The Effect of Clozapine on Self-reported Duration of Sleep and Its Interaction With 23 Other Medications: A 5-Year Naturalistic Study.

BACKGROUND: Sedation is a common and incapacitating clozapine adverse effect, but the factors associated with sedation and its pharmacological management remain poorly studied. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on deidentified electronic clinical records of clozapine-treated patients from the secondary mental health care provider for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, United Kingdom. We first evaluated cross-sectionally the influence of clozapine dose, clozapine, and norclozapine plasma levels on self-reported hours slept, as a proxy for sedation, using bivariate correlation and then the longitudinal effect of changes in clozapine dose and other 23 medications using linear mixed effect models. We followed 241 clozapine-treated patients for 56 months on average, with 2237 face-to-face assessments in total. RESULTS: Patients slept for a mean of 9.35 h/d, with 46% reporting 10 h/d or more. Cross-sectionally, sleep duration did not correlate with clozapine dose (r = 0.14, P = 0.106), but with clozapine plasma levels (r = 0.38, P < 0.0001) and norclozapine plasma levels (r = 0.25, P = 0.005). Longitudinally, the final mixed-effects model revealed 4 pharmacological variables that had a significant impact on hours slept: clozapine, risperidone augmentation, and atenolol were associated with increased sleep, whereas aripiprazole augmentation was associated with decreased sleep. We found that 20 other psychotropic medications measured were not associated with changes in sleep when added to clozapine. Excess sleep is a clozapine level-dependent adverse effect. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of different augmentation strategies might help clinicians decide on the most adequate strategy, albeit further studies should confirm our results.

Management and 5-year outcomes in 9938 women with screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ: the UK Sloane Project.

BACKGROUND: Management of screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains controversial. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients with DCIS diagnosed through the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (1st April 2003 to 31st March 2012) was linked to national databases and case note review to analyse patterns of care, recurrence and mortality. RESULTS: Screen-detected DCIS in 9938 women, with mean age of 60 years (range 46-87), was treated by mastectomy (2931) or breast conserving surgery (BCS) (7007; 70%). At 64 months median follow-up, 697 (6.8%) had further DCIS or invasive breast cancer after BCS (7.8%) or mastectomy (4.5%) (p < 0.001). Breast radiotherapy (RT) after BCS (4363/7007; 62.3%) was associated with a 3.1% absolute reduction in ipsilateral recurrent DCIS or invasive breast cancer (no RT: 7.2% versus RT: 4.1% [p < 0.001]) and a 1.9% absolute reduction for ipsilateral invasive breast recurrence (no RT: 3.8% versus RT: 1.9% [p < 0.001]), independent of the excision margin width or size of DCIS. Women without RT after BCS had more ipsilateral breast recurrences (p < 0.001) when the radial excision margin was <2 mm. Adjuvant endocrine therapy (1208/9938; 12%) was associated with a reduction in any ipsilateral recurrence, whether RT was received (hazard ratio [HR] 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.80) or not (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.51-0.91) after BCS. Women who developed invasive breast recurrence had a worse survival than those with recurrent DCIS (p < 0.001). Among 321 (3.2%) who died, only 46 deaths were attributed to invasive breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Recurrent DCIS or invasive cancer is uncommon after screen-detected DCIS. Both RT and endocrine therapy were associated with a reduction in further events but not with breast cancer mortality within 5 years of diagnosis. Further research to identify biomarkers of recurrence risk, particularly as invasive disease, is indicated.

Risk factors for the development of invasive cancer in unresected ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains uncertain. The risk factors for the development of invasive cancer in unresected DCIS are unclear. METHODS: Women diagnosed with DCIS on needle biopsy after 1997 who did not undergo surgical resection for ≥1 year after diagnosis were identified by breast centres and the cancer registry and outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: Eighty-nine women with DCIS diagnosed 1998-2010 were identified. The median age at diagnosis was 75 (range 44-94) years with median follow-up (diagnosis to death, invasive disease or last review) of 59 (12-180) months. Twenty-nine women (33%) developed invasive breast cancer after a median interval of 45 (12-144) months. 14/29 (48%) with high grade, 10/31 (32%) with intermediate grade and 3/17 (18%) with low grade DCIS developed invasive cancer after median intervals of 38, 60 and 51 months. The cumulative incidence of invasion was significantly higher in high grade DCIS than other grades (p = .0016, log-rank test). Invasion was more frequent in lesions with calcification as the predominant feature (23/50 v. 5/25; p = .042) and in younger women (p = .0002). Endocrine therapy was associated with a lower rate of invasive breast cancer (p = .048). CONCLUSIONS: High cytonuclear grade, mammographic microcalcification, young age and lack of endocrine therapy were risk factors for DCIS progression to invasive cancer. Surgical excision of high grade DCIS remains the treatment of choice. Given the uncertain long-term natural history of non-high grade DCIS, the option of active surveillance of women with this condition should be offered within a clinical trial.

The radiological features, diagnosis and management of screen-detected lobular neoplasia of the breast: Findings from the Sloane Project.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the radiological features, diagnosis and management of screen-detected lobular neoplasia (LN) of the breast. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 392 women with pure LN alone were identified within the prospective UK cohort study of screen-detected non-invasive breast neoplasia (the Sloane Project). Demography, radiological features and diagnostic and therapeutic procedures were analysed. RESULTS: Non-pleomorphic LN (369/392) was most frequently diagnosed among women aged 50-54 and in 53.5% was at the first screen. It occurred most commonly on the left (58.0%; p = 0.003), in the upper outer quadrant and confined to one site (single quadrant or retroareolar region). No bilateral cases were found. The predominant radiological feature was microcalcification (most commonly granular) which increased in frequency with increasing breast density. Casting microcalcification as a predominant feature had a significantly higher lesion size compared to granular and punctate patterns (p = 0.034). 326/369 (88.3%) women underwent surgery, including 17 who underwent >1 operation, six who had mastectomy and six who had axillary surgery. Two patients had radiotherapy and 15 had endocrine treatment. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ (23/392) presented as granular microcalcification in 12; four women had mastectomy and six had radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Screen-detected LN occurs in relatively young women and is predominantly non-pleomorphic and unilateral. It is typically associated with granular or punctate microcalcification in the left upper outer quadrant. Management, including surgical resection, is highly variable and requires evidence-based guideline development.

A phase II, randomized, blinded study of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor tipifarnib combined with letrozole in the treatment of advanced breast cancer after antiestrogen therapy.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the clinical efficacy of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor, tipifarnib, combined with letrozole in patients with advanced breast cancer and disease progression following antiestrogen therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with estrogen-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer that had progressed after tamoxifen were given 2.5 mg letrozole once daily and were randomly assigned (2:1) to tipifarnib 300 mg (TL) or placebo (L) twice daily for 21 consecutive days in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. RESULTS: Of 120 patients treated with TL (n = 80) or L (n = 40), 113 were evaluable for response. Objective response rate was 30% (95% CI; 20-41%) for TL and 38% (95% CI; 23-55%) for L. There was no significant difference in response duration, time to disease progression or survival. Clinical benefit rates were 49% (TL) and 62% (L). Tipifarnib was generally well tolerated; a higher incidence of drug-related asymptomatic grade 3/4 neutropenia was observed for TL (18%) than for L (0%). Tipifarnib population pharmacokinetics were similar to previous studies, with no significant difference in trough letrozole concentrations between the TL and L groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adding tipifarnib to letrozole did not improve objective response rate in this population of patients with advanced breast cancer.

Follow-up care of patients treated for breast cancer: a structured review.

Breast cancer follow-up services vary, with little evidence to support which practice is best. A systematic review methodology was employed to identify and integrate primary research on the effectiveness of follow-up services. From 4418 articles identified by searches, 38 were eligible for review inclusion. Data were not sufficiently homogenous to integrate statistically, however the following patterns of findings were observed: patient survival and quality of life were not affected by intensity of follow-up or location of care; patients held positive attitudes towards follow-up but psychological distress was consistently high regardless of location of services; few studies assessed patient involvement in treatment choices; studies' research quality was poor with inadequate measures of effectiveness or research designs. There is insufficient primary empirical evidence to draw broad conclusions regarding best practice for breast cancer follow-up care in terms of (a) patient involvement in care, (b) reductions in morbidity, and (c) cost effectiveness of service provision.