Search

Background:Black ethnic groups have a higher breast cancer mortality than Whites. American studies have identified variations in tumour biology and unequal health-care access as causative factors. We compared tumour pathology, treatment and outcomes in three ethnic groups in young breast cancer patients treated in the United Kingdom.Methods:Women aged 40 years at breast cancer diagnosis were recruited to the POSH national cohort study (MREC: 00/06/69). Personal characteristics, tumour pathology and treatment data were collected at diagnosis. Follow-up data were collected annually. Overall survival (OS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves, and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox regression.Results:Ethnicity data were available for 2915 patients including 2690 (91.0%) Whites, 118 (4.0%) Blacks and 87 (2.9%) Asians. Median tumour diameter at presentation was greater in Blacks than Whites (26.0 mm vs 22.0 mm, P=0.0103), and multifocal tumours were more frequent in both Blacks (43.4%) and Asians (37.0%) than Whites (28.9%). ER/PR/HER2-negative tumours were significantly more frequent in Blacks (26.1%) than Whites (18.6%, P=0.043). Use of chemotherapy was similarly high in all ethnic groups (89% B vs 88.6% W vs 89.7% A). A 5-year DRFS was significantly lower in Blacks than Asians (62.8% B vs 77.0% A, P=0.0473) or Whites (62.8 B% vs 77.0% W, P=0.0053) and a 5-year OS for Black patients, 71.1% (95% CI: 61.0-79.1%), was significantly lower than that of Whites (82.4%, 95% CI: 80.8-83.9%, W vs B: P=0.0160). In multivariate analysis, Black ethnicity had an effect on DRFS in oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive patients that is independent of body mass index, tumour size, grade or nodal status, HR: 1.60 (95% CI: 1.03-2.47, P=0.035).Conclusion:Despite equal access to health care, young Black women in the United Kingdom have a significantly poorer outcome than White patients. Black ethnicity is an independent risk factor for reduced DRFS particularly in ER-positive patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:Quality of life is an important end point in clinical trials, yet there are few quality of life questionnaires for neuroendocrine tumours.Methods:This international multicentre validation study assesses the QLQ-GINET21 Quality of Life Questionnaire in 253 patients with gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours. All patients were requested to complete two quality of life questionnaires - the EORTC Core Quality of Life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and the QLQ-GINET21 - at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months post-baseline; the psychometric properties of the questionnaire were then analysed.Results:Analysis of QLQ-GINET21 scales confirmed appropriate aggregation of the items, except for treatment-related symptoms, where weight gain showed low correlation with other questions in the scale; weight gain was therefore analysed as a single item. Internal consistency of scales using Cronbach's α coefficient was >0.7 for all parts of the QLQ-GINET21 at 6 months. Intraclass correlation was >0.85 for all scales. Discriminant validity was confirmed, with values <0.70 for all scales compared with each other.Scores changed in accordance with alterations in performance status and in response to expected clinical changes after therapies. Mean scores were similar for pancreatic and other tumours.Conclusion:The QLQ-GINET21 is a valid and responsive tool for assessing quality of life in the gut, pancreas and liver neuroendocrine tumours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is a medical emergency complicating the treatment of many cancer patients. It is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality, as well as impacting on healthcare resources.Methods: A prospective study of all cases of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in the South West London Cancer Network was conducted over a 4-month period. Factors including demographics, treatment history, management of febrile neutropenia and outcome were recorded.Results and Conclusion: Our results reflect those of the recent National Chemotherapy Advisory Group (NCEPOD, 2008)/National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcomes and Death reports (NCAG, 2009) and highlight the need for network-wide clinical care pathways to improve outcomes in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical development of new anticancer drugs can be compromised by a lack of qualified biomarkers. An indispensable component to successful biomarker qualification is assay validation, which is also a regulatory requirement. In order to foster flexible yet rigorous biomarker method validation, the fit-for-purpose approach has recently been developed. This minireview focuses on many of the basic issues surrounding validation of biomarker assays utilised in clinical trials. It also provides an overview on strategies to validate each of the five categories that define the majority of biomarker assays. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High experienced continuity of care in patients with cancer is associated with lower needs for care, better quality of life and better psychological outcomes. We developed and evaluated an intervention to improve experienced continuity. The intervention, consisted of (1) a 17-item patient-completed continuity assessment; (2) feedback to clinical nurse specialists and action to address the needs identified. Multidisciplinary team meetings and oncology outpatient clinics were observed, and patients and staff were interviewed. After qualitative work and reliability testing, the intervention was evaluated in a feasibility trial. Sixty-one patients provided data for analysis. No statistically significant differences were found in patients' experienced continuity between the trial arms, but important trends were seen in measures of needs for care in favour of those receiving the intervention. Feeding back findings from the continuity assessment to clinicians reduced patients' needs for care. Our results indicate that an intervention to target patients' experiences of continuity can reduce their subsequent needs for care. However, overcoming barriers to organisational change and addressing some patients' hesitation to report their continuity difficulties must be considered when implementing such an intervention. A phase III trial targeting patients with inadequate experienced continuity of care is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented which discusses need of standardizing diagnosis assessment and management in Inflammatory breast cancer.

Alcohol and tobacco consumption are closely correlated and published results on their association with breast cancer have not always allowed adequately for confounding between these exposures. Over 80% of the relevant information worldwide on alcohol and tobacco consumption and breast cancer were collated, checked and analysed centrally. Analyses included 58,515 women with invasive breast cancer and 95,067 controls from 53 studies. Relative risks of breast cancer were estimated, after stratifying by study, age, parity and, where appropriate, women's age when their first child was born and consumption of alcohol and tobacco. The average consumption of alcohol reported by controls from developed countries was 6.0 g per day, i.e. about half a unit/drink of alcohol per day, and was greater in ever-smokers than never-smokers, (8.4 g per day and 5.0 g per day, respectively). Compared with women who reported drinking no alcohol, the relative risk of breast cancer was 1.32 (1.19-1.45, P<0.00001) for an intake of 35-44 g per day alcohol, and 1.46 (1.33-1.61, P<0.00001) for >/=45 g per day alcohol. The relative risk of breast cancer increased by 7.1% (95% CI 5.5-8.7%; P<0.00001) for each additional 10 g per day intake of alcohol, i.e. for each extra unit or drink of alcohol consumed on a daily basis. This increase was the same in ever-smokers and never-smokers (7.1% per 10 g per day, P<0.00001, in each group). By contrast, the relationship between smoking and breast cancer was substantially confounded by the effect of alcohol. When analyses were restricted to 22 255 women with breast cancer and 40 832 controls who reported drinking no alcohol, smoking was not associated with breast cancer (compared to never-smokers, relative risk for ever-smokers=1.03, 95% CI 0.98-1.07, and for current smokers=0.99, 0.92-1.05). The results for alcohol and for tobacco did not vary substantially across studies, study designs, or according to 15 personal characteristics of the women; nor were the findings materially confounded by any of these factors. If the observed relationship for alcohol is causal, these results suggest that about 4% of the breast cancers in developed countries are attributable to alcohol. In developing countries, where alcohol consumption among controls averaged only 0.4 g per day, alcohol would have a negligible effect on the incidence of breast cancer. In conclusion, smoking has little or no independent effect on the risk of developing breast cancer; the effect of alcohol on breast cancer needs to be interpreted in the context of its beneficial effects, in moderation, on cardiovascular disease and its harmful effects on cirrhosis and cancers of the mouth, larynx, oesophagus and liver.