Effects of Endocrine Therapy on Cognitive Function in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Comprehensive Review

Endocrine therapy forms the backbone of systemic therapy for the majority of persons with early and late-stage breast cancer. However, the side effects can negatively affect quality of life, and impact treatment adherence and overall oncological outcomes. Adverse effects on cognition are common, underreported and challenging to manage. We aim to describe the nature, incidence, risk factors and underlying mechanisms of endocrine therapy-induced cognitive dysfunction. We conducted a comprehensive literature review of the studies reporting on cognitive dysfunction associated with endocrine therapies for breast cancer. We also summarise prevention and treatment strategies, and ongoing research. Given that patients are taking endocrine therapies for longer durations than ever before, it is essential that these side effects are managed pro-actively within a multi-disciplinary team in order to promote adherence to endocrine therapy and improve patients’ quality of life

Optima: Optimal personalised treatment of early breast cancer using multi-parameter analysis, an international randomized trial of tumor gene expression test-directed chemotherapy treatment in a largely node-positive population

Background: Multi-parameter tumor gene expression assays (MPAs) are validated tools to assist adjuvant chemotherapy decisions for post-menopausal women with luminal-type node-negative breast cancer. Currently there is less certainty for women with 1-3 involved axillary lymph nodes and no information on MPA use for patients with higher level nodal involvement. Three RCTs with available data report chemotherapy benefit for premenopausal women; with limited use of ovarian function suppression (OFS) for non-chemotherapy treated participants, chemotherapy-induced menopause may explain these results. Methods: OPTIMA is an international academic, partially-blinded RCT of test-directed chemotherapy treatment with an adaptive design. Women and men aged 40 or older with resected luminal-type breast cancer may participate if they fulfil one of the following stage criteria: pN1-2; pN1mi with pT ≥20mm; pN0 with pT ≥30mm. Consenting patients are randomized between standard treatment with chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy or to undergo Prosigna testing; those with high-Prosigna Score ( &gt; 60) tumors receive standard treatment whilst those with low-score tumors are treated with endocrine therapy alone. Patients are informed only of their treatment; test details, and randomization for chemotherapy-treated patients are masked. Clinical choice of chemotherapy is declared at randomization from a menu of standard regimens. Endocrine therapy must be for at least 5 years. Women postmenopausal at trial entry should receive an AI; men, tamoxifen; and premenopausal women, either an AI or tamoxifen, and OFS for 3 or more years; OFS initiation may be deferred because of post-chemotherapy amenorrhea. OPTIMA aims to randomize 2250 patients in each arm to demonstrate non-inferiority of test directed treatment, defined as not more than 3% below the estimated 85% 5-year IDFS for the control arm with a one sided 5% significance level. Power is 81% assuming recruitment over 96-months from January 2017 and 12 months minimum follow-up. OPTIMA also has at least 80% power to demonstrate 3.5% non-inferiority of IDFS for patients with low Prosigna Score tumors (estimated 65% of participants). Cox proportional hazards models will be used to explore important prognostic factors including menopausal status. Additional secondary endpoints include DRFI. A cost-effectiveness analysis of protocol specified MPA driven treatment against standard clinical practice will be conducted. At 31/01/2021, 2004 patients had been randomized. The DMC reviewed the trial in December 2020 with knowledge of related trial results and suggested that the trial continues as planned.<br/

Prospective observational cohort study on grading the severity of postoperative complications in global surgery research

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high- (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7-day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally

The surgical safety checklist and patient outcomes after surgery: a prospective observational cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2017 British Journal of Anaesthesia Background: The surgical safety checklist is widely used to improve the quality of perioperative care. However, clinicians continue to debate the clinical effectiveness of this tool. Methods: Prospective analysis of data from the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), an international observational study of elective in-patient surgery, accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. The exposure was surgical safety checklist use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. In the ISOS cohort, a multivariable multi-level generalized linear model was used to test associations. To further contextualise these findings, we included the results from the ISOS cohort in a meta-analysis. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 44 814 patients from 497 hospitals in 27 countries in the ISOS analysis. There were 40 245 (89.8%) patients exposed to the checklist, whilst 7508 (16.8%) sustained ≥1 postoperative complications and 207 (0.5%) died before hospital discharge. Checklist exposure was associated with reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.49 (0.32–0.77); P\u3c0.01], but no difference in complication rates [OR 1.02 (0.88–1.19); P=0.75]. In a systematic review, we screened 3732 records and identified 11 eligible studies of 453 292 patients including the ISOS cohort. Checklist exposure was associated with both reduced postoperative mortality [OR 0.75 (0.62–0.92); P\u3c0.01; I2=87%] and reduced complication rates [OR 0.73 (0.61–0.88); P\u3c0.01; I2=89%). Conclusions: Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine

Critical care admission following elective surgery was not associated with survival benefit: prospective analysis of data from 27 countries

This was an investigator initiated study funded by Nestle Health Sciences through an unrestricted research grant, and by a National Institute for Health Research (UK) Professorship held by RP. The study was sponsored by Queen Mary University of London