Search

Background: Current guidelines recommend the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) as primary prophylaxis to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) associated with commonly used breast cancer chemotherapy regimens. Filgrastim (FIL) is a short-acting G-CSF injection that requires daily subcutaneous injection starting 24-72 hours after chemotherapy for 5 to 10 days. Pegfilgrastim (PEG) is a long-acting, pegylated formulation that requires a single injection 24-72 hours after chemotherapy. G-CSF causes bone pain in approximately 70% of patients, which can be severe in over 25% of cases. While registration trials for PEG showed bone pain from PEG was comparable to FIL when given for a median duration of 11 days, many oncologists are now only prescribing FIL for 5 days based on a multicenter RCT showing that 5 days of FIL is non-inferior to 7 or 10 days of FIL in terms of FN and treatment-related hospitalizations. Furthermore, the cost of 5 days of FIL ($CA 721.55 for 300 mcg dose) is half of the price of a single dose of PEG ($CA 1424.63). Therefore, if 5 days of FIL leads to significantly less bone pain, this may improve health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) for patients, improve adherence to G-CSF, and improve cost-effectiveness. Methods: Patients receiving neo-/adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer requiring primary FN prophylaxis with G-CSF will be approached for this pragmatic, multicenter, open-label superiority RCT. Using the Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) methodology that incorporates an integrated oral consent model, eligible and consented patients will be randomized to either 5 days of FIL or one day of PEG with each cycle of chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is bone pain during the first 5 days after G-CSF injection using area under the curve (AUC) of the daily pain score from days 1-5 (AUC score 0 to 40) of the Bone Pain Diary. Secondary endpoints include incidence of FN and treatment-related hospitalizations, incidence of chemotherapy delay, dose-reduction, or discontinuation, incidence of chemotherapy-related mortality, rate of G-CSF compliance, healthcare resource utilization, HR-QoL, and cost-effectiveness. Participants will also complete a Treatment Preference Questionnaire (TPQ) exploring the relative importance of different factors in deciding between PEG vs. 5 days of FIL both before randomization and at the end of the study. To achieve 80% power in an ANCOVA analysis and assuming 5% are loss to follow-up, the planned sample size is 232 patients (116 per arm). The randomization (1:1 ratio) will be stratified by treatment center (4 centers) and chemotherapy regimen (taxane-based vs. anthracycline-based in the first 4 cycles). Results: The study opened for enrollment on June 9, 2021. As of July 6, 2021, the study has opened at one site, and 13 patients have been randomized.Conclusion: This will be the first RCT using a patient-reported Bone Pain Diary that was co-developed by patient partners to measure bone pain between 5 days of FIL vs. PEG. In collaboration with patient partners, the study incorporates a tool (TPQ) that explores factors that may be important in deciding between PEG and FIL, with the aim of translating the findings of this study into real world clinical practice. Citation Format: Terry L. Ng, Monica Taljaard, Marie-France Savard, Carol Stober, Stuart Nicholls, Lisa Vandermeer, Kednapa Thavorn, Claudia Hampel, Jennifer Shamess, Natalie Mills, John F. Hilton, Mark Clemons. A randomized, multicenter pragmatic trial comparing bone pain from a single dose of pegfilgrastim to 5 doses of daily filgrastim in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy (REaCT-5G) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT2-21-01.

A cost–utility analysis was performed based on the Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) bone-targeted agents (BTA) clinical trial that compared 12-weekly (once every 12 weeks) (n = 130) versus 4-weekly (once every 4 weeks) (n = 133) BTA dosing for metastatic breast and castration-resistant prostate (CRPC) cancer. Using a decision tree model, we calculated treatment and symptomatic skeletal event (SSE) costs as well as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each treatment option. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the study findings. The total cost of BTA treatment in Canadian dollars (C$) and estimated QALYs was C$8965.03 and 0.605 QALY in the 4-weekly group versus C$5669.95 and 0.612 QALY in the 12-weekly group, respectively. De-escalation from 4-weekly to 12-weekly BTA reduces cost (C$3293.75) and improves QALYs by 0.008 unit, suggesting that 12-weekly BTA dominates 4-weekly BTA in breast and CRPC patients with bone metastases. Sensitivity analysis suggests high levels of uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness findings. De-escalation of bone-targeted agents is cost-effective from the Canadian public payer’s perspective.

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 &minus, 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 &minus, 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.

Prior to docetaxel chemotherapy, incomplete dosing of steroid premedication is common. The lack of standardized steroid replacement strategies can lead to variability in care and delays in starting docetaxel. This randomized trial compared physician-directed with fixed-dose dexamethasone. Patients who had missed at least one dose of steroid premedication were randomized to physician-directed replacement (any choice of steroid, dose or route) or to dexamethasone 8 mg oral before starting docetaxel. The primary outcome was time from randomization to starting docetaxel. Secondary outcomes included rates of acute and delayed hypersensitivity reactions, fluid retention and skin toxicity. Of 60 eligible patients, 30 (50%) and 30 (50%) were randomized to physician-directed and fixed-dose arms, respectively. Overall tumour types: breast (42 [70%]), gastrointestinal (7 [12%]), prostate (7 [12%]) and lung (3 [7%]). Dexamethasone was most commonly incompletely taken with cycles 1 (28 [48%]) and 2 (13 [22%]) of docetaxel. Seven different replacement strategies were used in the physician-choice arm. Patients in the fixed-dose arm received docetaxel a mean of 21.2 (95% CI for the difference is 2.1 to 44.6) minutes earlier than the physician-choice arm (p = 0.033 Wilcoxon rank sum test or p = 0.073 two-sample t test). Median time to docetaxel was 47.5 vs 61 min (mean 62.2 vs 83.4 min) by arm, respectively. No significant difference in toxicity rates was observed. While not meeting our predefined criteria of improving the time from randomization to starting docetaxel by 30 min, the fixed-dose replacement strategy reduced both the time to starting docetaxel and treatment variability. Fixed dosing with oral dexamethasone 8 mg should be the preferred standard of care. www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02815319 June 28, 2016

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

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.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.Correlation with ODX scores was between 0.7 and 0.8 (Gage), 0.8 and 0.9 (Magee 2, University of Tennessee predictive algorithm), and0.9 (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 aged50 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.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.

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

Background We present the 2-year results of a randomised trial comparing 4- versus 12-weekly bone-targeting agents (BTAs) in patients with bone metastases from breast or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Patients and Methods Patients with bone metastases from breast or CRPC, who were going to start or were already receiving BTAs, were randomised to 4- or 12-weekly BTA treatment for 2 years. The endpoints were: symptomatic skeletal events (SSE) rates, time to SSEs, toxicity and cost-effectiveness. 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%). After 2 years, the cumulative incidence rate (95% CI) of SSEs was 32.7% (24.6% to 41.1%) and 28.1% (20.3% to 36.4%) for the 4- and 12-weekly intervention groups respectively. The hazard ratio for time to first SSE was 0.96 (95% CI = 0.63 to 1.47). However, in a post hoc analysis, those patients who had an on-study SSE, there was a small non-statistical increased risk of subsequent SSEs among patients on the 12-weekly dosing arm (HR = 1.14; 95% CI – 0.90–1.44). BTA-related toxicity rates were similar between study arms. A cost-utility analysis showed that 12-weekly BTA is cost-effective from a public payer’s perspective. Conclusion These results in addition to those previously reported for de-escalating zoledronate, would support that de-escalation of commonly used BTAs is a reasonable and economically valid treatment option. While not statistically significant, the increase in subsequent SSEs in the 12-weekly arm requires further exploration.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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). 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. These data are supportive of de-escalation of zoledronate from onset for patients with bone metastases from breast cancer.

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.

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.

The effect of longer-term use of bone-modifying agent (BMA) on symptomatic skeletal event (SSE) rates in patients with bone metastases remains unclear. This retrospective study of a cohort of patients in a randomized controlled trial evaluated SSEs in patients receiving BMAs at a single cancer center.Data from patients with metastatic breast and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) were interrogated to evaluate the effects of longer-term use of BMAs on incidence, type, and risk factors for SSEs.Of 162 patients, 109 (67%) had breast cancer (BC) and 53 (33%) CRPC. Median age at diagnosis of bone metastases was 61.9 years (range 27.5-97.2) for BC patients and 72.1 (range 37.0-92.2) for CRPC patients. Median duration of BMA use was 2.3 years (range 0.1-9.9 years) for BC and 3.8 years (range 1.5-9.4) for CRPC patients. The initial BMAs in BC patients were pamidronate (46.8%), denosumab (31.2%), and zoledronate (22%). All CRPC patients received denosumab. During follow-up, 59% of BC and 75% of CRPC patients had at least one SSE. The number of patients experiencing ≥ 1 SSE per year was higher in the first year after bone metastasis diagnosis (63/162; 38.9%) compared with that in the second (26/149; 17.5%) and third years (30/123; 24.4%). Neither age, visceral disease, multiple bone metastases, nor biological markers for BC had a significant impact on time to first SSE.The risk for SSEs was greatest in the first year after diagnosis of bone metastasis. Studies evaluating de-escalation and even stopping of BMAs with longer-term use may therefore be warranted.

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.

Background Excess weight has been associated with increased morbidity and a worse prognosis in adult patients with early-stage cancer. The optimal lifestyle interventions to optimize anthropometric measures amongst cancer patients and survivors remain inconsistent. Objective To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of exercise and dietary interventions alone or in combination on anthropometric measures of adult cancer patients and survivors. Methods A systematic search of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Trials Registry was performed. Outcomes of interest included changes in weight, body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference. Screening and data collection were performed by two reviewers. Bayesian NMAs were performed. Results Overall, 98 RCTs were included; 75 were incorporated in NMAs (n = 12,199). Groups of intervention strategies included: 3 exercise interventions, 8 dietary interventions, 7 combination interventions of diet and exercise and standard care. Median intervention duration was 26 weeks. NMA suggested that diet alone (mean difference [MD] -2.25kg, 95% CrI -3.43 to -0.91kg) and combination strategies (MD -2.52kg, 95% CrI -3.54 to -1.62kg) were associated with more weight loss compared to standard care. All dietary interventions achieved a similar magnitude of weight loss (MD range from -2.03kg to -2.52kg). Both diet alone and combination strategies demonstrated greater BMI reductions versus standard care, and each of diet alone, exercise alone and combination strategies demonstrated greater reductions in waist circumference than standard care. Conclusion Diet and exercise alone or in combination are effective lifestyle interventions to improve anthropometric measures in cancer patients and survivors. All reputable diets appear to be similarly effective to achieve weight loss.

Prior to docetaxel chemotherapy, incomplete dosing of steroid premedication is common. The lack of standardized steroid replacement strategies can lead to variability in care and delays in starting docetaxel.This randomized trial compared physician-directed with fixed-dose dexamethasone. Patients who had missed at least one dose of steroid premedication were randomized to physician-directed replacement (any choice of steroid, dose or route) or to dexamethasone 8 mg oral before starting docetaxel. The primary outcome was time from randomization to starting docetaxel. Secondary outcomes included rates of acute and delayed hypersensitivity reactions, fluid retention and skin toxicity.Of 60 eligible patients, 30 (50%) and 30 (50%) were randomized to physician-directed and fixed-dose arms, respectively. Overall tumour types: breast (42 [70%]), gastrointestinal (7 [12%]), prostate (7 [12%]) and lung (3 [7%]). Dexamethasone was most commonly incompletely taken with cycles 1 (28 [48%]) and 2 (13 [22%]) of docetaxel. Seven different replacement strategies were used in the physician-choice arm. Patients in the fixed-dose arm received docetaxel a mean of 21.2 (95% CI for the difference is 2.1 to 44.6) minutes earlier than the physician-choice arm (p = 0.033 Wilcoxon rank sum test or p = 0.073 two-sample t test). Median time to docetaxel was 47.5 vs 61 min (mean 62.2 vs 83.4 min) by arm, respectively. No significant difference in toxicity rates was observed.While not meeting our predefined criteria of improving the time from randomization to starting docetaxel by 30 min, the fixed-dose replacement strategy reduced both the time to starting docetaxel and treatment variability. Fixed dosing with oral dexamethasone 8 mg should be the preferred standard of care. REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02815319 REGISTRATION DATE: June 28, 2016.

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.

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., Highlights • Four- versus 12-weekly therapy of bone-targeting agents in patients with bone metastases from breast or prostate cancer. • BTAs used in the study are pamidronate, zoledronate and denosumab. • Twelve-weekly therapy was non-inferior to 4-weekly therapy for the primary outcome of health-related quality of life. • No significant difference was seen in symptomatic skeletal event (SSE) rates and SSE-free survival between arms. • Results consistent with previous studies, suggests that de-escalation of BTAs is a reasonable treatment option.

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. 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. 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. 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: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02173262

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02428114.

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.

Physicians and academic researchers are frequently targeted with spam invitations to submit manuscripts to predatory journals. This study was conducted to understand the nature and characteristics of these invitations. All spam e-mails received by an academic medical oncologist over a 3-month period were collected and categorized. Presumed predatory journal invitations were analyzed and cross-checked against Beall’s list of “potential, probable, or possible predatory” journals and publishers. Invitations to submit to predatory journals were the most common single type of spam received.

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.

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

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.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.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.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.

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.

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.

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.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.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.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.

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.

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.

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.

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. This systematic review evaluated complication rates and patient satisfaction with different access strategies for administering neo/adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. 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. 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. 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.

We have presented a collection of prospectively collected data pertaining to the nature of e-mail messages received in modern clinical oncology practice. Despite all the limitations of the study, some useful information emerged. Use of ooo appears to reduce the number of e-mail messages a physician receives. If you use ooo so that people sending you messages of importance recognize that they won’t be receiving a reply, then there is value in using it. Further, physicians could have some peace of mind that senders are aware not to expect a response as quickly as they might otherwise anticipate. Perhaps a notification saying “your e-mail message will be deleted; if it is important that I see it, please resend upon my return” might ultimately be the optimal way to manage an inbox during an absence from work?

11501 Background: Defining the optimal dosing interval of commonly used bone-targeted agents (BTAs), such as denosumab and bisphosphonates, for patients with bone metastases remains an important clinical question. We performed a pragmatic randomised trial comparing the non-inferiority of 12- versus 4-weekly BTAs in patients with bone metastases from breast and prostate cancer. Methods: Patients with bone metastases, who were either BTA-naïve, or already receiving, denosumab, pamidronate or zoledronate were eligible. They were randomised to receive their chosen BTA every 12- or 4-weeks for one year. The primary endpoint was Health related quality of life (HRQL) (EORTC-QLQ-C30 Functional Domain - Physical Subdomain). Secondary endpoints included: pain (EORTC-QLQ-BM22 - pain domain), Global Health Status (EORTC-QLQ-C30), symptomatic skeletal events (SSE) rates and time to SSEs. Adverse events and toxicity profiles were also compared. Results: Of 263 patients (60.8% breast and 39.2% prostate), 130 (49.4%) were randomised to 12-weekly and 133 (50.6%) to 4-weekly therapy. 138 (52.5%) were bone-agent naïve. The BTAs included; denosumab (n=148, 56.3%), zoledronate (n=63, 24.0%) and pamidronate (n=52, 19.8%). Study-reported outcomes showed no significant difference in; HRQL-physical domain (median [range]: 0 [-86, 40] vs. 0 [-66, 53.3]), pain (median [range]: 0 [-66, 72] vs. 0 [-100, 88]), Global Health Status (median [range]: 0 [-100, 66.7] vs. 0 [-83, 33.3]), SSE rates (N [%]: 24 [18.5%] vs. 22 [16.5%]), 1-year SSE-free rate (median, range; 73.2% [63.6, 80.7] vs. 77.9% [69.1, 84.4]) between the 12- and 4-weekly arms, respectively. Subgroup analyses for BTA naïve and pre-treated patients, and for patients receiving denosumab, zoledronate and pamidronate, showed no significant difference between the 12- and 4-weekly arms. There was no significant difference in reported rates of renal impairment (2.3% vs. 3.0%), symptomatic hypocalcaemia (1.5% vs. 1.5%) or osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.8% vs. 0.8%). Conclusion: The findings of this trial are consistent with those previously reported for de-escalating zoledronate. This trial also included patients receiving de-escalated denosumab and pamidronate. While the results of the Swiss REDUSE trial are awaited, the data presented would suggest that de-escalation of all commonly used BTAs is a reasonable treatment option. Clinical trial information: NCT02721433.