Lisa Vandermeer

Prospective validation of risk prediction indexes for acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND Despite the use of standardized anti-emetic guidelines, up to 20% of cancer patients suffer from moderate-to-severe chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (cinv)-that is, grade 2 or greater according to the U.S. National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. We previously developed cycle-based prediction models and associated scoring systems for acute and delayed cinv. As part of the validation process, we prospectively evaluated the ability of the scoring systems to accurately identify patients deemed to be high risk for grade 2 or greater cinv. METHODS Patients who were receiving any chemotherapy for solid tumours and who consented to participate were provided with symptom diaries. Compliance to the diaries was enhanced by 24-hour and 5-day telephone callbacks after chemotherapy in every cycle. All patients received anti-emetic prophylaxis as prescribed by the treating physician. Before each cycle of chemotherapy, the acute and delayed cinv scoring systems were used to stratify patients into low- and high-risk groups. Logistic regression modelling was then applied to compare the risk for grade 2 or greater cinv between patients considered to be at high and at low risk. The external validity of each system was also assessed using an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (auroc) analysis. RESULTS We collected cinv outcomes data from 95 patients during 181 cycles of chemotherapy. The incidence of grade 2 or greater acute and delayed cinv was 17.7% and 18.2% respectively. As previously identified, major predictors for grade 2 or greater cinv included younger patient age, platinum- or anthracycline-based chemotherapy, low alcohol consumption, earlier cycles of chemotherapy, previous history of morning sickness, and prior emetic episodes after chemotherapy. The acute and delayed scoring systems both had good predictive accuracy when applied to the external validation sample (acute-auroc: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.59 to 0.79; delayed-auroc: 0.70; 95% confidence interval: 0.60 to 0.80). Patients identified by the scoring systems to be at high risk were 2.8 (p = 0.025) and 3.1 (p = 0.001) times more likely to develop grade 2 or greater acute and delayed cinv. CONCLUSIONS The present study demonstrates that our scoring systems are able to accurately identify patients at high risk for acute and delayed cinv. Application and planned continued refinement of the scoring systems will be an important means of patient-specific risk assessment that will allow for optimization of anti-emetic therapy.

Use of Conjoint Analysis to Assess Breast Cancer Patient Preferences for Chemotherapy Side Effects

OBJECTIVE Our objective was to evaluate preferences associated with grade I/II and grade III/IV chemotherapy side effects among breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. We also assessed trade-offs that patients are willing to make between treatment side effects and the route and schedule of treatment administration. METHODS In this cross-sectional study, patients receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer completed a one-time Web survey. Conjoint analysis was used to elicit preferences for 17 grade I/II and III/IV side effects associated with available chemotherapies and regimens. In the analysis, the risk of each side effect was increased by 5%, holding all others constant, and the respective impact on patient preferences was identified. RESULTS A total of 102 women participated (mean age 54 ± 11). Among the grade I/II side effects, a 5% reduction in the risk of sensory neuropathy, nausea, and motor neuropathy had the highest impact on preferences. Among grade III/IV side effects, motor neuropathy, nausea/vomiting, and myalgia made the most difference. An oral twice-daily regimen was most preferred; however, patients were willing to receive an intravenous regimen relative to oral to avoid an increased risk of 5% in the majority of side effects. Avoiding an increased chance of grade III/IV motor neuropathy was associated with willingness to tolerate one of the least preferred administration schedules. CONCLUSION This study identified relative preferences among both mild/moderate to severe side effects from the patient perspective. Patients appear to be willing to make trade-offs between side effects and different regimens. These findings may help to inform medical decision-making processes.

Risk Model–Guided Antiemetic Prophylaxis vs Physician’s Choice in Patients Receiving Chemotherapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Despite multiple patient-centered factors being associated with the risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), these factors are rarely considered when making antiemetic recommendations. OBJECTIVE To compare risk model-guided (RMG) antiemetic prophylaxis with physicians choice (PC) in patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized clinical trial of 324 patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline) for the first time at 2 specialty cancer care centers in Ottawa from April 10, 2012, to September 2, 2014. Patients were randomized to either the RMG arm (n = 154) or the PC control arm (n = 170). Prior to each cycle of chemotherapy patients in the RMG group were categorized as low or high risk for CINV, and their antiemetic treatments were adjusted accordingly. INTERVENTIONS Patients considered to be at low risk received standard dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 antagonist, while those at high risk also received aprepitant with or without olanzapine, based on their risk level. The PC control group received antiemetic agents according to the treating physicians discretion. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end points were control of both nausea and vomiting in the acute posttreatment period (first 24 hours after therapy) and in the delayed posttreatment period (days 2-5 after therapy). RESULTS The total numbers of chemotherapy cycles delivered in the RMG and PC control groups were 497 and 551 respectively. In the acute period, significantly more patients in the RMG group reported no nausea (53.7% [95% CI, 49.2%-58.1%] vs 41.6% [95% CI, 37.4%-45.3%]; P < .001) and no vomiting (91.8% [95% CI, 89.0%-94.0%] vs 82.2% [95% CI, 78.8%-85.3%]; P < .001) compared with the PC control group. Similarly, significantly more patients in the RMG group reported no nausea (39.6% [95% CI, 35.3%-44.1%] vs 30.7% [95% CI, 26.8%-34.7%]; P = .01) and no vomiting (87.1% [95% CI, 83.8%-90.0%) vs 78.0% [95% CI, 74.3%-81.4%]; P < .001) in the delayed period respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, the RMG antiemetic prophylaxis led to improved control of acute and delayed CINV compared with physicians choice of therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01913990.

Should de-escalation of bone-targeting agents be standard of care for patients with bone metastases from breast cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND De-escalation of bone-targeted agents, such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, from 4- to 12-weekly dosing is an increasingly used strategy in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. It is unclear whether there is sufficient evidence to support de-escalation as a standard of care. METHODS A systematic review of randomized trials comparing standard 4-weekly administration of bone-targeted agents with de-escalated (Q12-weekly) dosing in breast cancer patients was carried out. Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until November 2014 for relevant studies. Outcomes of interest included skeletal-related event (SRE) rates, bone pain, adverse events (AEs) and bone turnover biomarkers. Random-effects meta-analyses were carried out. RESULTS A total of nine citations representing seven unique studies were eligible. One study is ongoing with no reported data. Six studies reported data for at least one outcome of interest. Data were available comparing standard versus de-escalated therapy for pamidronate (1 study, 38 patients), zoledronate (3 studies, 1117 patients) and denosumab (2 studies, 284 patients). Meta-analysis of five trials reporting data for on-study SRE rates between standard (61/443 patients) and de-escalated (49/392 patients) arms produced a summary risk ratio of 0.90 (95% confidence interval 0.63-1.29). Meta-analyses of data for AEs and bone turnover biomarkers also showed no statistically significant differences between standard and de-escalated arms, though only limited numbers of patients and events were present for most analyses. CONCLUSION In this systematic review of studies of bisphosphonates and denosumab, there appears to be no difference in SREs or pain with de-escalated therapy. While a large, hopefully definitive study is ongoing, the data presented so far are consistent with de-escalation of bone-targeting agents becoming a standard of care for patients with bone metastases from breast cancer.

Excision of the primary tumour in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a clinical dilemma

BACKGROUND Approximately 10% of new breast cancer patients will present with overt synchronous metastatic disease. The optimal local management of those patients is controversial. Several series suggest that removal of the primary tumour is associated with a survival benefit, but the retrospective nature of those studies raises considerable methodologic challenges. We evaluated our clinical experience with the management of such patients and, more specifically, the impact of surgery in patients with synchronous metastasis. METHODS We reviewed patients with primary breast cancer and concurrent distant metastases seen at our centre between 2005 and 2007. Demographic and treatment data were collected. Study endpoints included overall survival and symptomatic local progression rates. RESULTS The 111 patients identified had a median follow-up of 40 months (range: 0.6-71 months). We allocated the patients to one ot two groups: a nonsurgical group (those who did not have breast surgery, n = 63) and a surgical group (those who did have surgery, n = 48, 29 of whom had surgery before the metastatic diagnosis). When compared with patients in the nonsurgical group, patients in the surgical group were less likely to present with T4 tumours (23% vs. 35%), N3 nodal disease (8% vs. 19%), and visceral metastasis (67% vs. 73%). Patients in the surgical group experienced longer overall survival (49 months vs. 33 months, p = 0.01) and lower rates of symptomatic local progression (14% vs. 44%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS In our study, improved overall survival and symptomatic local control were demonstrated in the surgically treated patients; however, this group had less aggressive disease at presentation. The optimal local management of patients with metastatic breast cancer remains unknown. An ongoing phase iii trial, E2108, has been designed to assess the effect of breast surgery in metastatic patients responding to first-line systemic therapy. If excision of the primary tumour is associated with a survival benefit, then the preselected subgroup of patients who have responded to initial systemic therapy is the desired population in which to put this hypothesis to the test.

Novel Methodology for Comparing Standard-of-Care Interventions in Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE The current clinical trials development and conduct process is cumbersome and expensive, with the majority of studies focusing on either the development of new agents or new indications for established agents. Unfortunately, research comparing standard-of-care interventions is rarely performed, leaving many important and practical patient-centered questions unanswered. Novel clinical trial methodologies and approaches are needed. METHODS We have identified simple key components that, when combined, enhance the ability to both perform and increase accrual for studies that compare standard-of-care interventions. These include selection of clinically relevant and practical questions, demonstration of clinical equipoise through surveys of knowledge users and completion of systematic reviews, appropriate study design and simply defined study end points, use of an integrated consent model incorporating oral consent, efficient research ethics board approval, Web-based randomization in the clinic, real-time electronic data capture and management, and regular formal team feedback. RESULTS We have demonstrated the feasibility of this model in a pragmatic trial comparing two standard-of-care interventions (growth factor support or ciprofloxacin) for the primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant docetaxel with cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. Research ethics board approval took 3 months, and 110 (72%) of 153 potentially eligible patients have agreed to participate in the study. When surveyed, 81 (85%) of 95 patients were completely satisfied with the integrated consent model process. CONCLUSION Our proposed model contains elements that, when used alone or in combination, may allow efficient and cost-effective comparison of standard-of-care interventions.

Histomorphometric and microarchitectural analyses using the 2 mm bone marrow trephine in metastatic breast cancer patients–preliminary results

Background Bone-targeted agents are widely used for the treatment of osteoporosis, the prevention of cancer-therapy induced bone loss, and for reducing the risk of skeletal related events in patients with metastatic disease. Despite widespread use, relatively little is known about the in vivo effect of these agents on bone homeostasis, bone quality, and bone architecture in humans. Traditionally bone quality has been assessed using a transiliac bone biopsy with a 7 mm “Bordier” core needle. We examined the possibility of using a 2 mm “Jamshidi” core needle as a more practical and less invasive method to assess bone turnover and potentially other tumor effects. Methods A pilot study on the feasibility of assessing bone quality and microarchitecture and tumor invasion using a 2 mm bone marrow trephine was conducted. Patients underwent a posterior trans-iliac trephine biopsy and bone marrow aspirate. Samples were analyzed for bone microarchitecture, bone density, and histomorphometry. The study plan was to accrue three patients with advanced breast cancer to assess the feasibility of the study before enrolling more patients. Results The procedure was well tolerated. The sample quality was excellent to analyze bone trabecular microarchitecture using both microCT and histomorphometry. Intense osteoclastic activity was observed in a patient with extensive tumor burden in bone despite intravenous bisphosphonate therapy. Discussion Given the success of this study for assessing bone microarchitecture, bone density, and histomorphometry assessment using a 2 mm needle the study will be expanded beyond these initial three patients for longitudinal assessment of bone-targeted therapy.

Detection of PIK3CA Mutations in Breast Cancer Bone Metastases

Background. An important goal of personalized cancer therapy is to tailor specific therapies to the mutational profile of individual patients. However, whole genome sequencing studies have shown that the mutational profiles of cancers evolve over time and often differ between primary and metastatic sites. Activating point mutations in the PIK3CA gene are common in primary breast cancer tumors, but their presence in breast cancer bone metastases has not been assessed previously. Results. Fourteen patients with breast cancer bone metastases were biopsied by three methods: CT-guided bone biopsies; bone marrow trephine biopsies; and bone marrow aspiration. Samples that were positive for cancer cells were obtained from six patients. Three of these patients had detectable PIK3CA mutations in bone marrow cancer cells. Primary tumor samples were available for four of the six patients assessed for PIK3CA status in their bone metastases. For each of these, the PIK3CA mutation status was the same in the primary and metastatic sites. Conclusions. PIK3CA mutations occur frequently in breast cancer bone metastases. The PIK3CA mutation status in bone metastases samples appears to reflect the PIK3CA mutation status in the primary tumour. Breast cancer patients with bone metastases may be candidates for treatment with selective PIK3CA inhibitors.

Optimal Management of Leptomeningeal Carcinomatosis in Breast Cancer Patients—A Systematic Review

The incidence of leptomeningeal carcinomatosis in breast cancer patients (LC-BC) is increasing. Despite significantly affecting patient quality of life (QoL) and overall survival (OS), little is known about its optimal management. A systematic review of treatment strategies for LC-BC was performed. EMBASE, Ovid Medline, Pubmed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1946 to 2015 for trials reporting on treatments for LC-BC. All treatment modalities and study types were considered. The outcome measures of interest included OS, time to neurologic progression (TTNP), QoL, and treatment toxicity. Of 718 unique citations, 173 studies met the prespecified eligibility criteria. Most were not specific to LC-BC patients. Of 4 identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 was specific to LC-BC patients and compared systemic therapy and involved-field radiotherapy with or without intrathecal (IT) methotrexate (35 patients), and the remaining 3 had compared different IT chemotherapy regimens (58 of 157 with LC-BC). Of the remaining studies, 19 were nonrandomized interventional studies (225 LC-BC patients), 148 were observational studies (3230 LC-BC patients), and 2 systematic reviews. Minimal prospective data were available on OS, TTNP, QoL, and toxicity. Owing to study heterogeneity, meta-analyses of the endpoint data could not be performed. Limited high-quality evidence exists regarding optimal treatment of LC-BC. The identified studies were heterogeneous and often methodologically poor. The only RCT that specifically assessed the role of IT chemotherapy showed no benefit, and, if anything, harm. Further prospective, tumor-specific trials with improved interstudy methodologic consistency and transparently reported data on OS, TTNP, QoL, and toxicity are urgently needed.

Lost in Transition? Thoughts on Retirement—“Will You Still Need Me, Will You Still Feed Me, When I'm Sixty-Four?”

Oncologists should plan for a future beyond full-time oncology, but there is little practical guidance for a successful transition into retirement. This paper provides strategies for various aspects of retirement planning and transitioning. More prospective information is needed.