Search

Background: The development of brain metastases occurs commonly in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and is associated with a poorer prognosis. The advent of HER2-targeted therapy has improved overall survival, but the benefit in patients with brain metastases is unclear, as these patients are often excluded from clinical trials. This study aimed to explore real-world outcomes in patients with brain metastases in HER2-positive MBC., Materials & Methods: Data was extracted from the TABITHA registry, which consists of patient data collected prospectively from 16 Australian sites from 24th February 2015 to 31st October 2021. Data analysed included characteristics of brain metastases, treatment received and survival outcomes., Results: A total of 135 (37%) of 361 patients with HER2-positive MBC were diagnosed with brain metastases during their clinical course, including 45 (12%) with brain metastases at time of MBC diagnosis. 61 (45%) had ≥4 brain lesions. The most common local therapy given was whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) (36%) followed by multi-modality treatment with both surgery and radiation therapy (27%). The majority of patients received first-line HER2-targeted treatment with trastuzumab and pertuzumab followed by second-line trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) but third-line therapy was heterogenous. The median overall survival in patients who developed brain metastases was significantly shorter than those who did not develop brain metastases (58.9 vs. 96.1 months, P = .02)., Conclusion: Real-world patients diagnosed with brain metastases in HER2-positive MBC have a relatively poor prognosis, despite advances in HER2-targeted treatment. As the range of HER2-targeted treatment expands, it is important to pursue clinical trials that focus on patients with brain metastases., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Personalised prevention of breast cancer has focused on women at very high risk, yet most breast cancers occur in women at average, or moderately increased risk (≤moderate risk)., Objectives: To determine; 1) interest of women at ≤ moderate risk (consumers) in personalised information about breast cancer risk; 2) familial cancer clinicians' (FCCs) perspective on managing women at ≤ moderate risk, and; 3) both consumers' and FCCs reactions to iPrevent, a personalised breast cancer risk assessment and risk management decision support tool., Methods: Seven focus groups on breast cancer risk were conducted with 49 participants; 27 consumers and 22 FCCs. Data were analysed thematically., Results: Consumers reported some misconceptions, low trust in primary care practitioners for breast cancer prevention advice and frustration that they often lacked tailored advice about breast cancer risk. They expressed interest in receiving personalised risk information using iPrevent. FCCs reported an inadequate workforce to advise women at ≤ moderate risk and reacted positively to the potential of iPrevent to assist., Conclusions: While highlighting a potential role for iPrevent, several outstanding issues remain. For personalised prevention of breast cancer to extend beyond women at high risk, we must harness women's interest in receiving tailored information about breast cancer prevention and identify a workforce willing to advise women., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Decision support tools for the assessment and management of breast cancer risk may improve uptake of prevention strategies. End-user input in the design of such tools is critical to increase clinical use. Before developing such a computerized tool, we examined clinicians' practice and future needs. Twelve breast surgeons, 12 primary care physicians and 5 practice nurses participated in 4 focus groups. These were recorded, coded, and analyzed to identify key themes. Participants identified difficulties assessing risk, including a lack of available tools to standardize practice. Most expressed confidence identifying women at potentially high risk, but not moderate risk. Participants felt a tool could especially reassure young women at average risk. Desirable features included: evidence-based, accessible (e.g. web-based), and displaying absolute (not relative) risks in multiple formats. The potential to create anxiety was a concern. Development of future tools should address these issues to optimize translation of knowledge into clinical practice., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) reduce breast cancer risk by 38%. However, uptake is low and the reasons are not well understood. This study applied protection motivation theory (PMT) to determine factors associated with intention to take SERMs., Methods: Women at increased risk of breast cancer (N=107), recruited from two familial cancer clinics in Australia, completed a questionnaire containing measures of PMT constructs. Hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis was used to analyze the data., Results: Forty-five percent of women said they would be likely or very likely to take SERMs in the future. PMT components accounted for 40% of variance in intention to take SERMs. Perceived vulnerability, severity and response efficacy appeared the most influential in women's decisions to take or not take SERMs., Conclusion: Many women are interested in SERMs as a risk management option. Accurate risk estimation and an understanding of the benefits of SERMs are critical to women's decision making., Practice Implications: Health professionals need to explore women's perceptions of their risk and its consequences, as well as providing clear evidence-based information about the efficacy of SERMs. Exploring the source and strength of beliefs about SERMs may allow more effective, tailored counseling., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The risk of recurrence of colon cancer after curative surgery can be estimated by using decision aids. These aids use pathologic and patient factors to predict recurrence risk after adjuvant chemotherapy and have been validated when using clinical trial populations; however, the performance of 2 decision aids were compared by using a cohort of patients treated at a single center., Patients and Methods: Patient data were used to estimate the risk of recurrence when using both the Adjuvant! for colon cancer and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) decision aids. A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analyzed the predicted chance of being disease free at 5 years against the actual outcome for each patient. This curve was then used to define cutoff points at a chosen sensitivity and specificity to stratify patients into risk groups, and survival curves for each group calculated., Results: Data on 134 patients were analyzed. The Pearson correlation between the 2 nomograms was 0.848 (P < .01). The ROC curve for the MSKCC nomogram had an area under the curve of 0.638. At a sensitivity and a specificity of 0.8, the MSKCC curve has a risk recurrence score of 69% and 84%, respectively. By using these cutoffs to stratify patients into 3 risk groups, a statistically significant difference in survival was found between high risk and low risk (P = .025)., Conclusion: Tools to predict risk or recurrence and estimate benefit from therapy may be enhanced in the future by using genetic profiling, but use of existing tools can help deliver a personalized approach to adjuvant therapy., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)