CSF will be approached for this pragmatic, multicenter, open-label superiority RCT. Using the Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) methodology that incorporates an integrated oral consent model, eligible and consented patients will be randomized to either 5 days of FIL or one day of PEG with each cycle of chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is bone pain during the first 5 days after G-CSF injection using area under the curve (AUC) of the daily pain score from days 1-5 (AUC score 0 to 40) of the Bone Pain Diary. Secondary endpoints include incidence of FN and treatment-related hospitalizations, incidence of chemotherapy delay, dose-reduction, or discontinuation, incidence of chemotherapy-related mortality, rate of G-CSF compliance, healthcare resource utilization, HR-QoL, and cost-effectiveness. Participants will also complete a Treatment Preference Questionnaire (TPQ) exploring the relative importance of different factors in deciding between PEG vs. 5 days of FIL both before randomization and at the end of the study. To achieve 80% power in an ANCOVA analysis and assuming 5% are loss to follow-up, the planned sample size is 232 patients (116 per arm). The randomization (1:1 ratio) will be stratified by treatment center (4 centers) and chemotherapy regimen (taxane-based vs. anthracycline-based in the first 4 cycles). Results: The study opened for enrollment on June 9, 2021. As of July 6, 2021, the study has opened at one site, and 13 patients have been randomized.Conclusion: This will be the first RCT using a patient-reported Bone Pain Diary that was co-developed by patient partners to measure bone pain between 5 days of FIL vs. PEG. In collaboration with patient partners, the study incorporates a tool (TPQ) that explores factors that may be important in deciding between PEG and FIL, with the aim of translating the findings of this study into real world clinical practice. Citation Format: Terry L. Ng, Monica Taljaard, Marie-France Savard, Carol Stober, Stuart Nicholls, Lisa Vandermeer, Kednapa Thavorn, Claudia Hampel, Jennifer Shamess, Natalie Mills, John F. Hilton, Mark Clemons. A randomized, multicenter pragmatic trial comparing bone pain from a single dose of pegfilgrastim to 5 doses of daily filgrastim in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy (REaCT-5G) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT2-21-01.

Background. Endocrine therapy (ET) is the mainstay treatment for hormonal receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer. ET non-compliance and non-persistence vary from 30 to 70% and are associated with reduced disease-free and overall survival. ET side effects are an important cause of non-adherence. In clinical practice, there are anecdotal reports that time of the day at which ET is taken may affect ET side effects and compliance. However, we are not aware of any high-quality studies supporting this practice. In other fields of medicine, there is evidence to suggest that the time of the day at which medication is taken can alter its effect and/or the adherence. This is known as chronotherapy. Methods. In this pragmatic, open-label, multicenter trial, eligible and consented patients with an early stage or locally advanced HR+ breast cancer will be randomized (1:1) to receive either: an ET morning dose (Arm A: within 1 hour of the patient wake up time) or an ET evening dose (Arm B: within 1 hour of patient bed time). The primary endpoint is endocrine toxicity and tolerability measured by the change in total Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endocrine Subscale (FACT-ES) score from baseline to 12 weeks following the beginning of ET. Secondary endpoints include: endocrine toxicity/tolerability and quality of life measured respectively by the change in total score and individual items of FACT-ES and FACT-B (a validated Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for patients with a Breast cancer) from baseline to 4, 8, 12 and 52 weeks following the beginning of ET, rates of non-persistence or non-compliance and cost-effectiveness. A timing preference questionnaire will be filled out at the beginning and the end of the study by patients to evaluate their preferred time. As per the Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) program, the integrated consent model will be used and patients will complete questionnaires in the online patient portal. For randomization, a permuted block design developed by the Ottawa Methods Centre will be used and patients will be stratified by center, type of endocrine therapy (tamoxifen yes/no) and if prior chemotherapy was received. Using a two-sided, alpha=0.05 Fisher’s exact test, and assuming a 10% of loss to follow up, the planned sample size is 235 patients. Accrual. This study opened for enrollment at The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre on June 30, 2021 and will open soon at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre. The maximum accrual period is 2 years. Conclusion. This will be world’s first prospective randomized clinical trial to evaluate ET dose timing (morning versus evening) and its effects on tolerability and adherence. Changing the time of the day at which a medication is taken is a new, simple and easy intervention that does not generate additional costs and can improve the quality of life of breast cancer patients. Funding provided by: NOAMA (Northern Ontario Academic Medicine Association) Innovation Grant (2021) Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04864405 Citation Format: Marie-France Savard, Mohammed Ibrahim, Gregory Pond, Deanna Saunders, Lisa Vandermeer, Ana-Alicia Beltran-Bless, Lesley Fallowfield, Mark Clemons. A pragmatic, randomised, multicentre trial evaluating the dose timing (morning vs evening) of endocrine therapy and its effects on tolerability and compliance (REaCT-CHRONO Study) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-11-02.

Background Despite the frequency of vasomotor symptoms (VMS) in patients with early breast cancer (EBC), their optimal management remains unknown. A patient survey was performed to determine perspectives on this important clinical challenge. Methods Patients with EBC experiencing VMS participated in an anonymous survey. Patients reported on the frequency and severity of VMS using the validated Hot Flush Rating Scale (HFRS) and ranked their most bothersome symptoms. Respondents were also asked to determine endpoints that defined effective treatment of VMS and report on the effectiveness of previously tried interventions. Results Responses were received from 373 patients, median age 56 years (range 23–83), who experienced an average of 5.0 hot flashes per day (SD 6.57). Patients reported the most bothersome symptoms to be feeling hot/sweating (155/316, 49%) and sleeping difficulties (86/316, 27%). Fifty-five percent (201/365) of patients would consider a treatment to be effective if it reduced night-time awakenings. While 68% of respondents were interested in trying interventions from their healthcare team to manage VMS, only 18% actually did so. Of the 137 patients who had tried an intervention for VMS, pharmacological treatments, exercise, and relaxation strategies were more likely to be effective, while therapies such as melatonin and black cohosh were deemed less effective. Conclusion VMS are a common and bothersome problem for EBC patients, with a minority receiving interventions to manage these symptoms. Further research is needed to identify patient-centered strategies for managing these distressing symptoms.

Doxycycline is often used as a promoter of inducible gene expression in preclinical models; however, it can also have direct effects on tumor growth and survival. This is due in part to its ability to inhibit cell invasion and regulate matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) expression. Given that doxycycline is also osteotropic, a clinical study to assess its effects on modulation of tumor progression or prevention of skeletal-related events (SRE) in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer (the Achilles trial) was undertaken. Patients received 100 mg of oral doxycycline twice daily for 12 weeks, with serum obtained at baseline and 4, 8 and 12 weeks post-initiation of doxycycline treatment. Exploratory analysis of the effects of doxycycline on circulating levels of MMP or tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 2 (TIMP2) was performed in enrolled patients. Statistically significant associations were observed between MMP2, MMP9 and TIMP2 at baseline with significant associations maintained between absolute levels and changes in levels of MMP2 and TIMP2 at weeks 4–12 post initiation of doxycycline. Treatment with doxycycline generally resulted in decreases in MMP2 and MMP9 levels with concurrent upregulation of TIMP2 at 12 weeks post-initiation of doxycycline treatment. Despite this, we observed no association with the levels of any of these factors with either SRE-free or overall survival in this patient cohort. In summary, despite observing hypothesized effects of doxycycline administration on surrogate markers of its anti-tumor activity, measures of circulating levels of these biomarkers were not prognostic in this patient population.

We reviewed patient and health care provider (HCP) surveys performed through the REaCT program. The REaCT team has performed 15 patient surveys (2298 respondents) and 13 HCP surveys (1033 respondents) that have addressed a broad range of topics in breast cancer management. Over time, the proportion of surveys distributed by paper/regular mail has fallen, with electronic distribution now the norm. For the patient surveys, the median duration of the surveys was 3 months (IQR 2.5–7 months) and the median response rate was 84% (IQR 80–91.7%). For the HCP surveys, the median survey duration was 3 months (IQR 1.75–4 months), and the median response rate, where available, was 28% (IQR 21.2–49%). The survey data have so far led to: 10 systematic reviews, 6 peer-reviewed grant applications and 19 clinical trials. Knowledge users should be an essential component of clinical research. The REaCT program has integrated surveys as a standard step of their trials process. The COVID-19 pandemic and reduced face-to-face interactions with patients in the clinic as well as the continued importance of social media highlight the need for alternative means of distributing and responding to surveys.

The widespread adoption of adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy for postmenopausal early breast cancer (EBC) patients was based on results of the Early Breast Cancer Trialist Group (EBCTCG) meta-analysis. Despite multiple regimens evaluated, there was no signal of varying efficacy with type, dose/dose intensity of bisphosphonate administration. We evaluated the effect of early treatment cessation using long-term outcome data from the ABCSG-12 trial.ABCSG-12 randomized 1803 hormone-receptor positive EBC patients on ovarian suppression between 1999 and 2006 to receive 4 mg zoledronic acid 6-monthly or not (and tamoxifen or anastrozole, 2:2 factorial design). In the current study, we evaluated whether the number of zoledronate infusions had an impact on breast cancer-specific outcomes. We hypothesized that amongst patients who received at least one zoledronate infusion, the number of infusions had no effect on outcomes. Time-to-event endpoints were analysed with Cox models and Kaplan Meier curves starting from a 3-year landmark. BMD analysis was restricted to patients who participated in the BMD sub-study.725 patients who received at least one zoledronate infusion were included in the time-to-event analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in disease-free or overall survival in the patients who received ≤6 zoledronate infusions (n = 170) compared to those who received ≥7 zoledronate infusions (n = 555).Comparable to efforts to de-escalate treatment duration in metastatic bone disease, there was no evidence to indicate that a reduced number of zoledronate infusions is associated with reduced adjuvant efficacy. Further studies to define optimal regimens of adjuvant bone-targeted therapies are required.

Background Primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin or granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) is recommended with docetaxel-cyclophosphamide (TC) chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer (EBC). A pragmatic randomised trial compared the superiority of G-CSF to ciprofloxacin and a cost-utility analysis were conducted. Methods EBC patients receiving TC chemotherapy were randomised to ciprofloxacin or G-CSF. The primary outcome was a composite of FN and non-FN treatment-related hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes included; rates of FN, non-FN treatment-related hospitalisation, chemotherapy dose reductions/delays/discontinuations. Primary analysis was performed with the intention to treat population. Cost-utility analyses were conducted from the Canadian public payer perspective. Results 458 eligible patients were randomised: 228 to ciprofloxacin and 230 to G-CSF. For the primary endpoint there was non-statistically significant difference (Risk difference = −6.7%, 95%CI = −13.5%–0.1%, p = 0.061) between ciprofloxacin patients (46,20.2%) and G-CSF (31,13.5%). Patients receiving ciprofloxacin were more likely to experience FN (36/228, 15.8% vs 13/230, 5.7%) than patients receiving G-CSF (p, Highlights • Primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis is indicated for docetaxel-cyclophosphamide (TC) chemotherapy. • In this multicentre trial 458 breast cancer patients receiving TC chemotherapy were randomised to ciprofloxacin or to G-CSF. • For the primary endpoint of FN and non-FN treatment-related hospitalizations, G-CSF was not superior over ciprofloxacin. • While there were reduced FN rates with G-CSF, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was C$1,760,796 per one QALYWALY gained.

Background: Non-compliance and non-persistence with endocrine therapy for breast cancer is common and usually related to treatment-induced side effects. There are anecdotal reports that simply changing the time of day when taking endocrine therapy (i.e., changing morning dosing to evening dosing or vice versa) can reduce side effects. Literature review: We conducted a literature review to evaluate whether changing the timing of tamoxifen and/or aromatase inhibitor administration impacted patient outcomes. No randomized control trials or prospective cohort studies that looked at time of day of endocrine therapy were identified through our review of literature from 1947 until August 2020. Conclusions: Given the rates of endocrine therapy non-compliance and non-persistence reported in the literature, ranging from 41–72% and 31–73%, respectively, simply changing the time of day when medications are taken could be an important strategy. We could identify no trials evaluating the effect of changes in timing of administration of endocrine therapy on breast cancer patient outcomes. Randomized control trials are clearly indicated for this simple and cost-effective intervention.

A personalized risk model (PRM) that can categorize patients into high or low risk of ≥ grade 2 acute and/or delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) was previously developed. The current study assessed whether the PMR could accurately stratify patients’ risk for other commonly used CINV endpoints. Data was pooled from a previously reported trial evaluating CINV in patients with breast cancer (BC) receiving neo/adjuvant anthracycline-cyclophosphamide or carboplatin-based chemotherapy. The predictive ability of the PRM was compared to patient experience of any self-reported significant nausea, any vomiting, complete cycle response, and use of rescue medications, over all cycles of chemotherapy. Data was available from 242 patients over 819 chemotherapy cycles. Irrespective of the chosen antiemetics, significant nausea was common when evaluated across repeated cycles of treatment with an overall incidence of 24.2% in low-risk patients and 34.6% in high-risk patients. Patients identified as high risk of CINV using the PRM were 4.73 (p = 0.011) times more likely to develop significant nausea than those identified as low risk. The PRM did not show any significant statistical differences between both groups in overall vomiting, complete cycle response, or rescue medications use. The PRM was able to identify patients at greater risk of significant nausea but not the other CINV endpoints. As nausea remains a pertinent issue for patients with BC, the PRM could be used to identify these patients a priori for innovative treatment strategies.

Although it is accepted that oncologists should plan for a future beyond full-time oncology, there is little practical guidance for a successful transition into retirement. Previously, we provided strategies for various aspects of retirement planning. However, this became significantly more complicated as we face newer issues such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the move to virtual patient care, greater awareness of burnout, and the increasing burden of regulatory issues such as the electronic medical record. It is evident that more prospective information is needed to guide oncologists in planning their retirement.

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.

Background Optimal use of bone-modifying agent (BMA) therapy in patients with bone metastases from breast and castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is evolving. Methods Patients receiving BMA for bone metastases from breast or CRPC were surveyed. Information was collected on patient and disease characteristics, BMA treatments and perceptions regarding BMA benefits and side effects. Interest in participation in trials of de-escalated BMA therapy was also gauged. Results Of 220 patients contacted, 172 eligible patients responded (response rate 78%). Median age was 67 (range: 21–91); 137 (80%) had breast cancer and 35 (20%) CRPC. Symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) occurred prior to starting BMAs in 61% (84/137) of breast and 48% (17/35) of CRPC patients. Among breast cancer patients, 47, 33 and 13% received zoledronate, pamidronate and denosumab, respectively. Eighty-five percent (30/35) of CRPC patients received denosumab. De-escalation of therapy was more common among breast cancer patients. Although most patients correctly reported the goals of BMA therapy were to “help stop fractures” (62%) and “[improve] quality of life” (63%), 46.5% felt it prolonged survival and 54% felt it reduced bone progression. Most respondents (102/129, 79%) were comfortable with de-escalating to 6-monthly treatment after 2 years of BMA therapy. Patients considered the most important endpoints of de-escalation studies to be “stability of bone metastases” (45%), “quality of life” (22%) and “SSE rates” (14%). Conclusion Twelve weekly BMA was more common in breast than in prostate cancer. There remain misconceptions about the benefits of BMAs, highlighting potential gaps in patient education. Patients were interested in further BMA de-escalation after 2 years of prior BMA and provided study endpoints that were most important to them. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-021-06238-1.

Taxane-associated pain syndrome (TAPS) is common with docetaxel and is characterised by myalgias and arthralgias starting 2–3 days after treatment and can last for up to 7 days. Anecdotal evidence suggests that corticosteroids can reduce TAPS. This multicentre, randomized trial evaluated the effect of additional tapering dexamethasone on TAPS. 130 breast cancer patients commencing docetaxel were randomized to dexamethasone premedication (8 mg/twice daily for 3 days) or dexamethasone premedication followed by tapering dexamethasone (4 mg/daily for 2 days followed by 2 mg/daily for 2 days). The primary endpoint was absolute change in FACT-Taxane questionnaire during the first chemotherapy cycle. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients with clinically significant TAPS, QoL, pain and toxicity. 110/130 patients had complete data included in the primary analysis. The fall in FACT-Taxane scores was lower in the experimental group on day 5 (p = 0.05), but not on day 7 (p = 0.21). There was no difference in FACT-Taxane scores over the entire study duration (p = 0.59). Fewer patients in the experimental arm reported TAPS on day 5 (30 vs. 47%). There was a borderline significant attenuation of impairment of QoL with experimental treatment on day 5 (p = 0.06), but not day 7 (p = 0.53). Tapered schedule was associated with more dyspepsia and insomnia. A tapering schedule of dexamethasone was associated with a brief reduction in docetaxel-associated symptoms which was observed only during dexamethasone exposure and did not persist after discontinuation of the drug. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03348696

Background: The results of the Early Breast Cancer Trialist Group (EBCTCG) meta-analysis (Lancet 2015) led to the widespread adoption of bisphosphonates as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal early-stage breast cancer (EBC). Despite evaluating multiple bisphosphonate agents and regimens, there was no signal of varying efficacy with different agents, routes of administration or dose/dose intensity. We evaluated the question of treatment de-escalation using long-term outcome data from the prospective randomized ABCSG-12 trial. Patients and methods: Between 1999 and 2006, ABCSG-12 accrued 1803 patients with hormone-receptor positive EBC on ovarian function suppression for three years that were randomized to receive 4 mg zoledronic acid 6-monthly or not (and tamoxifen or anastrozole, in a 2:2 factorial design). In the current retrospective study, we evaluated whether the number of zoledronate infusions actually received had an impact on breast cancer-specific and fragility fracture outcomes. Based on the results of the EBCTCG meta-analysis, we hypothesized that amongst patients who receive less infusions than the planned seven zoledronate infusion in this trial, the number of infusions has no differential effect on these outcomes. Time to event endpoints were analyzed with Cox models and Kaplan Meier curves starting from a 3-year landmark. BMD subset analyses were restricted to patients who participated in the BMD sub-study with available BMD data. Results: 725 patients who received at least one zoledronate infusion were included in the time-to-event-analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in disease-free survival (adjusted HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.48–1.44, p=0.51) or overall survival (HR 0.97, 95% 0.30-3.11, p=0.96) in patients who received ≤6 zoledronate infusions (n=170) compared to those who received ≥7 zoledronate infusions (n=555) (adjusted HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.48 – 1.44, p=0.51). Both subgroups show stable lumbar spine and total hip BMD measurements across the five years. Conclusions: Comparable to the metastatic bone disease and fragility fracture settings, there was no evidence observed to indicate that a reduced number of zoledronate infusions is associated with reduced adjuvant efficacy. Further studies to define optimal regimens of adjuvant bone-targeted therapies (prospective evaluation of “how-low-can-you-go”) are required. Table 1: Multivariate Cox Regression: DFS and OS Table 2: BMD and percent change from baseline at the total hip and lumbar spine (L1-L4) over 60 months Citation Format: Ana-Alicia Beltran-Bless, Mark Clemons, Christian Fesl, Dominik Hlauschek, Lidija Soelkner, Gregory R. Pond, Lisa Vandermeer, Richard Greil, Marija Balic, Vesna Bjelic-Radisic, Christian F. Singer, Guenther Steger, Ruth Helfgott, Daniel Egle, Simon P. Gampenrieder, Stephanie Kacerovsky-Strobl, Christoph Suppan, Magdalena Ritter, Gabriel Rinnerthaler, Georg Pfeiler, Hannes Fohler, John Hilton, Michael Gnant. De-escalation of bone-targeted treatment: Does the number of 6-monthly adjuvant zoledronate infusions received affect treatment efficacy for early breast cancer? A sub-study of ABCSG-12 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-02-04.

Background: Despite extensive use of bone modifying agents (BMA) in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer (BC), the optimal choice, frequency, and duration of BMA treatment remains unclear. A physician survey was performed to identify current practices and attitudes towards performing trials of de-escalation after 2 years of treatment, where very little prospective data exists. Methods: Canadian oncologists treating breast cancer were surveyed from May to June 2020 via an anonymized online survey. Physicians were approached by e-mail invitation, and a follow-up e-mail was sent 2 weeks later. The study was approved by the Ontario Cancer Research Ethics Board. The survey collected physician demographics, current practice patterns, perception on risk of symptomatic skeletal events (SSE) and BMA-associated toxicity. It also assessed attitudes towards conducting a study evaluating further de-escalation of BMAs after 2 years of treatment. Results: Of 238 potentially eligible breast oncologists on initial screening, 40 responded (response rate 16.8%; 97.5% medical oncologist). The most common BMA regimens during the first 2 years in patients with no limitations in drug coverage were denosumab q4wks for 3-4 months then q12wks [13/40 physicians (32.5%)], denosumab q4wks [7/40 (17.5%)], and zoledronate q12wks [8/40 (20%)]. For patients with no public funding for denosumab, the most common regimens were zoledronate q4wks for 3-4 months then q12wks [14/40 (35%)] and zoledronate q12wks [12/40 (30%)]. Most physicians [33/40 (82.5%)] routinely de-escalated BMA, with the most common approaches being de-escalation from the start of treatment [9/33 (27.3%)], after 3 months [7/33 (21.2%)], 6 months [6/33 (18.2%)], or 12 months [5/33 (15.2%)]. In terms of continuing BMA after 2 years, 11/40 (27.5%) felt there was benefit, 5/40 (12.5%) felt there was no benefit, and 24/40 (60%) were unsure. There was no consensus on the perceived risk of SSE or BMA-related toxicity after ≥ 2 years of BMA in breast cancer. Most physicians treating breast cancer-related bone metastases felt a de-escalation study after more than 2 years of BMA would be clinically important [i.v. bisphosphonate (BP) q12wks vs q24wks: 65%; i.v. BP q12wks vs. discontinue: 70%; denosumab q12wks vs q24wks: 57.5%; denosumab q12wks vs. discontinue: 67.5%]. Most physicians would accept SSE rate increase of < 5% with BMA de-escalation. If a study of BMA de-escalation showing non-inferiority in terms of SSE rate was not feasible, physicians would consider changing practice to de-escalated therapy if: BMA toxicity was reduced (64.1%), pain was no worse (48.7%), physical function was no worse (48.7%), or cost-utility or cost-effectiveness was improved (41%). 38.5% would only change practice if the SSE rate was not significantly worse. Conclusion: Despite their extensive use and costs, questions around optimal use of BMAs still exist. It is evident that practice varies according to patient insurance coverage, however most physicians are de-escalating BMAs. There is interest amongst clinicians in performing trials of de-escalation, especially after 2 years of treatment. Citation Format: Mashari Alzahrani, Mark Clemons, Lisa Vandermeer, Marta Sienkiewicz, Arif Awan, Brian Hutton, Gregory Pond, Terry Ng. A physician survey evaluating real-world practice patterns and attitudes towards de-escalation of bone-modifying agents in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS14-18.

Background: Choosing Wisely (CW)® was created by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) to promote patient-physician conversations about unnecessary medical tests and treatment. It is estimated that 20% of healthcare cost is wasted on ineffective interventions. National societies such as American Society of Clinical Oncology, Americal Society of Breast Surgeons, and American Society for Radiation Oncology have developed lists of recommendations within the Choosing Wisely initiative to to eliminate non-evidence based practices and improve patient outcomes. Similarly, other countries outside of the US have created their own national panels of experts called “CW® campaigns” which typically review recommendations submitted by that country’s oncology societies. We performed a scoping review to consolidate CW® recommendations from different groups with respect to breast cancer care. Methods: A systematic search of Medline and Embase for English language publications presenting CW® recommendations for breast cancer care practices was conducted from Jan 1, 2011 - May 11, 2020. The search was designed and peer reviewed by information specialists. We also reviewed the CW® websites of ABIM and associated international CW® campaigns. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion and performed data extraction, and findings were summarized narratively. Results: Review of ABIM CW® recommendations showed 26 breast cancer-related recommendations. These pertained to: screening (n=5), radiological staging (n=2), treatment (n=15), surveillance (n=2), and miscellaneous (genetic testing and pathology; n=2). Treatment recommendations were sub-classified into surgery (n= 9), chemotherapy (n= 2), radiation therapy (n= 2), and supportive therapy (n= 2). Of 20 countries which have a CW® campaign and endorse recommendations for a range of diseases, 13 have published recommendations for breast cancer. While most international campaigns published recommendations on the same topics as the ABIM campaign, 6 campaigns developed recommendations on new topics. These included: follow-up visits (Canada), involvement of multi-disciplinary teams and imaging in palliative care setting (India) and comparison of screening imaging modalities (Portugal). There was concordance in screening, treatment, and surveillance recommendations between the CW® campaigns. Conclusion: CW® recommendations focus on reducing overutilization of investigations and treatments. Breast cancer screening and treatment were most frequently addressed by CW® recommendations. There was a high rate of consensus between international CW® recommendations with respect to breast cancer care. As health care systems globally move attention to reduce low value care, further studies are required to address adherence to these current recommendations and develop new recommendations addressing topics not currently included in the US CW campaigns. Citation Format: Hely Shah, Julian Surujballi, Arif A Awan, Brian Hutton, Angel Arnaout, Risa Shorr, Lisa Vandermeer, Meshari J Alzahrani, Mark Clemons. A scoping review characterizing “choosing wisely” recommendations for breast cancer management [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS9-47.

Background: The effectiveness of different acellular dermal matrices (ADM) used for implant-based reconstruction immediately following mastectomy is an important clinical question. A prospective randomized clinical trial was performed to evaluate the superiority of DermACELL over Alloderm-RTU in reducing drain duration. Methods: Patients undergoing mastectomy with subpectoral immediate and permanent implant-based breast reconstruction were randomized to Alloderm-RTU or DermACELL. The primary outcome was seroma formation, measured by the duration of postoperative drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: post drain removal seroma aspiration, infection, redbreast syndrome, wound dehiscence, loss of the implant, and unplanned return to the operating room. Results: 62 patients were randomized for 81 mastectomies (41 Alloderm-RTU, 40 DermACELL). Baseline characteristics were similar. There was no statistically significant difference in mean drain duration (p = 0.16), with a trend towards longer duration in the Alloderm-RTU group (1.6 days, 95%CI, 0.7 to 3.9). The overall rate of minor and major complications were statistically similar between the two groups, although patients with Alloderm-RTU had 3 times as many infections requiring antibiotics (7.9% vs. 2.5%) with a risk difference of 5.4 (95%CI &minus, 4.5 to 15.2), and twice as many unplanned returns to the operating room (15.8% vs. 7.5%) with a risk difference of 8.3 (95% CI &minus, 5.9 to 22.5) as DermACELL. Conclusion: This is the first prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the two most commonly used human-derived ADMs. There was no statistically significant difference in drain duration, minor, or major complications between DermACELL over Alloderm-RTU in immediate subpectoral permanent implant-based breast reconstruction post-mastectomy.

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid move to virtual care. Questions exist as to whether reduced in-person assessment, with physical examination of early breast cancer patients (EBC), will affect the detection of recurrences. We evaluated recurrence patterns of patients transferred into a survivorship program through a single centre Wellness Beyond Cancer Program (WBCP).Methods: Consecutive EBC patients who returned to formal oncologist follow-up between February 1, 2013, and January 1, 2019, due to breast cancer recurrence were reviewed. Descriptive analyses were used to present patients and disease characteristics stratified by type of recurrence and mode of cancer detection.Results: Of 206 recurrences, 41 were ipsilateral breast recurrences (19.9%), 135 were distant recurrences (65.5%), and 30 were contralateral new breast cancers (14.6%). Ipsilateral breast recurrences were detected by patients in 53.7% (22/41) of cases and by routine imaging in 41.5% (17/21). The majority of distant recurrences (125/135, 92.6%) were detected via patient-reported symptoms. Contralateral breast primaries were primarily detected by imaging 83.3% (25/30) and patient-reported symptoms 16.7%, (5/30). Only 2/206 (1.14%) recurrences/new primaries were detected by healthcare providers at routinely scheduled follow-up visits.Conclusions: Despite following ASCO follow-up guidelines, healthcare providers rarely detect recurrences at routine follow-up appointments. While reduced in-person visits may affect other aspects of follow-up care (e.g. toxicity management), it appears unlikely, provided patients attend regular screening tests, that less frequent in-person follow-up is associated with worse breast cancer-related outcomes.

Choosing Wisely (CW)® was created by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) to promote patient–physician conversations about unnecessary medical interventions. Similarly, other countries created their own panels of experts called “CW® campaigns” which review recommendations submitted by that country’s oncology societies. We performed a scoping review to consolidate CW® recommendations from different groups with respect to breast cancer care. A systematic search of Medline and Embase was designed by an information specialist for publications presenting CW® recommendations for breast cancer care practices from 2011–2020. We also reviewed the websites of all CW® campaigns and reference sections of each CW® recommendation. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion and performed data extraction. Findings were summarized narratively. Review of ABIM CW® recommendations showed 19 breast cancer-related recommendations pertaining to; screening (n = 4), radiological staging (n = 2), treatment (n = 10), surveillance (n = 2), and miscellaneous (genetic testing; n = 1). Of 22 countries with CW® campaigns, 10 published recommendations for breast cancer. Over half (57%) of recommendations were supported by more than one country. No recommendations were refuted between campaigns. Two campaigns developed 3 novel recommendations on new topics, including chemotherapy in ductal carcinoma in situ (Italy) and comparison of screening imaging modalities (Portugal). CW® recommendations focus on reducing overutilization of investigations and treatments. There was a high rate of consensus between different CW® campaigns. As health care systems globally move attention to reduce low-value care, further studies are required to address adherence to these current recommendations and develop new recommendations.

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. 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. 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. 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. www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02815319 June 28, 2016

Background The optimal duration of filgrastim as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in early breast cancer patients is unknown, with 5, 7 or 10 days being commonly prescribed. This trial evaluates whether 5 days of filgrastim was non-inferior to 7/10 days. Patients and methods In this randomised, open-label trial, early breast cancer patients who were to receive filgrastim as primary FN prophylaxis were randomly allocated to 5 versus 7 versus 10 days of filgrastim for all chemotherapy cycles. A protocol amendment in November 2017 allowed subsequent patients (N = 324) to be randomised to either 5 or 7/10 days. The primary outcome was a composite of either FN or treatment-related hospitalisations. Secondary outcomes included chemotherapy dose reductions, delays and discontinuations. Analyses were carried out by per protocol (primary) and intention-to-treat, and the non-inferiority margin was set at 3% for the risk of having FN and/or hospitalisation per cycle of chemotherapy. Results Patients (N = 466) were randomised to receive 5 (184, 39.5%), or 7/10 (282, 60.5%) days of filgrastim. In our primary analysis, the difference in risk of either FN or treatment-related hospitalisation per cycle was −1.52% [95% confidence interval (CI): −3.22% to 0.19%] suggesting non-inferiority of a 5-day filgrastim schedule compared with 7/10-days. The difference in events per cycle for FN was 0.11% (95% CI: −1.05 to 1.27) while for treatment-related hospitalisations it was −1.68% (95% CI: −2.73% to −0.63%). The overall proportions of patients having at least one occurrence of either FN or treatment-related hospitalisation were 11.8% and 14.96% for the 5- and 7/10-day groups, respectively (risk difference: −3.17%, 95% CI: −9.51% to 3.18%). Conclusion Five days of filgrastim was non-inferior to 7/10 days. Given the cost and toxicity of this agent, 5 days should be considered standard of care. ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02428114 and NCT02816164.

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. 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. 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. 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. CRD42019126813

Indiscriminate ordering of Oncotype DX (ODX) is expensive and of poor value to patients, physicians, and health care providers. The 3 Magee equations, Gage Algorithm, and University of Tennessee predictive algorithm all use standard clinicopathologic data to provide surrogate ODX scores. In this hypothesis-generating study, we evaluated whether these prognostic scores could be used to identify patients unlikely to benefit from additional ODX testing.Retrospective data was collected from 302 patients with invasive ductal breast cancer and available ODX scores. Additional data was available for: Magee equations 1 (212 patients), 2 (299 patients), 3 (212 patients), Gage Algorithm (299 patients), and University of Tennessee predictive algorithm (286 patients). ODX scores were banded according to the TAILORx results.Correlation with ODX scores was between 0.7 and 0.8 (Gage), 0.8 and 0.9 (Magee 2, University of Tennessee predictive algorithm), and0.9 (Magee 1 and 3). Magee 3 was the most robust and is proposed as a screening tool: for patients aged ≤ 50 years, ODX testing would be not required if the Magee 3 score was 14 or ≥ 20; for those aged50 years, ODX would not be required if the Magee 3 score was 18 or ≥ 26. Using these cut-offs, 110 (51.9%) of 212 patients would be deemed as not requiring ODX testing, and 109 (99.1%) of110 patients would be appropriately managed.Use of all formulae, and the Magee 3 equation in particular, are proposed as possible screening tools for ODX testing, resulting in significantly reduced frequency of ODX testing. This requires validation in other populations.