A cost comparison study to review community versus acute hospital models of nursing care delivered to oncology patients

Purpose: Ireland's Sláintecare health plan is placing an increased focus on primary care. A community oncology nursing programme was developed to train community nurses to deliver care in the community. While the initial pilot was proven to be clinically safe, no cost evaluation was carried out. This study aims to compare the costs of providing cancer support services in a day-ward versus in the community. Methods: 183 interventions (40 in day-ward and 143 in community) were timed and costed using healthcare professional salaries and the Human Capital method. Results: From the healthcare provider perspective, the day-ward was a significantly cheaper option by an average of €17.13 (95% CI €13.72 - €20.54, p < 0.001). From the societal perspective, the community option was cheaper by an average of €2.77 (95% CI -€3.02 – €8.55), although this was a non-significant finding. Sensitivity analyses indicate that the community service may be significantly cheaper from the societal perspective. Conclusions: Given the demand for cost-viable options for primary care services, this programme may represent a national option for cancer care in Ireland when viewed from the societal perspective

Breast-cancer adjuvant therapy with zoledronic acid

Background: Data suggest that the adjuvant use of bisphosphonates reduces rates of recurrence and death in patients with early-stage breast cancer. We conducted a study to determine whether treatment with zoledronic acid, in addition to standard adjuvant therapy, would improve disease outcomes in such patients. Methods: In this open-label phase 3 study, we randomly assigned 3360 patients to receive standard adjuvant systemic therapy either with or without zoledronic acid. The zoledronic acid was administered every 3 to 4 weeks for 6 doses and then every 3 to 6 months to complete 5 years of treatment. The primary end point of the study was disease-free survival. A second interim analysis revealed that a prespecified boundary for lack of benefit had been crossed. Results: At a median follow-up of 59 months, there was no significant between-group difference in the primary end point, with a rate of disease-free survival of 77% in each group (adjusted hazard ratio in the zoledronic acid group, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.13; P=0.79). Disease recurrence or death occurred in 377 patients in the zoledronic acid group and 375 of those in the control group. The numbers of deaths — 243 in the zoledronic acid group and 276 in the control group — were also similar, resulting in rates of overall survival of 85.4% in the zoledronic acid group and 83.1% in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.01; P=0.07). In the zoledronic acid group, there were 17 confirmed cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw (cumulative incidence, 1.1%; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.7; P<0.001) and 9 suspected cases; there were no cases in the control group. Rates of other adverse effects were similar in the two study groups. Conclusions: These findings do not support the routine use of zoledronic acid in the adjuvant management of breast cancer. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals and the National Cancer Research Network; AZURE Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN79831382.

Breast-cancer Adjuvant Therapy With Zoledronic Acid

BACKGROUND: Data suggest that the adjuvant use of bisphosphonates reduces rates of recurrence and death in patients with early-stage breast cancer. We conducted a study to determine whether treatment with zoledronic acid, in addition to standard adjuvant therapy, would improve disease outcomes in such patients. METHODS: In this open-label phase 3 study, we randomly assigned 3360 patients to receive standard adjuvant systemic therapy either with or without zoledronic acid. The zoledronic acid was administered every 3 to 4 weeks for 6 doses and then every 3 to 6 months to complete 5 years of treatment. The primary end point of the study was disease-free survival. A second interim analysis revealed that a prespecified boundary for lack of benefit had been crossed. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 59 months, there was no significant between-group difference in the primary end point, with a rate of disease-free survival of 77% in each group (adjusted hazard ratio in the zoledronic acid group, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.13; P = 0.79). Disease recurrence or death occurred in 377 patients in the zoledronic acid group and 375 of those in the control group. The numbers of deaths - 243 in the zoledronic acid group and 276 in the control group - were also similar, resulting in rates of overall survival of 85.4% in the zoledronic acid group and 83.1% in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.01; P = 0.07). In the zoledronic acid group, there were 17 confirmed cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw (cumulative incidence, 1.1%; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.7; P < 0.001) and 9 suspected cases; there were no cases in the control group. Rates of other adverse effects were similar in the two study groups. CONCLUSIONS: These findings do not support the routine use of zoledronic acid in the adjuvant management of breast cancer

Clinical and Genomic Risk to Guide the Use of Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND The use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer may be guided by clinicopathological factors and a score based on a 21-gene assay to determine the risk of recurrence. Whether the level of clinical risk of breast cancer recurrence adds prognostic information to the recurrence score is not known. METHODS We performed a prospective trial involving 9427 women with hormone-receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative, axillary node–negative breast cancer, in whom an assay of 21 genes had been performed, and we classified the clinical risk of recurrence of breast cancer as low or high on the basis of the tumor size and histologic grade. The effect of clinical risk was evaluated by calculating hazard ratios for distant recurrence with the use of Cox proportional-hazards models. The initial endocrine therapy was tamoxifen alone in the majority of the premenopausal women who were 50 years of age or younger. RESULTS The level of clinical risk was prognostic of distant recurrence in women with an intermediate 21-gene recurrence score of 11 to 25 (on a scale of 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a worse prognosis or a greater potential benefit from chemotherapy) who were randomly assigned to endocrine therapy (hazard ratio for the comparison of high vs. low clinical risk, 2.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.93 to 3.87) or to chemotherapy plus endocrine (chemoendocrine) therapy (hazard ratio, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.66 to 3.48) and in women with a high recurrence score (a score of 26 to 100), all of whom were assigned to chemoendocrine therapy (hazard ratio, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.94 to 5.19). Among women who were 50 years of age or younger who had received endocrine therapy alone, the estimated (±SE) rate of distant recurrence at 9 years was less than 5% (≤1.8±0.9%) with a low recurrence score (a score of 0 to 10), irrespective of clinical risk, and 4.7±1.0% with an intermediate recurrence score and low clinical risk. In this age group, the estimated distant recurrence at 9 years exceeded 10% among women with a high clinical risk and an intermediate recurrence score who received endocrine therapy alone (12.3±2.4%) and among those with a high recurrence score who received chemoendocrine therapy (15.2±3.3%). CONCLUSIONS Clinical-risk stratification provided prognostic information that, when added to the 21-gene recurrence score, could be used to identify premenopausal women who could benefit from more effective therapy

Adjuvant Chemotherapy Guided by a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND The recurrence score based on the 21-gene breast cancer assay predicts chemotherapy benefit if it is high and a low risk of recurrence in the absence of chemotherapy if it is low; however, there is uncertainty about the benefit of chemotherapy for most patients, who have a midrange score. METHODS We performed a prospective trial involving 10,273 women with hormone-receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative, axillary node–negative breast cancer. Of the 9719 eligible patients with follow-up information, 6711 (69%) had a midrange recurrence score of 11 to 25 and were randomly assigned to receive either chemoendocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone. The trial was designed to show noninferiority of endocrine therapy alone for invasive disease–free survival (defined as freedom from invasive disease recurrence, second primary cancer, or death). RESULTS Endocrine therapy was noninferior to chemoendocrine therapy in the analysis of invasive disease–free survival (hazard ratio for invasive disease recurrence, second primary cancer, or death [endocrine vs. chemoendocrine therapy], 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.24; P=0.26). At 9 years, the two treatment groups had similar rates of invasive disease–free survival (83.3% in the endocrine-therapy group and 84.3% in the chemoendocrine-therapy group), freedom from disease recurrence at a distant site (94.5% and 95.0%) or at a distant or local–regional site (92.2% and 92.9%), and overall survival (93.9% and 93.8%). The chemotherapy benefit for invasive disease–free survival varied with the combination of recurrence score and age (P=0.004), with some benefit of chemotherapy found in women 50 years of age or younger with a recurrence score of 16 to 25. CONCLUSIONS Adjuvant endocrine therapy and chemoendocrine therapy had similar efficacy in women with hormone-receptor–positive, HER2-negative, axillary node–negative breast cancer who had a midrange 21-gene recurrence score, although some benefit of chemotherapy was found in some women 50 years of age or younger

Associations Between Serum Bone Biomarkers in Early Breast Cancer and Development of Bone Metastasis: Results From the AZURE (BIG01/04) Trial

Background: Adjuvant therapies can prevent/delay bone metastasis development in breast cancer. We investigated whether serum bone turnover markers in early disease have clinical utility in identifying patients with a high risk of developing bone metastasis. Methods: Markers of bone formation (N-terminal propeptide of type-1 collagen [P1NP]) and bone resorption (C-telopeptide of type-1 collagen [CTX], pyridinoline cross-linked carboxy-terminal telopeptide of type-1 collagen [1-CTP]) were measured in baseline (pretreatment blood samples from 872 patients from a large randomized trial of adjuvant zoledronic acid (AZURE-ISRCTN79831382) in early breast cancer. Cox proportional hazards regression and cumulative incidence functions (adjusted for factors having a statistically significant effect on outcome) were used to investigate prognostic and predictive associations between recurrence events, bone marker levels, and clinical variables. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: When considered as continuous variables (log transformed), P1NP, CTX, and 1-CTP were each prognostic for future bone recurrence at any time (P = .006, P = .009, P = .008, respectively). Harrell’s c-indices were a P1NP of 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51 to 0.63), CTX of 0.57 (95% CI = 0.51 to 0.62), and 1-CTP of 0.57 (95% CI = 0.52 to 0.63). In categorical analyses based on the normal range, high baseline P1NP (>70 ng/mL) and CTX (>0.299 ng/mL), but not 1-CTP (>4.2 ng/mL), were also prognostic for future bone recurrence (P = .03, P = .03, P = .10, respectively). None of the markers were prognostic for overall distant recurrence; that is, they were bone metastasis specific, and none of the markers were predictive of treatment benefit from zoledronic acid. Conclusions: Serum P1NP, CTX, and 1-CTP are clinically useful, easily measured markers that show good prognostic ability (though low-to-moderate discrimination) for bone-specific recurrence and are worthy of further study

Prospective Validation of a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer

Prior studies with the use of a prospective–retrospective design including archival tumor samples have shown that gene-expression assays provide clinically useful prognostic information. However, a prospectively conducted study in a uniformly treated population provides the highest level of evidence supporting the clinical validity and usefulness of a biomarker

TRAIL receptor signalling and modulation: Are we on the right TRAIL?

Tumour necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand or Apo2 ligand (TRAIL/Apo2L) is a member of the turnout necrosis factor (TNF) superfamily of cytokines that induces apoptosis upon binding to its death domain-containing transmembrane receptors, death receptors 4 and 5 (DR4, DR5). Importantly, TRAIL preferentially induces apoptosis in cancer cells while exhibiting little or no toxicity in normal cells. To date, research has focused on the mechanism of apoptosis induced by TRAIL and the processes involved in the development of TRAIL resistance. TRAIL-resistant tumours can be re-sensitized to TRAIL by a combination of TRAIL with chemotherapeutics or irradiation. Studies suggest that in many cancer cells only one of the two death-inducing TRAIL receptors is functional. These findings as well as the aim to avoid decoy receptor-mediated neutralization of TRAIL led to the development of receptor-specific TRAIL variants and agonistic antibodies. These molecules are predicted to be more potent than native TRAIL in vivo and may be suitable for targeted treatment of particular tumours. This review focuses on the current status of TRAIL receptor-targeting for cancer therapy, the apoptotic signalling pathway induced by TRAIL receptors, the prognostic implications of TRAIL receptor expression and modulation of TRAIL sensitivity of turnout cells by combination therapies. The mechanisms of TRAIL resistance and the potential measures that can be taken to overcome them are also addressed. Finally, the status of clinical trials of recombinant TRAIL and DR4-/DR5-specific agonistic antibodies as well as the pre-clinical studies of receptor-selective TRAIL variants is discussed including the obstacles facing the use of these molecules as anti-cancer therapeutics. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved