Search

Purpose: While adjuvant bisphosphonate use in early breast cancer (EBC) is associated with improvements in breast cancer-specific outcomes, questions remain around optimal bisphosphonate type, dose and scheduling. We evaluated a single zoledronate infusion in a prospective randomised trial., Methods: Postmenopausal patients with EBC were randomised to receive a single infusion of zoledronate (4 mg IV) or 6-monthly treatment for 3 years. Outcomes measured were; Quality of Life (QoL; EQ-5D-5L), bisphosphonate-related toxicities, including acute phase reactions (APRs), recurrence-free survival (RFS), bone metastasis-free survival (BMFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: 211 patients were randomized to either a single infusion (n = 107) or six-monthly treatment (n = 104). After 3 years of follow up there were no significant differences between the arms for QoL and most toxicity endpoints. APRs following zoledronate occurred in 81% (171/211) of patients (77.6% in single infusion arm and 84.6% in the 6-monthly group). While the frequency of APRs decreased over 3 years in the 6-monthly arm, they still remain common. Of 34/104 (32.7%) patients who discontinued zoledronate early in the 6-monthly treatment group, the most common reason was APRs (16/34, 47%). At the 3 year follow up, there were no differences between arms for RFS, BMFS or OS., Conclusion: A single infusion of zoledronate was associated with increased patient convenience, less toxicity, and lower rates of treatment discontinuation. Despite the common clinical impression that APRs decrease with time, this was not observed when patients were specifically questioned. While the study is not powered for non-inferiority, longer-term follow-up for confirmation of RFS and OS rates is ongoing., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Despite previous studies proposing shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy for selected patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC), 12-months remains standard of care. A survey was performed to assess patient perspectives and willingness to participate in studies evaluating shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy., Methods: Patients with HER2-positive EBC completing or having previously completed anti-HER2 therapy, were recruited by healthcare professionals at The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre to participate in an anonymous online survey. The primary objective was to learn about patients' perspectives on shorter durations (less than 12-months) of anti-HER2 therapy. Secondary objectives were to explore patients' interest in clinical trials of shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy and the degree of increased breast cancer risk they would accept with a shorter treatment duration., Results: Responses were received from 94 eligible patients. Most patients received Trastuzumab alone (78%, 73/94), while 13% (12/94) received trastuzumab and pertuzumab. Side effects were experienced by 52% (46/89), the most common being; fatigue (61%, 28/46), myalgia (37%, 17/46), and diarrhea (24%, 11/46). Most patients (88%, 78/89) did not find treatment bothersome. Regarding perspectives on shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy, most (79%, 74/94) respondents stated they would agree to less treatment if it were possible to receive fewer treatments with the same cancer benefits. 56% of patients were interested in clinical trials, however, about half stated they would not be accepting of any increase in breast cancer recurrence risk., Conclusion: Trials to investigate who can safely and effectively be treated with shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy are needed. This study provides important insights to patients' perspectives on shorter durations of anti-HER2 treatment, and their concerns regarding potential increased cancer risk with less treatment., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Neither paclitaxel plus trastuzumab (P-H) nor docetaxel-cyclophosphamide plus trastuzumab (TC-H) have been prospectively compared in HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer (EBC). A randomized trial was performed to assess the feasibility of a larger study., Methods: Lower-risk HER2-positive EBC patients were randomized to either P-H or TC-H treatment arms. The co-primary feasibility outcomes were: ≥75% patient acceptability rate, active trial participation of ≥50% of medical oncologists, ≥75% and ≥90% treatment completion, and receipt rate of planned cycles of chemotherapy, respectively., Secondary Outcomes: Febrile neutropenia (FN) rate, treatment-related hospitalizations, health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) questionnaires. Analyses were performed by per protocol and intention-to-treat., Results: Between May 2019 and March 2021, 49 of 52 patients agreed to study participation (94% acceptability rate). Fifteen (65%) of 23 medical oncologists approached patients. Rates of FN were higher (8.3% vs. 0%) in the TC-H vs. P-H arm. Median (IQR) changes in scores from baseline in FACT-Taxane Trial Outcome Index at 24 weeks were -4 (-10, -1) vs. -6.5 (-15, -2) for TC-H and P-H arms, respectively., Conclusions: A randomized trial comparing P-H and TC-H was feasible. Expansion to a larger trial would be feasible to explore patient-reported outcomes of these adjuvant HER2 chemotherapy regimens.

Purpose: The optimal frequency for cardiac monitoring of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients receiving trastuzumab-based therapy for early breast cancer (EBC) is unknown. We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing 3- versus 4-monthly cardiac monitoring., Patients and Method: Patients scheduled to receive trastuzumab-containing cancer therapy for EBC with normal (>53%) baseline LVEF were randomized to undergo LVEF assessments every 3 or 4 months. The primary outcome was the change in LVEF from baseline. Secondary outcomes included the rate of cardiac dysfunction (defined as a decrease in the LVEF of ≥10 percentage points, to a value <53%), delays in or discontinuation of trastuzumab therapy, and cardiology referral., Results: Of the 200 eligible and enrolled patients, 100 (50%) were randomized to 3-monthly and 100 (50%) to 4-monthly cardiac monitoring. Of these patients, 98 and 97 respectively underwent at least one cardiac scan. The estimated mean difference in LVEF from baseline was -0.94% (one-sided 95% lower bound: -2.14), which exceeded the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -4%. There were also no significant differences between the two study arms for any of the secondary endpoints. The rate of detection of cardiac dysfunction was 16.3% (16/98) and 12.4% (12/97) in the 3- and 4-monthly arms, respectively (95% CI: 4.0 [-5.9, 13.8])., Conclusions: Cardiac monitoring every 4 months was deemed non-inferior to that every 3 months in patients with HER2-positive EBC being treated with trastuzumab-based therapy. Given its costs and inconvenience, cardiac monitoring every 4 months should be considered standard practice. Registration: NCT02696707, 18 February 2016.

Purpose: Radiation therapy (RT) and endocrine therapy (ET) are standard treatments for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). However, many older patients are at greater risk of treatment-related toxicities and non-cancer related death, and less likely to benefit from these standard treatments. A systematic review was performed evaluating outcomes of omitting RT or ET in older patients aged ≥50 treated with BCS for lower-risk breast cancer., Methods: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were queried from 1980 to April 30th, 2020 for randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies (PCSs) evaluating omission of RT and/or ET compared to RT plus ET in patients. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models with findings reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Results: From 3860 citations, 10 prospective studies met eligibility criteria. Omission of RT alone was evaluated in 7 RCTs (n = 4604) and one PCS (n = 667); omission of ET alone was assessed in 1 PCS (n = 271); and omission of either ET or RT was compared to ET plus RT in 1 RCT (n = 495). Adjuvant RT compared to no RT reduced 5- and 10-year in-breast tumor recurrence [5-year: RR 0.16, 95 %CI 0.09-0.27 l 10-year: 0.28, 95 %CI 0.16-0.5], but had no effect on survival [5-year: RR 0.94, 95 %CI 0.77-1.15; 10-year: 1.01, 95 %CI 0.9-1.12]., Conclusion: The current body of evidence suggests that RT can be omitted in older patients with lower-risk disease. However, more trials on the omission of ET are required to better inform treatment decisions., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: While routine, in-person follow-up of early-stage breast cancer patients (EBC) after completion of initial treatment is common, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented changes in clinical practice. A systematic review was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting different frequencies of routine follow-up., Methods: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library were searched from database inception to July 16, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies (PCS) evaluating different frequencies of routine follow-up. Citations were assessed by pairs of independent reviewers. Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies. Findings were summarized narratively., Results: The literature search identified 3316 studies, of which 7 (6 RCTs and 1 PCS) were eligible. Study endpoints included; quality of life (QoL; 5 RCTs and 1 PCS), disease free survival (DFS) (1 RCT), overall survival (OS) (1 RCT) and cost-effectiveness (1 RCT). The results showed reduction in follow-up frequency had no adverse effect on: QoL (6 studies, n = 920), DFS (1 trial, n = 472) or OS (1 trial, n = 472), but improved cost-effectiveness (1 trial, n = 472). Four RCTs specifically examined follow-up on-demand versus scheduled follow-up visits and found no statistically significant differences in QoL (n = 544)., Conclusion: While no evidence-based guidelines suggest that follow-up of EBC patients improves DFS or OS, routinely scheduled in-person assessment is common. RCT data suggests that reduced frequency of follow-up has no adverse effects., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Optimal dosing of bone-targeted agents (BTAs), in patients with bone metastases remains an important clinical question. This trial compared 4-weekly versus 12-weekly therapy., Patients and Methods: Patients with bone metastases from breast or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), who were going to start or already on BTAs, were randomised 1:1 to 4-weekly or 12-weekly BTA treatment for one year. Primary end point was change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL)-physical function European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-QLQ-C30). Secondary end points included pain (EORTC-QLQ-BM22), global health status (EORTC-QLQ-C30), symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) rates and time to SSEs. Primary analysis was per protocol and a non-inferiority margin of 5 points was used., Results: Of 263 patients (160 breast cancer, 103 CRPC), 133 (50.6%) and 130 (49.4%) were randomised to the 4- and 12-weekly groups, respectively. BTAs included denosumab (56.3%), zoledronate (24.0%) and pamidronate (19.8%). Using repeated-measures analysis, across all time points, patients in the 4-weekly arm had a mean HRQL-physical subdomain score which was 1.2 (95% confidence interval: -1.6 to 4.0) higher than the 12-weekly arm. The study met the definition of non-inferiority for our primary outcome. Secondary outcomes showed no significant difference in scores for pain, global health status, SSE rates and SSE-free survival between arms. Subgroup analyses for cancer type, prior BTA use or BTA type showed no significant difference between arms., Conclusion: These results in addition to those previously reported for de-escalating zoledronate and systematic reviews in both breast and prostate cancers, would support that de-escalation of commonly used BTAs is a reasonable treatment option., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement M.C. is a coauthor on both the American Society of Clinical Oncology – Cancer Care Ontario Focused Guideline on the role of Bone-Modifying Agents in Metastatic Breast and the UpToDate chapter on Osteoclast inhibitors for patients with bone metastases from breast, prostate, and other solid tumours. C.C. reports receiving travel, accommodation or other expenses paid or reimbursed by Amgen in the past 2 years. B.H. reports receiving consulting fees from Cornerstone Research, outside of the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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 -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 -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: Trastuzumab-based chemotherapy is usually administered through either a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) or a totally implanted vascular access device (PORT). As the most effective type of access is unknown, a feasibility trial, prior to conducting a large pragmatic trial, was undertaken., Methods: The trial methodology utilized the integrated consent model incorporating oral consent. Patients receiving trastuzumab-based neo/adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer were randomized to a PICC or PORT insertion. Feasibility was reflected through a combination of endpoints; however, the a priori definition of feasibility was > 25% of patients approached agreed to randomization and > 25% of physicians approached patients. Secondary outcomes included rates of line-associated complications such as thrombotic events requiring anticoagulation, line infections or phlebitis., Results: During the study period, 4/15 (26.7%) medical oncologists approached patients about study participation. Of 59 patients approached, 56 (94.9%) agreed to randomization, 29 (51.8%) were randomized to PICC and 27 (48.2%) to PORT access. Overall, 17.2% (5/29) and 14.8% (4/27) of patients had at least one line-associated complication in the PICC and PORT arms respectively. The study was terminated early due to slow accrual., Conclusion: The study met its feasibility endpoints with respect to patient and physician engagement. However, the slow rate of accrual (56 patients in 2 years) means that conducting a large pragmatic trial would require additional strategies to make such a study possible., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02632435.

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., Competing Interests: Disclosure MC and AA have received honoraria for speaking at a meeting funded by Apotex. DS participates on an advisory board for Genomic Health. AA participates on an advisory board for Novartis. BH consults for Cornerstone Research. The other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide. Most current guidelines recommend using multigene profiling assays to aid the decision on the addition of chemotherapy to adjuvant hormone therapy for women who present with early-stage, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative disease. One of these assays is the Oncotype DX, which predicts the disease recurrence risk and adjuvant chemotherapy benefits. Given its high cost, there is an economic incentive to evaluate its surrogates, such as the Magee equations. We assessed health system costs associated with the use of the Magee scores. A probabilistic decision tree was used to calculate the difference in mean health system costs based on data obtained from a randomized trial and the published literature. Costs were calculated from a perspective of Canada's publicly funded health care system. A series of sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of the study findings. The Magee equations were associated with a total cost savings of C$100 per patient (95% CI, -C$3068 to C$5022) compared with standard of care. The difference in costs was highly sensitive to the extent that the Magee scores could reduce the frequency of adjuvant chemotherapy and Oncotype DX requests., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Introduction: 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., Patients and Methods: 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., 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), and > 0.9 (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 aged > 50 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., Conclusions: 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., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: All vascular access strategies foradministering chemotherapy in early stage breast cancer (EBC) are associated with risks and benefits. As the most effective type of access is unknown a feasibility trial, prior to conducting a large pragmatic trial, was undertaken., Methods: The trial methodology utilized broad eligibility criteria and the integrated consent model incorporating oral consent. EBC patients receiving non-trastuzumab-containing chemotherapy were randomized to peripheral access or central line insertion. The a priori definition of feasibility was: > 25% of patients approached agreed to randomisation and > 25% of physicians approached patients. Secondary outcomes included rates of line-associated complications., Results: Of 159 patients approached, 150 (94.3%) agreed to randomisation, 77 (51.3%) were randomized to peripheral and 73 (48.7%) to central access. 6/26 (23.1%) of medical oncologists approached patients. Rates of complications per chemotherapy cycles in the peripheral vs central access groups with risk difference (RD) (95% CI) were: thrombotic events requiring anticoagulation [1 (0.3%) vs. 3 (1.0%), RD - 0.7(- 1.9,0.5)], line infections [0 (0%) vs. 1 (0.3%), RD - 0.3(- 0.9,0.3)], phlebitis [2 (0.6%) vs. 0 (0%), RD 0.3(- 0.3,0.8)], and tissue infiltrations [4 (1.1%) vs. 1 (0.3%), RD 0.8(- 0.4,2.1)]. Overall, 8.0% (6/75) and 7.7% (5/65) of patients had at least one of these complications in the peripheral and central access arms respectively [RD - 0.9(- 9.4,7.6)]. The study was terminated early due to slow accrual., Conclusion: While meeting its a priori feasibility criteria for patient engagement, the slow accrual means that conducting a large pragmatic trial would require overcoming the barriers to physician recruitment., Trial Registration: NCT02688998.

Background: The proportion of breast cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials is falling. The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) program was developed to challenge some of the contemporary barriers responsible for this fall in accrual. In this article, we review the successes and challenges our program has faced., Methods: The REaCT program was created to improve care and outcomes for cancer patients through surveys of patients and healthcare providers, systematic reviews, economic evaluations, and the performance of pragmatic randomized trials with patient-centered outcomes. Likely, the greatest difference to conventional trial methodologies has been our widespread use of the integrated consent model (ICM) incorporating oral consent., Results: Between 2014 and 2018, the program has recruited over 2000 patients to 15 randomized studies at 11 Canadian cancer centers. The REaCT program has completed and published five patient surveys, six healthcare provider surveys, ten systematic reviews, performed four economic evaluations, opened 15 clinical trials comparing standard of care interventions (two surgical, two adjuvant chemotherapy, five adjuvant supportive care, one radiology, two vascular devices, two palliative supportive care, and one molecular diagnostics). Patient surveys have shown high levels of satisfaction with the ICM., Conclusion: The REaCT program was developed to tackle important practice questions that will better guide optimal practice and to increase the availability of pragmatic clinical trials. While many challenges remain, future strategies will involve including more study sites and efforts to integrate novel information technology strategies.

Purpose: Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) such as bisphosphonates and denosumab are usually administered every 4 weeks (standard) in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs). Recent randomized controlled trials suggest every 12-week (de-escalated) dosing interval may be non-inferior. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and harms of standard with de-escalated administration of BMA's in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer., Methods: We searched Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials from 1947 to March 14, 2018 and conference abstracts from (2014-March 14, 2018) for randomized clinical trials comparing every 4-week and every 12-week dosing interval of bone-modifying agents. Using PRISMA guidelines, meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models, with findings reported as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Results: From a total of 1311 citations, we identified 8 full-text articles and 1 abstract comprising data from 5 completed randomized clinical trials (n = 1807). Zoledronate administration every 12 weeks compared to every 4 weeks produced a summary risk ratio of 1.05 (95% CI 0.88-1.25) for patients with ≥ 1 on-study SRE indicating similar efficacy. These results did not differ whether patients had received prior intravenous bisphosphonate. De-escalation was associated with a non-statistically significant lower risk of increased creatinine (summary risk ratio 0.41 [95% CI 0.15-1.16]). Currently, there are insufficient data for pamidronate and denosumab de-escalation., Conclusions: These data are supportive of de-escalation of zoledronate from onset for patients with bone metastases from breast cancer.

Purpose: Optimal primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis (i.e. ciprofloxacin or granulocyte-colony stimulating factors [G-CSF]) for patients receiving docetaxel-cyclophosphamide (TC) chemotherapy is unknown. We assessed the feasibility of using a novel pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial to compare these standard-of-care options., Methods: Early-stage breast cancer patients receiving TC chemotherapy were randomised to either ciprofloxacin or G-CSF. Trial methodology consists of broad eligibility criteria, simply-defined endpoints, integrated consent model incorporating oral consent, and web-based randomisation in the clinic. Primary feasibility endpoints included patient and physician engagement (if > 50% of patients approached agree to participate and if > 50% of physicians approached patients for the study). Secondary clinical endpoints included the following: first occurrence rates of FN, treatment-related hospitalisation, or chemotherapy dose reduction/delay/discontinuation, as well as patient satisfaction with the oral consent process., Results: Of 204 patients approached, 91.2% (186/204) agreed to randomisation. Sixteen of twenty (80%) participating medical oncologists randomised patients. Median patient age was 57.7 (range 31.8-84.1). The 186 patients received 557 cycles of chemotherapy. Overall incidences of first events by patient (n = 186) were as follows: FN (18/186, 21.43%), treatment-related hospitalisation (11/186, 13.10%), chemotherapy reduction (19/186, 22.62%), chemotherapy discontinuation (16/186, 19.05%), and chemotherapy delays (5/186, 5.95%). A total of 37.77% (69/186) of patients and 12.39% (69/557) of chemotherapy cycles had at least one of these first events. Patients were highly satisfied with the oral consent process., Conclusion: This study met its feasibility endpoints. This model offers a means of comparing standard-of-care treatments in a practical and cost-efficient manner., Trial Registration: Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02173262.

Objective: The three Magee Equations provide an estimate of the Oncotype DX recurrence score using commonly available clinicopathologic information (tumour size, grade, oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER2, and Ki67). We assessed whether integration of Magee Equations into routine clinical practice affected the frequency of Oncotype DX requests., Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed, node negative, hormone receptor positive, and HER2 negative invasive breast cancer were randomized to undergo a Magee calculation or not. At the first clinic assessment, the oncologist was provided with all routinely available clinicopathologic information (including Ki67) either with or without the results of Magee Equations. Primary outcome was frequency of Oncotype DX ordering. Secondary outcomes included frequency of chemotherapy use, time to commencement of radiotherapy, or systemic therapy. Physician comfort with systemic therapy choices and the use of Ki67 and Magee Equations was also assessed., Results: Data from 175 randomized patients was available, 84 patients (48%) with and 91 (52%) without calculated Magee Equations. Oncotype DX was ordered in 10 (12.05%) and 13 (14.44%) (RR 0.83, 0.39-1.80; P = 0.64) in the Magee and no Magee groups, respectively. There were no statistically or clinically significant differences between the randomized groups for any of the secondary outcomes. Availability of both Ki67 and Magee Equations was associated with increased physician comfort around systemic treatment decisions., Conclusions: In a practice where Ki67 is routinely available, addition of Magee Equations into routine clinic practice was not associated with a reduction in Oncotype DX use. Availability of both Ki67 and Magee Equations did however increase physician comfort with systemic therapy decisions., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Patients can start endocrine therapy before, concurrently with, or sequentially after radiotherapy. The optimal timing of starting adjuvant endocrine therapy is unknown. This survey was performed to evaluate physician recommendations., Methods: Canadian oncologists were surveyed to evaluate institutional and personal practices regarding the prescription of adjuvant endocrine therapy and radiotherapy. Perspectives regarding the design of a clinical trial to compare concurrent versus sequential therapy, and the optimum end points for such a trial, were also sought., Results: The overall response rate was 30% (65/220), with responses mainly from medical (35/65, 54%) and radiation (28/65, 43%) oncologists. Eighty-four percent of respondents reported an absence of institutional protocols. The majority of physicians (57%, 36/65) identified endocrine therapy provided after radiotherapy as the preferred sequence of treatments. Twenty-two percent (14/65) had no preference, while 21%, (14/65) started endocrine therapy either before or concurrent with radiotherapy. Practice patterns were largely based on the physician's own clinical experience. Thirty-two percent of physicians (21/65) had concerns regarding concurrent endocrine therapy and radiotherapy, including increased adverse effects with endocrine therapy (13/21, 62%), reduced efficacy of radiotherapy (4/21, 19%), reduced compliance with endocrine therapy (3/21, 14%), and increased radiation toxicity (1/21, 5%). Most thought a pragmatic clinical trial addressing this question would help standardize and improve patient care., Conclusion: Decisions around the timing of endocrine therapy and radiotherapy are largely being made on the basis of physicians' personal choices. In the absence of data to support these decisions, appropriately powered trials are needed., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Systemic chemotherapy can be administered either through a peripheral vein (IV), or centrally through peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), totally implanted vascular access devices (PORTs) or tunnelled cuffed catheters. Despite the widespread use of systemic chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer, the optimal choice of vascular access is unknown., Objective: This systematic review evaluated complication rates and patient satisfaction with different access strategies for administering neo/adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer., Evidence Reviewed: Ovid Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1946 to September 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed each citation. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of cohort and case-control studies., Findings: Of 1584 citations identified, 15 unique studies met the pre-specified eligibility criteria. There were no randomised studies comparing types of vascular access. Reports included six single-institution retrospective cohort studies, one retrospective multi-institution cohort, one retrospective cohort database study, five prospective single-institution studies, one prospective multi-institution study and one nested case-control study. Median complication rates were infection: 6.0% PICC (2 studies) versus 2.1% PORT (8 studies); thrombosis: 8.9% PICC (2 studies) versus 2.6% PORT (9 studies); extravasation: 0 PICC (1 study) versus 0.4% PORT (4 studies) and mechanical issues: PICC 3.8% (1 study) versus 1.8% PORT (9 studies). Satisfaction/quality of life appeared high with each device., Conclusion: In the absence of high-quality data comparing vascular access strategies, randomised, adequately powered, prospective studies would be required to help inform clinical practice and reduce variation.

Background: Taxane acute pain syndrome (TAPS) is characterized by myalgias and arthralgias starting 2-3 days after taxane-based chemotherapy and lasting up to 7 days. In the absence of validated tools, many studies use the presence of both the myalgia and arthralgia components of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) to define TAPS. The present study prospectively evaluated the frequency, severity, and impact of TAPS in patients with breast or prostate cancer., Patients and Methods: In this prospective, non-randomized study, patients with breast or prostate cancer commencing taxane-based chemotherapy completed the CTCAE (version 4.03), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Taxane (FACT-T), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) questionnaires at baseline and once between days 5 and 7 of each chemotherapy cycle., Results: From March 2015 to April 1, 2016, 75 patients (breast n = 66, prostate n = 9) were enrolled; 83% received docetaxel and 16% paclitaxel and 1% withdrew. After the first cycle of taxane, TAPS was reported by 25/69 (36.2%) patients; a further 8/69 (18.2%) reporting TAPS after a subsequent chemotherapy treatment. Overall incidence of TAPS was 33/75 (44%). While associated with detrimental scores on FACT-T and BPI as well as increased use of analgesics in 63% (21/33) of patients with TAPS, TAPS did not lead to alterations in chemotherapy dosing., Conclusions: TAPS is common after taxane-based chemotherapy, and its presence is associated with reduced quality of life and increased analgesic requirements. Prospective patient-reported outcome assessments are crucial to help individualize treatment strategies and improve management of TAPS.

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., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Despite widespread use of fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, docetaxel (FEC-D) chemotherapy in breast cancer, the optimal strategy for primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis remains unknown. A systematic review was therefore performed., Methods: Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and conference proceedings were searched from 1946 to April 2016 for trials that reported the effectiveness of primary FN prophylaxis with FEC-D chemotherapy. Outcome measures were incidence of FN; treatment-related hospitalizations; chemotherapy dose delays, reductions, and discontinuations; and adverse events from prophylaxis., Results: Of 2,205 identified citations, eight studies (n = 1,250) met our eligibility criteria. Three additional studies (n = 293) were identified from a prior systematic review. Three randomized controlled trials (n = 576), one phase IV single-arm trial (n = 69), one prospective observational study (n = 37), and six retrospective studies (n = 861) were identified. Agents investigated were pegfilgrastim (n = 108), filgrastim (n = 1,119), and ciprofloxacin (n = 89). The heterogeneity of studies meant that a narrative synthesis of results was performed. Median FN rates for patients who received FEC-D with and without primary prophylaxis were 10.1% (interquartile range [IQR], 3.9% to 22.6%) and 23.9% (IQR, 9.2% to 27.3%), respectively. In the absence of primary prophylaxis, FN was more common during docetaxel than during FEC. Data from six studies showed a median rate of dose reductions and delays of 6.1% (IQR, 3.1% to 14.3%) and 19.3% (IQR, 10.5% to 32.8%), respectively, that occurred as a consequence of FN. Toxicity from prophylaxis itself was rarely reported., Conclusion: Primary FN prophylaxis is effective in patients who receive FEC-D chemotherapy. The paucity of prospective data makes optimal recommendations about the choice and timing of prophylaxis challenging.

Background: Despite advances in systemic therapy choices for patients with early-stage breast cancer, optimal practices for intravenous (IV) access remain unknown. That lack of knowledge holds particularly true for the use of central venous access devices (cvads) such as peripherally inserted central catheters (piccs) and implanted vascular access devices (ports)., Methods: Using a survey of Canadian oncologists and oncology nurses responsible for the care of breast cancer patients, we evaluated current access practices, perceptions of complications, and perceptions of risk, and we estimated complication rates and evaluated perceived risk factors for lymphedema., Results: Survey responses were received from 25 physicians and 57 oncology nurses. Administration of trastuzumab or an anthracycline was associated with a higher likelihood of a cvad being recommended. Other factors associated with recommendation of a cvad included prior difficult IV access and a recommendation from the chemotherapy nurse. Although the complication rates perceived to be associated with the use of piccs and ports remained high, respondents felt that cvads might improve patient quality of life. Risk factors perceived to be associated with the risk of lymphedema were axillary lymph node dissection, radiation to the axilla, and line-associated infection. Factors known to be unrelated to lymphedema risk (specifically, blood draws and blood pressure measurement) continue to be perceived as posing a higher risk., Conclusions: Despite widespread use of chemotherapy for patients with breast cancer, the type of venous access used for treatment varies significantly, as do perceptions about the risks of cvad use and the risk for lymphedema development. Further prospective studies are needed to identify best-practice strategies.

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.

Purpose: Despite its widespread use as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis during chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer, the optimal duration of daily filgrastim is unknown. Using the minimum effective duration may improve patient comfort and acceptability while reducing costs. Yet, suboptimal dosing may also negatively impact patient care. A survey was performed to obtain information regarding current practices for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use., Methods: Canadian oncologists involved in the treatment of breast cancer patients, as well as patients who had received neo/adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, were surveyed. Standardized surveys were designed to collect information on perceived reasons for G-CSF use and current practices., Results: The surveys were completed by 38/50 (76%) physicians and 95/97 (98%) patients. For physicians, there was variability in the choice of chemotherapy regimens that required G-CSF support, the dose of filgrastim prescribed and the number of days prescribed. The majority of physicians reported using 5 (31.6%), 7 (47.4%), or 10 (13.2%) days of therapy. Nearly half of the patients (46.3%) recalled having experienced at least one of the chemotherapy-related complications including chemotherapy delays, dose reductions, and FN. While on filgrastim, 66.3% of patients reported myalgia and bone pain. Both physicians and patients expressed interest in participating in clinical trials designed to optimize the duration of filgrastim administration., Conclusions: Significant variability in practice exists with respect to filgrastim administration. Definitive studies are therefore required to standardize and improve care, as this has the potential to impact treatment outcomes, patient quality of life, and cost savings.

Introduction: The most effective duration of filgrastim as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in early breast cancer (EBC) patients is unknown. Despite significant differences in cost and toxicity, no prospective trial has been performed to optimize practice. We assessed the feasibility of using a novel pragmatic trial model to compare the most commonly used schedules of filgrastim., Methods: Early breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy were randomized to 5, 7, or 10 days of filgrastim as primary FN prophylaxis. The trial methodology integrated broad eligibility criteria, simply defined endpoints, an integrated consent model incorporating oral consent, and web-based randomization in the clinic. Feasibility was reflected through a combination of primary endpoints including patient and physician engagement (if > 50% of appropriate patients approached agree to participate, and if > 50% of physicians approached patients for the study). Secondary endpoints included the first occurrence rates of FN, treatment-related hospital admission, or chemotherapy dose reductions/delays/discontinuation., Results: From May 2015 to August 2016, 142/149 (95.3%) patients approached agreed to participate and were randomized. Seventeen of 24 (70.8%) medical oncologists approached and randomized patients. The 142 patients received a total of 495 cycles of chemotherapy. Aggregate incidences of a first event by patient were FN (8/142, 5.6%), treatment-related hospitalization (6/142, 4.2%), chemotherapy discontinuation (7/142, 4.9%), chemotherapy delays (5/142, 3.5%), and chemotherapy dose reduction (18/142, 12.7%). Overall, 31.7% (45/142) of patients and 9.0% (45/495) of chemotherapy cycles were associated with one of these first events., Conclusion: This study met its feasibility endpoints. This novel pragmatic trial approach offers a means of comparing standard of care treatments in a practical and cost-effective manner. The trial will now be expanded to compare rates of FN between the three filgrastim schedules., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02428114.

Background: Due to the high rate of febrile neutropenia (FN) with docetaxel-cyclophosphamide (DC) chemotherapy, primary FN prophylaxis is recommended. However, the optimal choice of prophylaxis [i.e., granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) or antibiotics] is unknown. A systematic review was performed to address this knowledge gap., Methods: Embase, Ovid Medline, Pubmed, the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, and Cochrane register of controlled trials were searched from 1946 to April 2016 for studies evaluating primary prophylactic FN treatments in breast cancer patients receiving DC chemotherapy. Outcome measures evaluated included: incidence of FN and treatment-related hospitalizations, chemotherapy dose reduction/delays/discontinuations, and adverse events. Screening and data collection were performed by two independent reviewers., Results: Of 2105 identified records, 7 studies (n = 2535) met the pre-specified eligibility criteria. Seven additional studies (n = 621) were identified from prior systematic reviews. There were 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2256) and 11 retrospective studies (n = 900). Study sample sizes ranged from 30 to 982 patients (median 99.5), evaluating pegfilgrastim (n = 1274), filgrastim (n = 1758), and oral ciprofloxacin (n = 108). Given the heterogeneity of patients and study design, a narrative synthesis of results was performed. Median FN rates with and without primary prophylaxis were 6.6 % (IQR 3.9-10.6 %) and 31.3 % (IQR 25-33 %), respectively. No FN-related deaths were reported. No RCT directly compared G-CSF with antibiotic interventions., Conclusions: Primary FN prophylaxis reduces the incidence of FN. Despite considerable cost and toxicity differences between G-CSF and antibiotics, there is insufficient data to make a recommendation of one strategy over another.