Search

PurposeMINDACT demonstrated that 46% of patients with early breast cancer at high clinical but low genomic risk on the basis of MammaPrint may safely avoid adjuvant chemotherapy. A second random assignment (R-C) compared docetaxel-capecitabine with an anthracycline-based regimen.Patients and methodsR-C randomly assigned patients 1:1 between standard anthracycline-based regimens, with or without taxanes (control) and experimental docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously plus oral capecitabine 825 mg/m2 two times per day for 14 days (DC) every 3 weeks for 6 cycles. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary end points included overall survival and safety.ResultsOf 2,832 patients, 1,301 (45%) were randomly assigned, and 97% complied with R-C assignment. In the control arm, 29.6% only received taxanes (0.5% of N0 patients). DFS events (n = 148) were much less than required (n = 422) as a result of a lower-than-expected accrual and event rate. At 5 years of median follow-up, DFS was not different between DC (n = 652) and control (n = 649; 90.7% [95% CI, 88% to 92.8%] v 88.8% [95% CI, 85.9% to 91.1%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.15]; P = .26). Overall survival (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.54 to 1.53]) and DFS in the clinical high and genomic high-risk subgroup (86.1% v 88.1%; HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.58 to 1.21]) were similar in both arms. DC led to more grade 1 neuropathy (27.1% v 11.2%) and more grade 2 hand/foot syndrome (28.5% v 3.3%) and diarrhea (13.7% v 5.8%). Serious cardiac events occurred in 9 patients (control, n = 4; DC, n = 5). Fifty-three patients developed second cancers (control, n = 32; DC, n = 21; leukemia: 2 v 1). Five treatment-related deaths occurred (control, 2 [0.3%]; DC, 3 [0.5%]).ConclusionAlthough underpowered, this second randomization in MINDACT did not show any improvement in outcome or safety with the use of DC compared with anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

PurposeAccording to the Institute of Medicine, high-quality cancer care should include effective communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits, expected response, and impact on quality of life of a recommended therapy. In the delivery of oncology care, the barriers to and facilitators of communication about potential long-term and late effects, post-treatment expectations, and transition to survivorship care have not been fully defined.Patients and methodsWe collected qualitative data through semistructured interviews with medical oncologists and focus groups with breast cancer survivors and applied the Theoretical Domains Framework to systematically analyze and identify the factors that may influence oncologists' communication with patients with breast cancer about the long-term and late effects of adjuvant therapy.ResultsEight key informant interviews with medical oncologists and two focus groups with breast cancer survivors provided data. Both oncologists and patients perceived information on long-term effects as valuable in terms of improved clinical communication but had concerns about the feasibility of inclusion before treatment. They described the current approaches to communication of therapy risks as a brief laundry list that emphasized acute adverse effects and minimized more long-term issues. We describe the barriers to communication about potential long-term effects from the perspectives of both groups.ConclusionThis study provides insight into oncologists' communication with patients with breast cancer regarding the potential long-term and late effects of adjuvant chemotherapy and about setting realistic expectations for life after treatment. Opportunities to improve oncologists' communication about the potential toxicities of therapy, particularly regarding long-term and late effects, should be examined further.

Background Mammographic screening has led to a proportional shift toward earlier-stage breast cancers at presentation. We assessed whether the method of detection provides prognostic information above and beyond standard prognostic factors and investigated the accuracy of predicted overall and breast cancer–specific survival by the computer tool Adjuvant! among patients with screen-detected, interval, and nonscreening-related carcinomas. Methods We studied 2592 patients with invasive breast cancer who were treated at the Netherlands Cancer Institute from January 1, 1990, through December 31, 2000. Overall and breast cancer–specific survival probabilities among patients with mammographically screen-detected (n = 958), interval (n = 417), and nonscreening-related (n = 1217) breast carcinomas were compared. Analyses were adjusted for clinicopathologic characteristics and adjuvant systemic therapy. Because of gradual implementation of population-based screening in the Netherlands, analyses were stratified a priori according to two periods of diagnosis. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Screen detection was associated with reduced mortality (adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality = 0.74, 95% confidence interval = 0.63 to 0.87, P < .001, and adjusted hazard ratio for breast cancer–specific mortality = 0.62, 95% confidence interval = 0.50 to 0.78, P < .001, respectively) compared with nonscreening-related detection. The absolute adjusted reduction in breast cancer–specific mortality was 7% at 10 years. The prognostic value of the method of detection was independent of the period of diagnosis and was similar across tumor size and lymph node status categories, indicating its prognostic value beyond stage migration. Adjuvant! underestimated breast cancer–specific survival in patients with screen-detected (−3.2%) and interval carcinomas (−5.4%). Conclusions Screen detection was found to be independently associated with better prognosis for overall and breast cancer–specific survival and to provide prognostic information beyond stage migration among patients with invasive breast cancer. We propose that the method of detection should be taken into account when estimating individual prognosis. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective To identify variables within the patient-oncologist communication pattern that impact overall patient comprehension and satisfaction within the breast cancer adjuvant therapy (AT) setting. Setting and participants Fifty patients were recruited from a number of academic and community-based oncology practices. Fifteen oncologists participated. Main variables Three communication variables were identified: percentage of total utterances spoken by the patient, percentage of total physician utterances that were coded as affective (i.e. emotional), and total number of questions asked by the patient during the consultation. Knowledge and satisfaction were assessed by a variety of outcome measures, including knowledge items and satisfaction as measured by VASs, the satisfaction with decision scale and the decisional conflict scale. Results The level of patient knowledge about breast cancer and satisfaction with the clinical encounter showed a tendency to correlate with the variables measuring aspects of patient-physician communication style. Patients who spoke more or asked more questions tended to be more knowledgeable whilst patients whose physicians used more affective language tended to know less but to be more satisfied with their clinical encounter. Conclusions In order to optimize patients’ degree of comprehension and satisfaction with their breast cancer adjuvant therapy, physicians need to increase their affective participation in clinical encounters whilst encouraging patients to ask questions and to actively participate in the decision-making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article comments on a paper which reports the changes in screening mammography, menopausal hormone therapy, and breast cancer incidence in the Kaiser Permanente Northwest health plan. The authors stress that the researchers have failed to consider on what causes the decline in incidence between 2000 and 2004. A randomized trial is considered not helpful in population studies. The authors also emphasize that the paper is not done at the level of individual patient data.