Search

Abstract The utility of spatial immunobiomarker quantitation in prognostication and therapeutic prediction is actively being investigated in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Here, with high-plex quantitative digital spatial profiling, we map and quantitate intraepithelial and adjacent stromal tumor immune protein microenvironments in systemic treatment-naïve (female only) TNBC to assess the spatial context in immunobiomarker-based prediction of outcome. Immune protein profiles of CD45-rich and CD68-rich stromal microenvironments differ significantly. While they typically mirror adjacent, intraepithelial microenvironments, this is not uniformly true. In two TNBC cohorts, intraepithelial CD40 or HLA-DR enrichment associates with better outcomes, independently of stromal immune protein profiles or stromal TILs and other established prognostic variables. In contrast, intraepithelial or stromal microenvironment enrichment with IDO1 associates with improved survival irrespective of its spatial location. Antigen-presenting and T-cell activation states are inferred from eigenprotein scores. Such scores within the intraepithelial compartment interact with PD-L1 and IDO1 in ways that suggest prognostic and/or therapeutic potential. This characterization of the intrinsic spatial immunobiology of treatment-naïve TNBC highlights the importance of spatial microenvironments for biomarker quantitation to resolve intrinsic prognostic and predictive immune features and ultimately inform therapeutic strategies for clinically actionable immune biomarkers.

Purpose: To assess acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) targeting the prostate/seminal vesicles and pelvic lymph nodes for prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: A prospective study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02874014), evaluating moderately hypofractionated IMPT for high-risk or unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, accrued a target sample size of 56 patients. The prostate/seminal vesicles and pelvic lymph nodes were treated simultaneously with 6750 and 4500 centigray radiobiologic equivalent (cGyRBE), respectively, in 25 daily fractions. All received androgen-deprivation therapy. Acute GI and GU toxicities were prospectively assessed from 7 GI and 9 GU categories of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4), at baseline, weekly during radiotherapy, and 3-month after radiotherapy. Fisher exact tests were used for comparisons of categorical data. Results: Median age was 75 years. Median follow-up was 25 months. Fifty-five patients were available for acute toxicity assessment. Sixty-two percent and 2%, respectively, experienced acute grade 1 and 2 GI toxicity. Grade 2 GI toxicity was proctitis. Sixty-five percent and 35%, respectively, had acute grade 1 and 2 GU toxicity. The 3 most frequent grade 2 GU toxicities were urinary frequency, urgency, and obstructive symptoms. None had acute grade ≥ 3 GI or GU toxicity. The presence of baseline GI and GU symptoms was associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing acute GI and GU toxicity, respectively. Of 45 patients with baseline GU symptoms, 44% experienced acute grade 2 GU toxicity, compared with only 10% among 10 with no baseline GU symptoms (P = 0.07). Although acute grade 1 and 2 GI and GU toxicities were common during radiotherapy, most resolved at 3 months after radiotherapy. Conclusion: A moderately hypofractionated IMPT targeting the prostate/seminal vesicles and regional pelvic lymph nodes was well tolerated with no acute grade ≥ 3 GI or GU toxicity. Patients with baseline GU symptoms had a higher rate of acute grade 2 GU toxicity.

Objective: Choosing an aged care services provider is a complex decision. This study explored the factors older people and their families consider during this decision-making process., Methods: Four focus groups (two in rural, two in urban Queensland) included older people using and not using aged care services and family members seeking residential aged care services., Results: Four themes emerged from the analysis of participants' perspectives, with human needs (such as autonomy, caring, respect, certainty) and organisational values (such as person-centredness) viewed as most important. Costs, value for money and regulatory considerations were sometimes perceived to be more important than locality. The perceived significance of facilities, services and amenity needs differed according to age and time of life, although a clear pathway to residential aged care facilities from living in the community was desired. Finding information, planning and choosing providers was seen to be hindered by lack of accessible, quality information., Conclusions: Meeting human needs (such as autonomy, caring, respect, certainty) through organisational values (such as person-centredness) is the most desirable factor according to the perceptions of older people and their families when choosing an aged care services provider., (© 2019 AJA Inc.)

Aim: To examine current practice of genetic counselling by nurses., Background: Recent debate argues that genetic counselling is a specialist advanced practice role, whilst others argue it is the role of all nurses. Current evidence is required to determine if genetic counselling could be included in all nurses' scope of practice., Design: Integrative literature review., Data Sources: A search of electronic databases (CINHAL, Medline, PubMed, Scopus), and reference lists published between January 2012 and March 2017, was undertaken., Review Methods: Studies were critically appraised for methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Data from each study were extracted and categorized according to their primary findings., Results: The inclusion criteria were met in 10 studies. Main findings were identified: role of genetic counselling, current knowledge, need for further education, and client satisfaction with nurse genetic counsellors., Conclusion: This paper concludes that some nurses do engage in genetic counselling, but how they engage is not consistent, nor is there consensus about what should be the scope of practice. Further investigation into credentialing, role recognition support and education for nurse genetic counselling are strongly recommended. As nurses are widely available, nurses can make a significant contribution to supporting those affected by genetic problems., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: Lapatinib (L) plus trastuzumab (T) improves outcomes for metastatic human epidermal growth factor 2-positive breast cancer and increases the pathologic complete response in the neoadjuvant setting, but their role as adjuvant therapy remains uncertain., Methods: In the Adjuvant Lapatinib and/or Trastuzumab Treatment Optimization trial, patients with centrally confirmed human epidermal growth factor 2-positive early breast cancer were randomly assigned to 1 year of adjuvant therapy with T, L, their sequence (T→L), or their combination (L+T). The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS), with 850 events required for 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.8 for L+T versus T., Results: Between June 2007 and July 2011, 8,381 patients were enrolled. In 2011, due to futility to demonstrate noninferiority of L versus T, the L arm was closed, and patients free of disease were offered adjuvant T. A protocol modification required P ≤ .025 for the two remaining pairwise comparisons. At a protocol-specified analysis with a median follow-up of 4.5 years, a 16% reduction in the DFS hazard rate was observed with L+T compared with T (555 DFS events; HR, 0.84; 97.5% CI, 0.70 to 1.02; P = .048), and a 4% reduction was observed with T→L compared with T (HR, 0.96; 97.5% CI, 0.80 to 1.15; P = .61). L-treated patients experienced more diarrhea, cutaneous rash, and hepatic toxicity compared with T-treated patients. The incidence of cardiac toxicity was low in all treatment arms., Conclusion: Adjuvant treatment that includes L did not significantly improve DFS compared with T alone and added toxicity. One year of adjuvant T remains standard of care., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)