Search

Importance: Clinical equipoise exists around the optimal time to start adjuvant endocrine therapy in patients who will receive post-operative radiotherapy for breast cancer. Concerns continue to exist regarding potential reduced efficacy, or increased toxicity, when radiation, and endocrine therapy are administered concurrently.Objective: To perform a systematic review of studies comparing outcomes between sequential and concurrent adjuvant radiation and endocrine therapy in early-stage breast cancer. All modalities of radiation therapy were considered, and endocrine therapy could be either tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor. Outcomes of interest included; local, regional or distant recurrence, overall survival and treatment-related toxicities.Evidence Reviewed: PubMed, Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1946 to December 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed each citation using the criteria outlined above. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for prospective studies, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for retrospective studies.Findings: Of 2137 unique citations identified, 13 met eligibility criteria. Eleven were unique studies (7569 patients), while 2 of the studies were updated analyses of previous studies. Studies evaluated the timing of adjuvant radiation, and tamoxifen (5 studies, 1550 patients), or aromatase inhibitors (6 studies, 6019 patients). We identified 1 complete randomized clinical trial (150 patients), and 5 retrospective studies (1580 patients), in addition to conference abstracts (5 studies, 5839 patients). Overall, none of the studies showed a significant difference in efficacy, or toxicity, with concurrent versus sequential treatment. However, given the significant heterogeneity of the study populations, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis.Conclusions and Relevance: In the absence of high quality data, adequately powered randomized trials are required to answer this important clinical question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The choice of vascular access for systemic therapy administration in breast cancer remains an area of clinical equipoise, and patient preference is not consistently acknowledged. Using a patient survey, we evaluated the patient experience with vascular access during treatment for early-stage breast cancer and explored perceived risk factors for lymphedema. Methods Patients who had received systemic therapy for early-stage breast cancer were surveyed at 2 Canadian cancer centres. Results Responses were received from 187 patients (94%). The route of vascular access was peripheral intravenous line (IV) in 24%, a peripherally inserted central catheter (picc) in 42%, and a surgically inserted central catheter (port) in 34%. Anthracycline-based regimens were associated with a greater use of central vascular access devices (cvads- that is, a picc or port; 86/97, 89%). Trastuzumab use was associated with greater use of ports (49/64, 77%). Although few patients (7%) reported being involved in the decisions about vascular access, most were satisfied or very satisfied (88%) with their access type. Patient preference centred mainly on avoiding delays in the initiation of chemotherapy. Self-reported rates of complications (183 evaluable responses) were infiltration with peripheral IVs (9/44, 20%), local skin infections with piccs (7/77, 9%), and thrombosis with ports (4/62, 6%). Perceived risk factors for lymphedema included use of the surgical arm for blood draws (117/156, 75%) and blood pressure measurement (115/156, 74%). Conclusions Most patients reported being satisfied with the vascular access used for their treatment. Improved education and understanding about the evidence-based requirements for vascular access are needed. Perceived risk factors for lymphedema remain variable and are not evidence-based. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. 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%). 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. NCT02428114 and NCT02816164. • Multicentre randomised trial of 466 breast cancer patients compared schedules of filgrastim administration. • Provides real-world data showing filgrastim use beyond 5 days did not significantly improve co-primary or secondary outcomes. • 5 days of filgrastim should be considered the standard of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]