A feasibility study exploring the role of pre-operative assessment when examining the mechanism of ‘chemo-brain’ in breast cancer patients

Background: Women receiving chemotherapy treatment for breast cancer may experience problems with their memory and attention (cognition), which is distressing and interferes with quality of life. It is unclear what causes or contributes to the problems they report: psychological distress, fatigue, coping style, or specific biological changes for example to pro inflammatory cytokines. Research shows however, that approximately a third of women with breast cancer perform poorly on tests of cognition before commencing chemotherapy. We aimed to examine the acceptability and relevance of pre-surgical assessments (bloods, brain imaging, cognitive tests and self-report questionnaires) when investigating the phenomenon of ‘chemo-brain’ and investigate whether inflammatory markers mediate chemotherapy-induced neuropsychological impairments in women treated for breast cancer. Methods: Women with early stage breast cancer completed neuropsychological and quality of life assessments at T1 (pre-surgery), T2 (post-surgery before chemotherapy) and T3 (6 months later). Blood cytokine levels were measured at the same time points and brain imaging was performed at T1 and T3. Results: In total, 14/58 women participated (8 chemotherapy, 6 non-chemotherapy). Prior to the start of chemotherapy a decline in cognitive performance compared to baseline was observed in one participant. At T3 women who received chemotherapy reported poorer quality of life and greater fatigue. Increases in soluble tumour necrosis factor receptor II (sTNFRII), interleukin-6, interleukin-10 and vascular endothelial growth factor occurred post chemotherapy only. Levels of sTNFRII were inversely correlated with grey matter volume (GMV) of the right posterior insula in both groups. At T3, the chemotherapy group displayed a greater reduction in GMV in the subgenual and dorsal anterior cingulate, and the inferior temporal gyrus. Conclusions: Pre-operative recruitment to the study was challenging; however, the lack of significant changes in blood cytokine levels and neuropsychological tests at T2 implies that post surgery may be a valid baseline assessment, but this needs further investigation in a larger study. The preliminary results support the hypothesis that chemotherapy induced fatigue is mediated by a change in peripheral cytokine levels which could explain some symptoms of ‘chemo brain’ experienced by patients

The Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Ongoing Triple Therapy (PIVOT) trial : a randomised controlled trial of a protease inhibitor monotherapy strategy for long-term management of human immunodeficiency virus infection

Background Standard-of-care antiretroviral therapy (ART) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection uses a combination of drugs, until now considered essential to minimise treatment failure and development of drug resistance. Protease inhibitors (PIs) are potent with a high genetic barrier to resistance and have the potential for use as monotherapy after viral load (VL) suppression achieved on combination therapy. However, longer-term resistance and toxicity risks are uncertain. Objective To compare the effectiveness, toxicity profile and cost-effectiveness of PI monotherapy with those of standard-of-care triple therapy in a pragmatic long-term clinical trial. Design Open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Setting Forty-three HIV clinical centres in the UK NHS. Participants HIV-positive adults taking standard combination ART with a suppressed VL for ≥ 6 months. Interventions Patients were randomised to maintain ongoing triple therapy (OT) or switch to a strategy of physician-selected ritonavir-boosted PI monotherapy (PI-mono), with prompt return to combination therapy in the event of VL rebound. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was reduction of future drug options, defined as new intermediate-/high-level resistance to one or more drugs to which the patient’s virus was considered to be sensitive at trial entry (non-inferiority comparison, 10% margin). Secondary outcomes included confirmed virological rebound, serious drug- or disease-related complications, total grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs), neurocognitive function change, cluster of differentiation 4 (CD4) cell count change, change in health-related quality of life, cardiovascular risk change, health-care costs and health economic analysis. Results In total, 587 participants were randomised (77% male, 68% white) to OT (n = 291) or PI-mono (n = 296) and followed for a median of 44 months, of whom 2.7% withdrew/were lost to follow-up. One or more episodes of confirmed VL rebound were observed in eight patients (Kaplan–Meier estimate 3.2%) in the OT group and 95 patients (35.0%) in the PI-mono group [absolute risk difference 31.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 24.6% to 39.0%; p < 0.001]. PI-mono patients who changed to ART after VL rebound all resuppressed (median 3.5 weeks). The proportions with loss of a future drug option at 3 years were 0.7% in the OT group and 2.1% in the PI-mono group (difference 1.4%, (95% CI –0.4% to 3.4%); non-inferiority demonstrated). There were no significant differences in serious disease complications between groups or in the frequency of grade 3 or 4 clinical AEs (16.8% OT group vs. 22% PI-mono group; absolute risk difference 5.1%, 95% CI –1.3% to 11.5%; p = 0.12). Overall, the PI-mono strategy was shown to be cost-effective compared with OT under most scenarios explored. PI-mono was cost saving because of the large savings in ART drug costs while being no less effective in terms of quality-adjusted life-years in the within-trial analysis and only marginally less effective when extrapolated to lifetime outcomes. Conclusions PI monotherapy, with prompt reintroduction of combination therapy for VL rebound, was non-inferior to combination therapy in preserving future treatment options and is an acceptable and cost-effective alternative for long-term management of HIV infection. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04857074. Funding This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information