Optimizing vascular access for patients receiving intravenous systemic therapy for early-stage breast cancer-a survey of oncology nurses and physicians.

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.

Perceptions of vascular access for intravenous systemic therapy and risk factors for lymphedema in early-stage breast cancer-a patient survey.

Background: The choice of vascular access for systemic therapy administration in breast cancer remains an area of clinical equipoise, and patient preference is not consistently acknowledged. Using a patient survey, we evaluated the patient experience with vascular access during treatment for early-stage breast cancer and explored perceived risk factors for lymphedema. Methods: Patients who had received systemic therapy for early-stage breast cancer were surveyed at 2 Canadian cancer centres. Results: Responses were received from 187 patients (94%). The route of vascular access was peripheral intravenous line (IV) in 24%, a peripherally inserted central catheter (picc) in 42%, and a surgically inserted central catheter (port) in 34%. Anthracycline-based regimens were associated with a greater use of central vascular access devices (cvads- that is, a picc or port; 86/97, 89%). Trastuzumab use was associated with greater use of ports (49/64, 77%). Although few patients (7%) reported being involved in the decisions about vascular access, most were satisfied or very satisfied (88%) with their access type. Patient preference centred mainly on avoiding delays in the initiation of chemotherapy. Self-reported rates of complications (183 evaluable responses) were infiltration with peripheral IVs (9/44, 20%), local skin infections with piccs (7/77, 9%), and thrombosis with ports (4/62, 6%). Perceived risk factors for lymphedema included use of the surgical arm for blood draws (117/156, 75%) and blood pressure measurement (115/156, 74%). Conclusions: Most patients reported being satisfied with the vascular access used for their treatment. Improved education and understanding about the evidence-based requirements for vascular access are needed. Perceived risk factors for lymphedema remain variable and are not evidence-based.

Optimal sequence of adjuvant endocrine and radiation therapy in early-stage breast cancer - A systematic review.

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.

Taxane acute pain syndrome (TAPS) in patients receiving chemotherapy for breast or prostate cancer: a prospective multi-center study.

BACKGROUND: Taxane acute pain syndrome (TAPS) is characterized by myalgias and arthralgias starting 2-3 days after taxane-based chemotherapy and lasting up to 7 days. In the absence of validated tools, many studies use the presence of both the myalgia and arthralgia components of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) to define TAPS. The present study prospectively evaluated the frequency, severity, and impact of TAPS in patients with breast or prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, non-randomized study, patients with breast or prostate cancer commencing taxane-based chemotherapy completed the CTCAE (version 4.03), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Taxane (FACT-T), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) questionnaires at baseline and once between days 5 and 7 of each chemotherapy cycle. RESULTS: From March 2015 to April 1, 2016, 75 patients (breast n = 66, prostate n = 9) were enrolled; 83% received docetaxel and 16% paclitaxel and 1% withdrew. After the first cycle of taxane, TAPS was reported by 25/69 (36.2%) patients; a further 8/69 (18.2%) reporting TAPS after a subsequent chemotherapy treatment. Overall incidence of TAPS was 33/75 (44%). While associated with detrimental scores on FACT-T and BPI as well as increased use of analgesics in 63% (21/33) of patients with TAPS, TAPS did not lead to alterations in chemotherapy dosing. CONCLUSIONS: TAPS is common after taxane-based chemotherapy, and its presence is associated with reduced quality of life and increased analgesic requirements. Prospective patient-reported outcome assessments are crucial to help individualize treatment strategies and improve management of TAPS.

Effects on bone resorption markers of continuing pamidronate or switching to zoledronic acid in patients with high risk bone metastases from breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Switching patients who remain at high risk of skeletal related events (SREs) despite pamidronate to the more potent bisphosphonate zoledronate, may be an effective treatment strategy. As part of a previously reported clinic study in this setting, we evaluated whether biomarkers for bone resorption, such as Bone-Specific Alkaline Phosphatase (BSAP), bone sialoprotein (BSP), and N-terminal telopeptide (NTX) correlated with subsequent SRE risk. METHODS: Breast cancer patients who remained at high risk of SREs despite at least 3 months of q.3-4 weekly pamidronate were randomized to either continue on pamidronate or to switch to zoledronate (4 mg) once every 4 weeks for 12-weeks. High risk bone metastases were defined by either: occurrence of a prior SRE, bone pain, radiologic progression of bone metastases and/or serum C-terminal telopeptide (CTx) levels > 400 ng/L despite pamidronate use. Serum samples were collected at baseline and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 (CTx and BSAP) and baseline and week 12 (NTx and BSP), and all putative biomarkers were measured by ELISA. Follow up was extended to 2 years post trial entry for risk of subsequent SREs. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate time-to-event outcomes. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to evaluate if laboratory values over time or the change in laboratory values from baseline were associated with having a SRE within the time frame of this study. RESULTS: From March 2012 to May 2014, 76 patients were screened, with 73 eligible for enrolment. All 73 patients were available for biochemical analysis, with 35 patients receiving pamidronate and 38 patients receiving zoledronate. The GEE analysis found that no laboratory value was associated with having a subsequent SRE. Interaction between visit and laboratory values was also investigated, but no interaction effect was statistically significant. Only increased number of lines of prior hormonal treatment was associated with subsequent SRE risk. CONCLUSION: Our analysis failed to find any association between serum BSAP, BSP, CTx or NTx levels and subsequent SRE risk in this cohort of patients. This lack of correlation between serum biomarkers and clinical outcomes could be due to influences of prior bisphosphonate treatment or presence of extra-osseous metastases in a significant proportion of enrolled patients. As such, caution should be used in biomarker interpretation and use to direct decision making regarding SRE risk for high risk patients in this setting.

A phase 2 trial exploring the clinical and correlative effects of combining doxycycline with bone-targeted therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bone-targeting agents (BTAs), such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, have demonstrated no discernable effects on tumour response or disease free/overall survival in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. Doxycycline is both osteotropic and has anti-cancer effects. When combined with zoledronate in animal models, doxycycline showed significantly increased inhibition of tumour burden and increased bone formation. We evaluated the effects of adding doxycycline to ongoing anti-cancer therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Breast cancer patients with bone metastases and ≥3 months of BTA use, entered this single-arm study. Patients received doxycycline 100 mg orally, twice a day for 12 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were; effect on validated pain scores (FACT-Bone pain and Brief Pain Inventory) and bone resorption markers (serum C-telopeptide, [sCTx]). All endpoints (pain scores, sCTx, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, skeletal-related events, toxicity) were evaluated at baseline, 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Bone marrow was sampled at baseline and week 12 for exploratory biomarker analysis. RESULTS: Out of 37 enroled patients, 27 (73%) completed 12 weeks of therapy. No significant changes were seen in pain scores or bone turnover markers. Failure to complete treatment: drug toxicity (70%) and disease progression (30%). Sixteen (43%) patients had GI adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 12 weeks had no significant effects on either bone pain or bone turnover markers. Its toxicity profile in this patient population would make further evaluation challenging.

Estrogen, progesterone, and HER2/neu receptor discordance between primary and metastatic breast tumours-a review.

Discordance in estrogen (ER), progesterone (PR), and HER2/neu status between primary breast tumours and metastatic disease is well recognized. In this review, we highlight how receptor discordance between primary tumours and paired metastasis can help elucidate the mechanism of metastasis but can also effect patient management and the design of future trials. Discordance rates and ranges were available from 47 studies (3384 matched primary and metastatic pairs) reporting ER, PR, and HER2/neu expression for both primary and metastatic sites. Median discordance rates for ER, PR, and HER2/neu were 14 % (range 0-67 %, IQR 9-25 %), 21 % (range 0-62 %, IQR 15-41 %), and 10 % (range 0-44 %, IQR 4-17 %), respectively. Loss of receptor expression was more common (9.17 %) than gain (4.51 %). Discordance rates varied amongst site of metastasis with ER discordance being highest in bone metastases suggesting that discordance is a true biological phenomenon. Discordance rates vary for both the biomarker and the metastatic site. Loss of expression is more common than gain. This can affect patient management as it can lead to a reduction in both the efficacy and availability of potential therapeutic agents. Future studies are recommended to explore both the mechanisms of discordance as well as its impact on patient outcome and management.

A randomized, double-blind, phase II, exploratory trial evaluating the palliative benefit of either continuing pamidronate or switching to zoledronic acid in patients with high-risk bone metastases from breast cancer.

Previous studies suggest switching from pamidronate to a more potent bone-targeted agent is associated with biomarker and palliative response in breast cancer patients with bone metastases. Until now, this has not been addressed in a double-blind, randomized trial. Breast cancer patients with high-risk bone metastases, despite >3 months of pamidronate, were randomized to either continue pamidronate or switch to zoledronic acid every 4 weeks for 12 weeks. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a fall in serum C-telopeptide (sCTx) at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included difference in mean sCTx, pain scores, quality of life, toxicity, and skeletal-related events (SREs). Seventy-three patients entered the study; median age 61 years (range 37-87). Proportion of patients achieving a fall in sCTx over the 12-week evaluation period was 26/32 (81 %) with zoledronic acid and 18/29 (62 %) with pamidronate (p = 0.095). Mean decrease in sCTx (mean difference between groups = 50 ng/L, 95 % CI 18-84; p = 0.003) was significantly greater in patients who received zoledronic acid. Quality of life, pain scores, toxicity, and frequency of new SREs were comparable between the two arms. While a switch from pamidronate to zoledronic acid resulted in reduction in mean sCTx, there were no significant differences between the arms for proportion of patients achieving a reduction in sCTx, quality of life, pain scores, toxicity or SREs. Given the lack of palliative improvement, the current data do not support a switching strategy.

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.

Preference weights for chemotherapy side effects from the perspective of women with breast cancer.

Perceptions among women with breast cancer about the relative importance of different potential chemotherapy side effects is not well understood. A survey was performed by women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer. Grade I/II (mild to moderate) and III/IV (moderate to severe) descriptions of nine common chemotherapy side effects were assigned preference weights using the standard gamble technique. For each hypothetical side effect, patients could choose to stay in the respective side effect state or take a gamble between full health (probability p) or being dead (1 - p). For each side effect, p was varied until the patient was indifferent between these options. The survey also included questions about the importance of survival, slowing cancer growth, and quality of life. This analysis included 69 patients; mean age 54 years (range 35-84), representing all cancer stages. Standard gamble preferences were lowest (i.e., least preferred) for grade III/IV nausea/vomiting (0.621), indicating that patients would, on average, risk a 38 % chance of being dead to avoid having grade III/IV nausea/vomiting for the rest of their lives. The next least preferred side effects were grade III/IV diarrhea (0.677) and grade III/IV sensory neuropathy (0.694). Survival appeared more important than slowing cancer growth and maintaining quality of life across cancer stages. Nevertheless, patients with advanced disease placed less importance on survival (p = 0.09) and higher importance on quality of life (p = 0.05). These standard gamble utilities provide unique insights into chemotherapy toxicities from the patient perspective. Differences in the relative importance of overall survival and quality of life with treatment existed between patients with different stages of disease. These studies should be expanded as the data may also be used to calculate quality-adjusted life expectancy in cost-effectiveness evaluations of breast cancer chemotherapies.