5 research outputs found
App-based support for breast cancer patients to reduce psychological distress during therapy and survivorship – a multicentric randomized controlled trial
IntroductionThe negative impact of unmanaged psychological distress on quality of life and outcome in breast cancer survivors has been demonstrated. Fortunately, studies indicate that distress can effectively be addressed and even prevented using evidence-based interventions. In Germany prescription-based mobile health apps, known as DiGAs (digital health applications), that are fully reimbursed by health insurances, were introduced in 2020. In this study, the effectiveness of an approved breast cancer DiGA was investigated: The personalized coaching app PINK! Coach supports and accompanies breast cancer patients during therapy and follow-up.MethodsPINK! Coach was specifically designed for breast cancer (BC) patients from the day of diagnosis to the time of Follow-up (aftercare). The app offers individualized, evidence-based therapy and side-effect management, mindfulness-based stress reduction, nutritional and psychological education, physical activity tracking, and motivational exercises to implement lifestyle changes sustainably in daily routine. A prospective, intraindividual RCT (DRKS00028699) was performed with n = 434 patients recruited in 7 German breast cancer centers from September 2022 until January 2023. Patients with BC were included independent of their stage of diseases, type of therapy and molecular characteristics of the tumor. Patients were randomized into one of two groups: The intervention group got access to PINK! over 12 weeks; the control group served as a waiting-list comparison to “standard of care.” The primary endpoint was psychological distress objectified by means of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Subgroups were defined to investigate the app’s effect on several patient groups such as MBC vs. EBC patients, patients on therapy vs. in aftercare, patients who received a chemotherapy vs. patients who did not.ResultsEfficacy analysis of the primary endpoint revealed a significant reduction in psychological distress (least squares estimate -1.62, 95% confidence interval [1.03; 2.21]; p<0.001) among intervention group patients from baseline to T3 vs, control group. Subgroup analysis also suggested improvements across all clinical situations.ConclusionPatients with breast cancer suffer from psychological problems including anxiety and depression during and after therapy. Personalized, supportive care with the app PINK! Coach turned out as a promising opportunity to significantly improve psychological distress in a convenient, accessible, and low-threshold manner for breast cancer patients independent of their stage of disease (EBC/MBC), therapy phase (aftercare or therapy) or therapy itself (chemotherapy/other therapy options). The app is routinely available in Germany as a DiGA. Clinical Trial Registration: DRKS Trial Registry (DRKS00028699)
Associations of serum levels of microRNA-371a-3p (M371) with risk factors for progression in nonseminomatous testicular germ cell tumours clinical stage 1
Purpose Lymphovascular invasion (LV1) and presence of > 50% embryonal carcinoma (> 50% EC) represent risk factors for progression in patients with clinical stage 1 (CS1) nonseminomatous (NS) testicular germ cell tumours. As serum levels of microRNA-371a-3p (M371) are capable of detecting small amounts of GCT, we evaluated if LV1 and > 50% EC are associated with M371 levels. Methods M371 serum levels were measured postoperatively in 153 NS CS1 patients and both pre- and postoperatively in 131 patients. We registered the following factors: age, tumour size, LV status, > 50% EC, teratoma in primary, preoperative elevation of classical tumour markers. M371 expression was compared among subgroups. The ability of M371 to predict LV1 was calculated by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. Multiple regression analysis was used to look for associations of M371 levels with other factors. Results Postoperatively elevated M371 levels were found in 29.4% of the patients, but were neither associated with LV status nor with > 50% EC. Likewise, relative decrease of M371 was not associated. ROC analysis of postoperative M371 levels revealed an AUC of 0.5 for the ability to predict LV1 while preoperative M371 had an AUC of 0.732. Multiple regression analysis revealed significant associations of preoperative M371 levels with LV status (p = 0.003), tumour size (p = 0.001), > 50% EC (p = 0.004), and teratoma component (p = 0.045). Conclusion Postoperatively elevated M371 levels are not associated with risk factors for progression in NS CS1 patients. However, the significant association of preoperative M371 expression with LV1 deserves further evaluation
Capivasertib in Hormone Receptor-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer.
Background: AKT pathway activation is implicated in endocrine-therapy resistance. Data on the efficacy and safety of the AKT inhibitor capivasertib, as an addition to fulvestrant therapy, in patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer are limited.
Methods: In a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial, we enrolled eligible pre-, peri-, and postmenopausal women and men with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer who had had a relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive capivasertib plus fulvestrant or placebo plus fulvestrant. The dual primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with AKT pathway-altered (PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN) tumors. Safety was assessed.
Results: Overall, 708 patients underwent randomization; 289 patients (40.8%) had AKT pathway alterations, and 489 (69.1%) had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously for advanced breast cancer. In the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 7.2 months in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 3.6 months in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.71; P<0.001). In the AKT pathway-altered population, the median progression-free survival was 7.3 months in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 3.1 months in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.65; P<0.001). The most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in patients receiving capivasertib-fulvestrant were rash (in 12.1% of patients, vs. in 0.3% of those receiving placebo-fulvestrant) and diarrhea (in 9.3% vs. 0.3%). Adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported in 13.0% of the patients receiving capivasertib and in 2.3% of those receiving placebo.
Conclusions: Capivasertib-fulvestrant therapy resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with fulvestrant alone among patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer whose disease had progressed during or after previous aromatase inhibitor therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor. (Funded by AstraZeneca and the National Cancer Institute; CAPItello-291 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04305496.)