Electronic health records and patient registries in medical oncology departments in Spain.

PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the current situation of electronic health records (EHRs) and patient registries in the oncology departments of hospitals in Spain. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted from December 2018 to September 2019. The survey was designed ad hoc by the Outcomes Evaluation and Clinical Practice Section of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) and was distributed to all head of medical oncology department members of SEOM. RESULTS: We invited 148 heads of oncology departments, and 81 (54.7%) questionnaires were completed, with representation from all 17 Spanish autonomous communities. Seventy-seven (95%) of the respondents had EHRs implemented at their hospitals; of them, over 80% considered EHRs to have a positive impact on work organization and clinical practice, and 73% considered that EHRs improve the quality of patient care. In contrast, 27 (35.1%) of these respondents felt that EHRs worsened the physician-patient relationship and conveyed an additional workload (n = 29; 37.6%). Several drawbacks in the implementation of EHRs were identified, including the limited inclusion of information on both outpatients and inpatients, information recorded in free text data fields, and the availability of specific informed consent. Forty-six (56.7%) respondents had patient registries where they recorded information from all patients seen in the department. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that EHRs are almost universally implemented in the hospitals surveyed and are considered to have a positive impact on work organization and clinical practice. However, EHRs currently have several drawbacks that limit their use for investigational purposes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

A retrospective, multicenter study of the efficacy of lapatinib plus trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients previously treated with trastuzumab, lapatinib, or both: the Trastyvere study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lapatinib (L) and trastuzumab (T) combination in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients previously treated with T and/or L. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, post-authorized, multicenter study including patients with HER2-positive MBC or locally advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated with the combination of L-T. Concomitant endocrine therapy, as well as brain metastasis and/or prior exposure to L, were allowed. RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen patients from 14 institutions were included. The median age was 59.8 years. The median number of prior T regimens in the advanced setting was 3 and 73 patients had received a prior L regimen. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 34.8% (95% CI 26.1-43.5). Among other efficacy endpoints, the overall response rate was 21.7%, and median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 3.9 and 21.6 months, respectively. Heavily pretreated and ≥ 3 metastatic organ patients showed lower CBR and PFS than patients with a low number of previous regimens and < 3 metastatic organs. Moreover, CBR did not significantly change in L-pretreated compared with L-naïve patients (31.5% versus 40.5% for L-pretreated versus L-naïve). Grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 19 patients (16.5%). CONCLUSION: The combination of L-T is an effective and well-tolerated regimen in heavily pretreated patients and remains active among patients progressing on prior L-based therapy. Our study suggests that the L-T regimen is a safe and active chemotherapy-free option for MBC patients previously treated with T and/or L.

A definition for aggressive disease in patients with HER-2 negative metastatic breast cancer: an expert consensus of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM).

PURPOSE: To converge on an expert opinion to define aggressive disease in patients with HER2-negative mBC using a modified Delphi methodology. METHODS: A panel of 21 breast cancer experts from the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology agreed upon a survey which comprised 47 questions that were grouped into three sections: relevance for defining aggressive disease, aggressive disease criteria and therapeutic goals. Answers were rated using a 9-point Likert scale of relevance or agreement. RESULTS: Among the 88 oncologists that were invited to participate, 81 answered the first round (92%), 70 answered the second round (80%), and 67 answered the third round (76%) of the survey. There was strong agreement regarding the fact that identifying patients with aggressive disease needs to be adequately addressed to help practitioners to decide the best treatment options for patients with HER2-negative mBC. The factors that were considered to be strongly relevant to classifying patients with aggressive HER2-negative mBC were a high tumor burden, a disease-free interval of less than 12-24 months after surgery, the presence of progressive disease during adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy and having a triple-negative phenotype. The main therapeutic goals were controlling symptoms, improving quality of life and increasing the time to progression and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: High tumor burden, time to recurrence after prior therapy and having a triple-negative phenotype were the prognostic factors for which the greatest consensus was found for identifying patients with aggressive HER2-negative mBC. Identifying patients with aggressive disease leads to different therapeutic approaches.

Final results of a phase II study of paclitaxel, bevacizumab, and gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy and safety data for combining bevacizumab, gemcitabine, and paclitaxel for locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer are limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: AVALUZ trial evaluates the combination of bevacizumab 10 mg/kg, gemcitabine 2,000 mg/m(2) plus paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2), on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day course in previously untreated HER-2 negative patients. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival (PES): 12.3 months. The overall response and clinical benefit rate (CR + PR + SD) were 72 % (95 % CI 60.9-82.0 %) and 89 % (95 % CI 80.3-95.3 %), respectively. Median overall survival: 27.4 mo. Baseline circulating tumor cell (CTCs) ≥2 versus CTCs <2 was associated with lower PFS, p = 0.046. Overall response was significantly greater in patients with intense angiotensin type 1 receptor (AGTR1) expression (99 vs. 60 % [p = 0.021]). The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events were: neutropenia (10 %); febrile neutropenia (1 %); sensory neuropathy (13 %); and asthenia (6 %). Grade 3 adverse events of interest with bevacizumab included bleeding (1 %) and hypertension (4 %). One patient developed cardiac ischemia (1 %). CONCLUSIONS: Adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy appeared feasible and well tolerated, producing toxicity comparable to other effective combined first-line regimens. Baseline circulating endothelial cells and AGTR1 expression are predictive of PFS and response.