Search

Background: Current guidelines recommend bone modifying agents (BMAs), such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, every 4 to 12 weeks to reduce the incidence of and delay the onset of symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Given the absence of level one evidence, the optimal frequency and duration of BMAs after 2 years of treatment is unknown. This is an important clinical question as the risk of SSEs decreases with time, while the risk of treatment-related toxicities increases. Methods: Patients with bone metastases from breast cancer or CRPC who have received ≥ two years of BMA treatment will be approached for this pragmatic, multicenter, open-label RCT. Using the Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) methodology that incorporates the integrated oral consent model, eligible and consented patients will be randomized to either continue standard schedule BMA (every 4 or 12 weeks) or de-escalated BMA (every 24 weeks). This is a non-inferiority study. The co-primary endpoints are the physical functioning subscale of EORTC-QLQ-C30 and functional interference subscale of EORTC-QLQ-BM22. Secondary endpoints include number of patients with ≥ 1 SSE, time to development of SSE, SSE-free survival, skeletal morbidity rate, EORTC-QLQ-C30 and BM22 scores, BMA-related toxicity, and treatment adherence. To achieve 80% power for both co-primary endpoints and assuming a 10% non-compliance and 20% death rate, the planned sample size is 240 patients (120 per arm). Randomization (1:1 ratio) will be stratified by cancer type (breast vs prostate) and treatment schedule prior to randomization (Q4weeks vs. Q12weeks). A subgroup analysis comparing patients with 2-3 years vs. > 3 years of prior BMA treatment will be conducted. Results: The study has been open for enrollment since Oct 2020. As of July 5, 2021, the study has opened at 2 sites, 48 patients have been randomized and 8 are in screening. The study needs 60 patients randomized by September 2021 to continue to receive funding. There is a plan to open the study at two other academic centers in Ontario, Canada. Conclusion: This will be the first RCT providing level one evidence regarding the optimal frequency of BMA treatment that accounts for health-related quality of life after ≥ two years of prior BMA in this patient population. Citation Format: Terry L. Ng, Gregory R. Pond, Marta Sienkiewicz, Kednapa Thavorn, Mark Clemons. A randomised trial comparing continuation or de-escalation of bone modifying agents (BMA) in patients treated for over 2 years for bone metastases from either breast or castration-resistant prostate cancer (REaCT-HOLD BMA) [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 OT1-06-01.

The article is an analysis and presentation of the overview of economic systems to which the popes of that time referred in their documents, most often in encyclicals. The article presents the image of society in the economic and social perspective as well as interpretations and comments on a specific system, which were included in the papal encyclicals. The article is a presentation of how popes in encyclicals responded to the emerging changes in the political system and new economic ideas.

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.

A personalized risk model (PRM) that can categorize patients into high or low risk of ≥ grade 2 acute and/or delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) was previously developed. The current study assessed whether the PMR could accurately stratify patients’ risk for other commonly used CINV endpoints. Data was pooled from a previously reported trial evaluating CINV in patients with breast cancer (BC) receiving neo/adjuvant anthracycline-cyclophosphamide or carboplatin-based chemotherapy. The predictive ability of the PRM was compared to patient experience of any self-reported significant nausea, any vomiting, complete cycle response, and use of rescue medications, over all cycles of chemotherapy. Data was available from 242 patients over 819 chemotherapy cycles. Irrespective of the chosen antiemetics, significant nausea was common when evaluated across repeated cycles of treatment with an overall incidence of 24.2% in low-risk patients and 34.6% in high-risk patients. Patients identified as high risk of CINV using the PRM were 4.73 (p = 0.011) times more likely to develop significant nausea than those identified as low risk. The PRM did not show any significant statistical differences between both groups in overall vomiting, complete cycle response, or rescue medications use. The PRM was able to identify patients at greater risk of significant nausea but not the other CINV endpoints. As nausea remains a pertinent issue for patients with BC, the PRM could be used to identify these patients a priori for innovative treatment strategies.

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: Despite extensive use of bone modifying agents (BMA) in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer (BC), the optimal choice, frequency, and duration of BMA treatment remains unclear. A physician survey was performed to identify current practices and attitudes towards performing trials of de-escalation after 2 years of treatment, where very little prospective data exists. Methods: Canadian oncologists treating breast cancer were surveyed from May to June 2020 via an anonymized online survey. Physicians were approached by e-mail invitation, and a follow-up e-mail was sent 2 weeks later. The study was approved by the Ontario Cancer Research Ethics Board. The survey collected physician demographics, current practice patterns, perception on risk of symptomatic skeletal events (SSE) and BMA-associated toxicity. It also assessed attitudes towards conducting a study evaluating further de-escalation of BMAs after 2 years of treatment. Results: Of 238 potentially eligible breast oncologists on initial screening, 40 responded (response rate 16.8%; 97.5% medical oncologist). The most common BMA regimens during the first 2 years in patients with no limitations in drug coverage were denosumab q4wks for 3-4 months then q12wks [13/40 physicians (32.5%)], denosumab q4wks [7/40 (17.5%)], and zoledronate q12wks [8/40 (20%)]. For patients with no public funding for denosumab, the most common regimens were zoledronate q4wks for 3-4 months then q12wks [14/40 (35%)] and zoledronate q12wks [12/40 (30%)]. Most physicians [33/40 (82.5%)] routinely de-escalated BMA, with the most common approaches being de-escalation from the start of treatment [9/33 (27.3%)], after 3 months [7/33 (21.2%)], 6 months [6/33 (18.2%)], or 12 months [5/33 (15.2%)]. In terms of continuing BMA after 2 years, 11/40 (27.5%) felt there was benefit, 5/40 (12.5%) felt there was no benefit, and 24/40 (60%) were unsure. There was no consensus on the perceived risk of SSE or BMA-related toxicity after ≥ 2 years of BMA in breast cancer. Most physicians treating breast cancer-related bone metastases felt a de-escalation study after more than 2 years of BMA would be clinically important [i.v. bisphosphonate (BP) q12wks vs q24wks: 65%; i.v. BP q12wks vs. discontinue: 70%; denosumab q12wks vs q24wks: 57.5%; denosumab q12wks vs. discontinue: 67.5%]. Most physicians would accept SSE rate increase of < 5% with BMA de-escalation. If a study of BMA de-escalation showing non-inferiority in terms of SSE rate was not feasible, physicians would consider changing practice to de-escalated therapy if: BMA toxicity was reduced (64.1%), pain was no worse (48.7%), physical function was no worse (48.7%), or cost-utility or cost-effectiveness was improved (41%). 38.5% would only change practice if the SSE rate was not significantly worse. Conclusion: Despite their extensive use and costs, questions around optimal use of BMAs still exist. It is evident that practice varies according to patient insurance coverage, however most physicians are de-escalating BMAs. There is interest amongst clinicians in performing trials of de-escalation, especially after 2 years of treatment. Citation Format: Mashari Alzahrani, Mark Clemons, Lisa Vandermeer, Marta Sienkiewicz, Arif Awan, Brian Hutton, Gregory Pond, Terry Ng. A physician survey evaluating real-world practice patterns and attitudes towards de-escalation of bone-modifying agents in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS14-18.

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

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.

A personalized risk model (PRM) that can categorize patients into high or low risk of ≥ grade 2 acute and/or delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) was previously developed. The current study assessed whether the PMR could accurately stratify patients' risk for other commonly used CINV endpoints.Data was pooled from a previously reported trial evaluating CINV in patients with breast cancer (BC) receiving neo/adjuvant anthracycline-cyclophosphamide or carboplatin-based chemotherapy. The predictive ability of the PRM was compared to patient experience of any self-reported significant nausea, any vomiting, complete cycle response, and use of rescue medications, over all cycles of chemotherapy.Data was available from 242 patients over 819 chemotherapy cycles. Irrespective of the chosen antiemetics, significant nausea was common when evaluated across repeated cycles of treatment with an overall incidence of 24.2% in low-risk patients and 34.6% in high-risk patients. Patients identified as high risk of CINV using the PRM were 4.73 (p = 0.011) times more likely to develop significant nausea than those identified as low risk. The PRM did not show any significant statistical differences between both groups in overall vomiting, complete cycle response, or rescue medications use.The PRM was able to identify patients at greater risk of significant nausea but not the other CINV endpoints. As nausea remains a pertinent issue for patients with BC, the PRM could be used to identify these patients a priori for innovative treatment strategies.

Highlights • Questions around optimal use of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) still exist. • Most physicians are de-escalating BMAs in patients with metastatic breast cancer. • Practice varies according to patient insurance coverage. • There is interest performing further trials of de-escalation especially after 2 years of treatment., Background There remain questions around the optimal use of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) in patients with bone metastases from breast and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). A physician survey was performed to identify current practices, as well as perceptions around long-term BMA use, BMA de-escalation, and further BMA de-escalation after 2 years of use. Methods Canadian oncologists treating breast cancer or CRPC were surveyed via an anonymized online survey. The survey collected physician demographics, current practice patterns, perception on risk of symptomatic skeletal events (SSE) and BMA-associated toxicities, and attitudes towards further de-escalation of BMAs after 2 years of treatment. Results A total of 334 physicians in Canada were contacted, of which 295 were eligible on initial screening, and 65 completed the survey (response rate 22%): 35 treated breast cancer, 25 treated prostate cancer and 5 treated both. The most common BMA regimens in patients with no limitation in drug coverage were denosumab q4wks for 3–4 months followed by a de-escalation to q12wks (breast cancer) and denosumab q4wks (prostate cancer). In patients with provincial health coverage only the common choices were zoledronate q4wks for 3–4 months followed by de-escalation to q12wks (breast cancer) and denosumab q4wks (prostate cancer). There was equipoise regarding the benefit of continuing BMA beyond 2 years and interest in further trials of de-escalation of BMA in both breast and prostate cancer. The most favored alternative primary study endpoints to SSE were BMA toxicity (67.2%), pain (46.9%), and physical function (48.4%). Conclusion Despite their extensive use and costs, questions around optimal use of BMAs still exist. Practice varies according to patient insurance coverage. However, most physicians are de-escalating BMAs. There is interest amongst clinicians in performing trials of de-escalation, especially after 2 years of treatment.

Purpose Despite triple antiemetic therapy use for breast cancer patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy, nausea remains a clinical challenge. We evaluated adding olanzapine (5 mg) to triple therapy on nausea control in patients at high personal risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Methods This multi-centre, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial randomized breast cancer patients scheduled to receive neo/adjuvant chemotherapy with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide or platinum-based chemotherapy to olanzapine (5 mg, days 1–4) or placebo. Primary endpoint was frequency of self-reported significant nausea, repeated for all cycles of chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included: duration of nausea, overall total control of CINV, Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) using FLIE questionnaire, use of rescue mediation and treatment-related adverse events. Results 218 eligible patients were randomised to placebo (105) or olanzapine (113). From days 0–5 following each cycle of chemotherapy, 41.3% (95%CI: 36.1–46.7%) of patients in the placebo group reported significant nausea compared to 27.7% (95%CI: 23.2–32.4%) in the olanzapine group (p = 0.001). Across all cycles of chemotherapy, patients receiving olanzapine experienced a statistically significant improvement in HRQoL (p, Highlights • Double-blind trial evaluated the addition of olanzapine to triple therapy in patients at high personal risk of CINV. • Adding 5 mg olanzapine was associated with significantly improved nausea control with no unexpected toxicities. • Olanzapine plus triple therapy should be considered standard of care for breast cancer patients at high risk of CINV.

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.

Highlights • Artificial Intelligence (AI) has potential to improve chemical risk assessment (CRA) and associated regulatory decisions. • AI could influence the scientific-technical evaluation process and the social aspects of the CRA decision making process. • Systematic Reviews are among the CRA processes that will profit most from the application of AI techniques. • Using AI as external objective monitor could make Weight of Evidence considerations less subjective and more trustable. • AI could identify pitfalls not observable by individuals participating in the CRA process., As the basis for managing the risks of chemical exposure, the Chemical Risk Assessment (CRA) process can impact a substantial part of the economy, the health of hundreds of millions of people, and the condition of the environment. However, the number of properly assessed chemicals falls short of societal needs due to a lack of experts for evaluation, interference of third party interests, and the sheer volume of potentially relevant information on the chemicals from disparate sources. In order to explore ways in which computational methods may help overcome this discrepancy between the number of chemical risk assessments required on the one hand and the number and adequateness of assessments actually being conducted on the other, the European Commission's Joint Research Centre organised a workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Chemical Risk Assessment (AI4CRA). The workshop identified a number of areas where Artificial Intelligence could potentially increase the number and quality of regulatory risk management decisions based on CRA, involving process simulation, supporting evaluation, identifying problems, facilitating collaboration, finding experts, evidence gathering, systematic review, knowledge discovery, and building cognitive models. Although these are interconnected, they are organised and discussed under two main themes: scientific-technical process and social aspects and the decision making process.

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.

This chapter stresses the importance of cocreation between researchers and policymakers regarding decisions on what to study and which questions to answer with scientific evidence in order to gather knowledge for policy making processes and decisions. The chapter outlines why a new approach to scoping the research questions (in a science for policy context) by scientists and policymakers is needed, i.e. due to a separation between research and policy cultures, differing natures of problems in science (tame) and in policy (wicked), as well as a need for a translation from policy issues to research questions, and appropriate framing of issues, which is in itself a non-trivial, non-neutral process of potential inclusion and exclusion of knowledge. Collaboration and iterative cocreation between researchers and policymakers, these ‘two communities’, help bridge these distinctions. The skills framework contains eight skills that, in an ideal-type organisation, contribute to an overall vision for effective science for policy. The chapter then provides examples of concrete practices which the JRC has introduced in order to allow for more interaction and collaboration in identifying research questions which can generate useful knowledge for policy . The examples include dedicated Knowledge Centres, work programme planning, staff exchanges, collaboration facilitators and local events.

Policy impact of scientific research does not happen by itself. It requires strategic planning for engaging relevant audiences with the science, including active participation in policymaking environment. This chapter presents Joint Research Centre's (JRC) lessons on how to increase the chances of achieving impact on policy with one's scientific research. As research competes with other sources of knowledge and evidence for attention of policymakers, politicians and decision-makers, scientists interested in policy impact need to adopt new practices and behaviours, differing from their classical academic training. The chapter covers three such main areas: (1) understanding different policy actors and roles in the policy process, in order to better tailor their communication and engagement with different groups; (2) adapting the language to fit the bandwidth of policymakers and provide constructive input into their processes; (3) building relationships and gathering policy intelligence about drivers and developments in policy areas relevant to their research.

This chapter considers how to navigate interests, pressures and dangers of bringing science and policy closer together stemming from tighter relationships between researchers, policymakers and other policy actors. It provides some nuances to the notions of legitimacy, impartiality and objectivity of scientific advice and support to policymaking. It considers values and interests of scientists, policymakers, lobbyists and other stakeholders or interest representatives, and provides some considerations from the JRC on how to navigate them. In particular, it covers what lobbying is and what it means for scientists and their organisations who compete with lobbies' inputs to policymaking but can also become their target. It finishes with some thoughts on managing conflicts of interest and the need for openness and engagement more than just transparency.

This chapter discusses the need for a transition from Science for Policy 1.0, detached scientific advice provided ad hoc, or even unsolicited, to policymakers, towards Science for Policy 2.0, an integrated system of collaboration between scientists and policymakers, as well as stakeholders and citizens. It discusses some reasons why providing science for policy and engaging in evidence-informed policymaking are a difficult task. It provides reasons for why evidence should play an important role in policymaking, seeing evidence-informed policymaking as an important component and a value of liberal democracy. It discusses why not all science would automatically constitute evidence useful and usable in policymaking, and sketches the main reasons for why the divisions between the 'two communities', two cultures of scientists and policymakers, are exacerbated by wider societal, political and institutional context. It ends with a plea for more systemic co-creation and cooperation between science and policy, the idea which is elaborated and concretised throughout the remaining chapters of this handbook.

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.

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.

7001 Background: Docetaxel-cyclophosphamide (TC) adjuvant chemotherapy is commonly used in patients with early stage breast cancer (EBC). Due to the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) with TC, primary prophylaxis with either ciprofloxacin (cipro) or granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) is recommended. Despite significant differences in costs (7-120 $US/course [cipro] vs. 2100-7000 $US/dose [G-CSF]) and toxicity profiles, optimal primary FN prophylaxis is unknown. We performed a pragmatic randomised trial comparing the superiority of G-CSF to cipro. Methods: EBC patients receiving TC chemo were randomized to receive cipro or G-CSF as primary FN prophylaxis. The primary outcome is a composite of either treatment-related hospitalisations or FN. Secondary outcomes included: chemo dose reductions, delays, discontinuations and incidence of C. difficile infections. Primary analysis was performed with the intention to treat (ITT) population. Results: 455 eligible patients were randomized to cipro (227) or G-CSF (228). 37/227 (16.3%) patients on cipro had a hospitalization, compared with 25/228 (11.0%) on G-CSF (Fisher’s exact test p-value=0.10). Relative risk (RR) of hospitalization for patients on G-CSF:0.68, 95%CI=0.42 to 1.09. Patients on cipro were statistically significantly more likely to be hospitalized for FN (30/227, 13.2%) vs 9/228 (4.0%) patients on G-CSF(p

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.

The article deals with the place and role of the sacrament of Confirmation in the pastoral mission of the Church. In the theoretical part it presents current teaching of the Church concerning the Confirmation in dogmatic, legal, catechetical and confessional aspects. It also analyzes the meaning of Confirmation as well as the way of preparing to it. In the research part it presents the results of research conducted among middle school students. On the basis of this research it describes religious maturity of today's candidates for Confirmation and formulates pastoral guidelines related to both preparation and administering this sacrament.