Use of HER2-Directed Therapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer and How Community Physicians Collaborate to Improve Care

The development of new HER2-directed therapies has resulted in a significant prolongation of survival for women with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. Discoveries in the laboratory inform clinical trials which are the basis for improving the standard of care and are also the backbone for quality improvement. Clinical trials can be completed more rapidly by expanding trial enrollment to community sites. In this article we review some of the challenges in treating metastatic breast cancer with HER2-directed therapies and our strategies for incorporating our community partners into the research network

A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of lapatinib in combination with letrozole in patients with advanced cancer

Purpose: The main objectives of this phase I and pharmacokinetic, open-label study were to determine the optimally tolerated regimen (OTR), safety, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity of lapatinib in combination with letrozole in patients with advanced solid malignancies. Experimental Design: Patients with advanced breast cancer with immunohistochemically detectable estrogen or progesterone receptors or other cancers were eligible. Doses of lapatinib were escalated in cohorts of three subjects from 1,250 to a maximum of 1,500 mg/d based on dose-limiting toxicities in the first treatment cycle. The letrozole dose was fixed at 2.5 mg/d. Additional patients were enrolled at the OTR dose level to further evaluate safety and for pharmacokinetic analyses. Results: Thirty-nine patients were enrolled in the study: 12 in the dose-escalation group, 7 in the OTR safety group, and 20 in the pharmacokinetic group. The OTR dose level was identified as 1,500 mg/d lapatinib and 2.5 mg/d letrozole. The most common (>25% of patients) drug-related adverse events were diarrhea (77%), rash (62%), nausea (46%), and fatigue (26%). No significant differences were observed in the pharmacokinetic variables (Cmax and AUC) of lapatinib and letrozole when coadministered compared with single-agent administration. One patient with endometrial cancer had a confirmed partial response. Conclusions: Clinically relevant doses of lapatinib in combination with letrozole were well tolerated and did not result in a pharmacokinetic interaction, and clinical antitumor activity was observed

Complex Oncological Decision-Making Utilizing Fast-and-Frugal Trees in a Community Setting-Role of Academic and Hybrid Modeling.

Non-small cell lung cancer is a devastating disease and with the advent of targeted therapies and molecular testing, the decision-making process has become complex. While established guidelines and pathways offer some guidance, they are difficult to utilize in a busy community practice and are not always implemented in the community. The rationale of the study was to identify a cohort of patients with lung adenocarcinoma at a City of Hope community site (n = 11) and utilize their case studies to develop a decision-making framework utilizing fast-and-frugal tree (FFT) heuristics. Most patients had stage IV (N = 9, 81.8%) disease at the time of the first consultation. The most common symptoms at initial presentation were cough (N = 5, 45.5%), shortness of breath (N = 3, 27.2%), and weight loss (N = 3, 27.2%). The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ranged from 0-1 in all patients in this study. Distribution of molecular drivers among the patients were as follows: EGFR (N = 5, 45.5%), KRAS (N = 2, 18.2%), ALK (N = 2, 18.2%), MET (N = 2, 18.2%), and RET (N = 1, 9.1%). Seven initial FFTs were developed for the various case scenarios, but ultimately the decisions were condensed into one FFT, a molecular stage IV FFT, that arrived at accurate decisions without sacrificing initial information. While these FFT decision trees may seem arbitrary to an experienced oncologist at an academic site, the simplicity of their utility is essential for community practice where patients often do not get molecular testing and are not assigned proper therapy

Strategies to Improve Participation of Older Adults in Cancer Research

Cancer is a disease associated with aging. As the US population ages, the number of older adults with cancer is projected to dramatically increase. Despite this, older adults remain vastly underrepresented in research that sets the standards for cancer treatments and, consequently, clinicians struggle with how to interpret data from clinical trials and apply them to older adults in practice. A combination of system, clinician, and patient barriers bar opportunities for trial participation for many older patients, and strategies are needed to address these barriers at multiple fronts, five of which are offered here. This review highlights the need to (1) broaden eligibility criteria, (2) measure relevant end points, (3) expand standard trial designs, (4) increase resources (e.g., institutional support, interdisciplinary care, and telehealth), and (5) develop targeted interventions (e.g., behavioral interventions to promote patient enrollment). Implementing these solutions requires a substantial investment in engaging and collaborating with community-based practices, where the majority of older patients with cancer receive their care. Multifaceted strategies are needed to ensure that older patients with cancer, across diverse healthcare settings, receive the highest-quality, evidence-based care

Patient-reported outcomes with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial

BackgroundThe NSABP B-35 trial compared 5 years of treatment with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for reducing subsequent occurrence of breast cancer in postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. This report assesses the effect of these drugs on quality of life and symptoms.MethodsThe study was done at 333 hospitals in North America. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole breast irradiation were randomly assigned to receive either tamoxifen (20 mg/day) or anastrazole (1 mg/day) for 5 years, stratified by age (<60 years vs ≥60 years). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and every 6 months thereafter for 6 years. The primary outcomes were SF-12 physical and mental health component scale scores, and vasomotor symptoms (as per the BCPT symptom scale). Secondary outcomes were vaginal symptoms and sexual functioning. Exploratory outcomes were musculoskeletal pain, bladder symptoms, gynaecological symptoms, cognitive symptoms, weight problems, vitality, and depression. We did the analyses by intention to treat, including patients who completed questionnaires at baseline and at least once during follow-up. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00053898.FindingsBetween Jan 6, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 1193 were included in the quality-of-life substudy: 601 assigned to tamoxifen and 592 assigned to anastrozole. We detected no significant difference between treatment groups for: physical health scores (mean severity score 46·72 for tamoxifen vs 45·85 for anastrozole; p=0·20), mental health scores (52·38 vs 51·48; p=0·38), energy and fatigue (58·34 vs 57·54; p=0·86), or symptoms of depression (6·19 vs 6·39; p=0·46) over 5 years. Vasomotor symptoms (1·33 vs 1·17; p=0·011), difficulty with bladder control (0·96 vs 0·80; p=0·0002), and gynaecological symptoms (0·29 vs 0·18; p<0·0001) were significantly more severe in the tamoxifen group than in the anastrozole group. Musculoskeletal pain (1·50 vs 1·72; p=0·0006) and vaginal symptoms (0·76 vs 0·86; p=0·035) were significantly worse in the anastrozole group than in the tamoxifen group. Sexual functioning did not differ significantly between the two treatments (43·65 vs 45·29; p=0·56). Younger age was significantly associated with more severe vasomotor symptoms (mean severity score 1·45 for age <60 years vs 0·65 for age ≥60 years; p=0·0006), vaginal symptoms (0·98 vs 0·65; p<0·0001), weight problems (1·32 vs 1·02; p<0·0001), and gynaecological symptoms (0·26 vs 0·22; p=0·014).InterpretationGiven the similar efficacy of tamoxifen and anastrozole for women older than age 60 years, decisions about treatment should be informed by the risk for serious adverse health effects and the symptoms associated with each drug. For women younger than 60 years old, treatment decisions might be driven by efficacy (favouring anastrozole); however, if the side-effects of anastrozole are intolerable, then switching to tamoxifen is a good alternative.FundingUS National Cancer Institute, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial

BackgroundDuctal carcinoma in situ is currently managed with excision, radiotherapy, and adjuvant hormone therapy, usually tamoxifen. We postulated that an aromatase inhibitor would be safer and more effective. We therefore undertook this trial to compare anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy.MethodsThe double-blind, randomised, phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-35 trial was done in 333 participating NSABP centres in the USA and Canada. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole-breast irradiation were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral tamoxifen 20 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of anastrozole) or oral anastrozole 1 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of tamoxifen) for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by age (<60 vs ≥60 years) and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was breast cancer-free interval, defined as time from randomisation to any breast cancer event (local, regional, or distant recurrence, or contralateral breast cancer, invasive disease, or ductal carcinoma in situ), analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00053898, and is complete.FindingsBetween Jan 1, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (1552 to tamoxifen and 1552 to anastrozole). As of Feb 28, 2015, follow-up information was available for 3083 patients for overall survival and 3077 for all other disease-free endpoints, with median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 8·2-10·0). In total, 212 breast cancer-free interval events occurred: 122 in the tamoxifen group and 90 in the anastrozole group (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·56-0·96], p=0·0234). A significant time-by-treatment interaction (p=0·0410) became evident later in the study. There was also a significant interaction between treatment and age group (p=0·0379), showing that anastrozole is superior only in women younger than 60 years of age. Adverse events did not differ between the groups, except for thrombosis or embolism--a known side-effect of tamoxifen-for which there were 17 grade 4 or worse events in the tamoxifen group versus four in the anastrozole group.InterpretationCompared with tamoxifen, anastrozole treatment provided a significant improvement in breast cancer-free interval, mainly in women younger than 60 years of age. This finding means that women will benefit from having a choice of effective agents for ductal carcinoma in situ.FundingUS National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP