Search

Background Primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin or granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) is recommended with docetaxel-cyclophosphamide (TC) chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer (EBC). A pragmatic randomised trial compared the superiority of G-CSF to ciprofloxacin and a cost-utility analysis were conducted. Methods EBC patients receiving TC chemotherapy were randomised to ciprofloxacin or G-CSF. The primary outcome was a composite of FN and non-FN treatment-related hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes included; rates of FN, non-FN treatment-related hospitalisation, chemotherapy dose reductions/delays/discontinuations. Primary analysis was performed with the intention to treat population. Cost-utility analyses were conducted from the Canadian public payer perspective. Results 458 eligible patients were randomised: 228 to ciprofloxacin and 230 to G-CSF. For the primary endpoint there was non-statistically significant difference (Risk difference = −6.7%, 95%CI = −13.5%–0.1%, p = 0.061) between ciprofloxacin patients (46,20.2%) and G-CSF (31,13.5%). Patients receiving ciprofloxacin were more likely to experience FN (36/228, 15.8% vs 13/230, 5.7%) than patients receiving G-CSF (p, Highlights • Primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis is indicated for docetaxel-cyclophosphamide (TC) chemotherapy. • In this multicentre trial 458 breast cancer patients receiving TC chemotherapy were randomised to ciprofloxacin or to G-CSF. • For the primary endpoint of FN and non-FN treatment-related hospitalizations, G-CSF was not superior over ciprofloxacin. • While there were reduced FN rates with G-CSF, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was C$1,760,796 per one QALYWALY gained.

Background Optimal use of bone-modifying agent (BMA) therapy in patients with bone metastases from breast and castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is evolving. Methods Patients receiving BMA for bone metastases from breast or CRPC were surveyed. Information was collected on patient and disease characteristics, BMA treatments and perceptions regarding BMA benefits and side effects. Interest in participation in trials of de-escalated BMA therapy was also gauged. Results Of 220 patients contacted, 172 eligible patients responded (response rate 78%). Median age was 67 (range: 21–91); 137 (80%) had breast cancer and 35 (20%) CRPC. Symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) occurred prior to starting BMAs in 61% (84/137) of breast and 48% (17/35) of CRPC patients. Among breast cancer patients, 47, 33 and 13% received zoledronate, pamidronate and denosumab, respectively. Eighty-five percent (30/35) of CRPC patients received denosumab. De-escalation of therapy was more common among breast cancer patients. Although most patients correctly reported the goals of BMA therapy were to “help stop fractures” (62%) and “[improve] quality of life” (63%), 46.5% felt it prolonged survival and 54% felt it reduced bone progression. Most respondents (102/129, 79%) were comfortable with de-escalating to 6-monthly treatment after 2 years of BMA therapy. Patients considered the most important endpoints of de-escalation studies to be “stability of bone metastases” (45%), “quality of life” (22%) and “SSE rates” (14%). Conclusion Twelve weekly BMA was more common in breast than in prostate cancer. There remain misconceptions about the benefits of BMAs, highlighting potential gaps in patient education. Patients were interested in further BMA de-escalation after 2 years of prior BMA and provided study endpoints that were most important to them. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-021-06238-1.

Taxane-associated pain syndrome (TAPS) is common with docetaxel and is characterised by myalgias and arthralgias starting 2–3 days after treatment and can last for up to 7 days. Anecdotal evidence suggests that corticosteroids can reduce TAPS. This multicentre, randomized trial evaluated the effect of additional tapering dexamethasone on TAPS. 130 breast cancer patients commencing docetaxel were randomized to dexamethasone premedication (8 mg/twice daily for 3 days) or dexamethasone premedication followed by tapering dexamethasone (4 mg/daily for 2 days followed by 2 mg/daily for 2 days). The primary endpoint was absolute change in FACT-Taxane questionnaire during the first chemotherapy cycle. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients with clinically significant TAPS, QoL, pain and toxicity. 110/130 patients had complete data included in the primary analysis. The fall in FACT-Taxane scores was lower in the experimental group on day 5 (p = 0.05), but not on day 7 (p = 0.21). There was no difference in FACT-Taxane scores over the entire study duration (p = 0.59). Fewer patients in the experimental arm reported TAPS on day 5 (30 vs. 47%). There was a borderline significant attenuation of impairment of QoL with experimental treatment on day 5 (p = 0.06), but not day 7 (p = 0.53). Tapered schedule was associated with more dyspepsia and insomnia. A tapering schedule of dexamethasone was associated with a brief reduction in docetaxel-associated symptoms which was observed only during dexamethasone exposure and did not persist after discontinuation of the drug. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03348696

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.

Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) for bone metastases are commonly prescribed for many years even though randomized clinical trials are only 1–2 years in duration. A systematic review on the risk-benefit of BMA use for > 2 years in breast cancer or castrate-resistant prostate cancer was conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched (1970–February 2019) for randomized and observational studies, and case series reporting on BMA efficacy (skeletal-related events and quality of life) and toxicity (osteonecrosis of the jaw, renal impairment, hypocalcemia, and atypical femoral fractures) beyond 2 years. Of 2107 citations, 64 studies were identified. Three prospective and 9 retrospective studies were eligible. Data beyond 2 years was limited to subgroup analyses in all studies. Only one study (n = 181) reported skeletal-related event rates based on bisphosphonate exposure, with decreased rates from 27.6% (0–24 months) to 15.5% (> 24 months). None reported on quality of life. All 12 studies (denosumab (n = 948), zoledronate (n = 1036), pamidronate (n = 163), pamidronate-zoledronate (n = 522), ibandronate (n = 118)) reported ≥ 1 toxicity outcome. Seven bisphosphonate studies (n = 1077) and one denosumab study (n = 948) reported on osteonecrosis of the jaw. Across three studies (n = 1236), osteonecrosis of the jaw incidence ranged from 1 to 4% in the first 2 years to 3.8–18% after 2 years. Clinically significant hypocalcemia ranged from 1 to 2%. Severe renal function decline was ≤ 3%. Atypical femoral fractures were rare. Evidence informing the use of BMA beyond 2 years is heterogeneous and based on retrospective analysis. Prospective randomized studies with greater emphasis on quality of life are needed. CRD42019126813

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. 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. 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. 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. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02632435

Highlights • Adjuvant bisphosphonates are an established standard in postmenopausal breast cancer. • Guidelines note the need to explore different agents, doses, and intervals of bisphosphonates. • Feasibility of randomizing to 6-monthly vs one dose of IV zoledronate was demonstrated., Background Adjuvant zoledronate is widely used in patients with early stage breast cancer (EBC), but its optimal duration and dosing interval is still unknown. While a single-dose of zoledronate can improve bone density for many years, a proper evaluation of its effects on breast cancer-related outcomes would require a large trial. In this pilot study we evaluated the feasibility of performing such a trial. Methods Eligible patients with EBC were randomised to receive either one dose of zoledronate or 7 doses (6-monthly dosing for 3 years). Feasibility was assessed by a combination of primary outcomes including: activation of at least 6 Ontario sites within a year, active participation (i.e. approaching eligible patients for study participation) of at least half of the medical oncologists, and enrolment of at least 100 patients across all sites within 9 months of the sixth site being activated. Results All 6 sites were activated within 1 year and of 47 medical oncologists, 27 (57%) approached patients. Between November 2018 and April 2020, 211 eligible patients were randomised, 106 (50.2%) to a single dose of zoledronate and 105 (49.8%) to 6-monthly dosing. Baseline characteristics of randomised patients included; median age 59 (range 36–88), ER and/or PR positive (85%), Her2 positive (23%), menopausal status (premenopausal [19%], perimenopausal [6.7%] and postmenopausal [74%]) and 74% received neo/adjuvant chemotherapy. Conclusions All study feasibility endpoints were met in this trial comparing alternative schedules for adjuvant zoledronate. We will now seek funding for performing a larger efficacy trial. Trial registration: NCT03664687.

Highlights • Guidelines recommend adjuvant bisphosphonates for postmenopausal higher risk breast cancer patients. • Use of these agents in clinical practice appears low. • We surveyed patients receiving adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy · Results showed that while patients plan to complete all treatment cycles, they are enthusiastic about future trials evaluating de-escalation strategies., Background Despite the increasing use of adjuvant bisphosphonates for early stage breast cancer (EBC), little is known about the patient experience with such treatments. A patient survey was performed to identify current prescribing practices, perceptions around the role of treatment, the impact of treatment on patients’ quality of life, and future trial designs. Methods EBC patients who had either completed or were currently receiving adjuvant bisphosphonates were sent an anonymized survey. The survey collected information on patient and disease characteristics, bisphosphonate scheduling, compliance, and tolerance. Questions also assessed patient interest in trials of de-escalated bisphosphonate therapy. Results A total of 255 patients were contacted, with 164 eligible respondents (eligible response rate 164/255, 64.3%). Median patient age was 52 years (range 28 to 82 years). The majority (111/163, 68.1%) were postmenopausal at the time of diagnosis, 23.3% (38/163) were premenopausal, and 7.4% (12/163) were perimenopausal. Most patients (78%) had received chemotherapy. Zoledronate was the most commonly used bisphosphonate (92%), with the majority receiving treatment every 6 months for 3 years (73%). While 66% (107/161) of respondents had experienced side effects with treatment, most had, or expected to, complete treatment (154/163, 94%). Provided there was no detriment in breast cancer outcomes, there was strong interest in future studies of de-escalating adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy. Conclusion While most patients tolerate their treatment, there is interest in performing trials of de-escalation of these agents.

Purpose Despite the increasing use of adjuvant bone-modifying agents (BMAs) such as zoledronate and clodronate in the treatment of patients with early stage breast cancer (EBC), little is known about real world practice patterns. A physician survey was performed to address this deficit and determine interest in clinical trials of alternative strategies for BMA administration. Methods Canadian oncologists treating patients with EBC were surveyed via an anonymized online survey. The survey collected information on: physician demographics, knowledge and interpretation of adjuvant bisphosphonate guidelines, and real world prescribing practices. Questions also determined thoughts around the design of future adjuvant BMA trials. Results Of 127 surveyed physicians, 53 eligible invitees responded (response rate 42%). The majority of physicians are offering high-risk postmenopausal patients adjuvant BMAs. The most common BMA regimen was adjuvant zoledronate (45/53, 85%) every 6 months for 3 years. Concerns around toxicities and repeated visits to the cancer centre were perceived as the greatest barriers to adjuvant bisphosphonate use. Respondents were interested in future trials of de-escalation of BMAs comparing a single infusion of zoledronate vs. 6-monthly zoledronate for 3 years. The most favoured primary endpoints for such a trial included disease recurrence and fragility fracture rates. Conclusion Questions around optimal use of adjuvant bisphosphonates in patients with EBC still exist. There is interest among physicians in performing trials of de-escalation of these agents. The results of this survey will assist in designing pragmatic clinical trials to address this question. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10549-021-06147-1.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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

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.

e24083 Background: Randomized clinical trials evaluated bone modifying agents (BMAs) such as bisphosphonates and denosumab for bone metastases for 1-2 years in duration even though BMA therapy is commonly administered for much longer. A systematic review on the risk-benefit of continuing BMAs for longer than 2 years in breast cancer or castrate-resistant prostate cancer was conducted. Methods: Medline, Embase and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched (1970 - February 2019) for randomized studies, observational studies, and case series reporting on BMA efficacy and toxicity beyond 2 years. Efficacy was assessed by skeletal-related event (SRE) rates and quality of life metrics. Toxicity was assessed by rates of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), renal impairment, hypocalcemia, and atypical femoral fractures (AFF). Results: Of 2107 citations, 64 studies were identified. A total of 3 prospective and 9 retrospective studies were eligible. Data beyond 2 years was limited to subgroup analyses in all studies. Three studies [zoledronate (ZOL) (n = 481), pamidronate (PAM) (n = 87), PAM-ZOL (n = 43) ibandronate (n = 30)] reported on SRE-related endpoints. Only one study reported SRE rates based on duration of BMA exposure and showed reduced SRE rates from 27.6% (0-24 months) to 15.5% ( > 24 months) over time. None reported on quality of life. All 12 studies [denosumab (n = 948), ZOL (n = 1036), PAM (n = 163), PAM-ZOL (n = 522), ibandronate (n = 118)] reported on at least one toxicity outcome. Data from 7 bisphosphonate studies (n = 1077) and 1 denosumab study (n = 948) reported on ONJ incidence. In 3 studies (n = 67, n = 221, n = 948), ONJ incidence ranged from 1-4% in the first 2 years and from 3.8-18% beyond 2 years. In another study (n = 252), the cumulative hazard of ONJ was 0% (1% ZOL), 3% (7% ZOL), 7% (21% ZOL) and 11% (21% ZOL) at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, respectively (p = 0.005); 4 remaining studies reported 1 (n = 181), 3 (n = 57), 7 (n = 99) and 2 (n = 200) cases of ONJ, all after 24 months. Incidence of clinically significant hypocalcemia ranged from 1-2%. Incidence of severe renal function decline was ≤ 3%. AFF occurred in two subjects in one of two studies after 37 and 79 months of BMA exposure. Conclusions: Although the evidence informing the use of BMA is heterogeneous and based on retrospective analysis, BMA exposure beyond 2 years is associated with reduced SRE risk and increased ONJ incidence. Prospective randomized studies addressing the use of BMA for more than 2 years is needed with greater emphasis on quality of life.