Soft Tissue Sarcoma of the Hand or Foot: Conservative Surgery and Radiotherapy

Purpose. Conservative treatment in the form of limited surgery and post-operative radiotherapy is controversial in hand and foot sarcomas, both due to poor radiation tolerance of the palm and sole, and due to technical difficulties in achieving adequate margins.This paper describes the local control and survival of 41 patients with soft tissue sarcoma of the hand or foot treated with conservative surgery and radiotherapy. The acute and late toxicity of megavoltage radiotherapy to the hand and foot are described. The technical issues and details of treatment delivery are discussed. The factors influencing local control after radiotherapy are analysed

Fulvestrant plus anastrozole or placebo versus exemestane alone after progression on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (SoFEA): a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised trial

SummaryBackgroundThe optimum endocrine treatment for postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer that has progressed on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAIs) is unclear. The aim of the SoFEA trial was to assess a maximum double endocrine targeting approach with the steroidal anti-oestrogen fulvestrant in combination with continued oestrogen deprivation.MethodsIn a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial done in the UK and South Korea, postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer (oestrogen receptor [ER] positive, progesterone receptor [PR] positive, or both) were eligible if they had relapsed or progressed with locally advanced or metastatic disease on an NSAI (given as adjuvant for at least 12 months or as first-line treatment for at least 6 months). Additionally, patients had to have adequate organ function and a WHO performance status of 0–2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular injection on day 1, followed by 250 mg doses on days 15 and 29, and then every 28 days) plus daily oral anastrozole (1 mg); fulvestrant plus anastrozole-matched placebo; or daily oral exemestane (25 mg). Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted blocks, and stratification was by centre and previous use of an NSAI as adjuvant treatment or for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Participants and investigators were aware of assignment to fulvestrant or exemestane, but not of assignment to anastrozole or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00253422 (UK) and NCT00944918 (South Korea).FindingsBetween March 26, 2004, and Aug 6, 2010, 723 patients underwent randomisation: 243 were assigned to receive fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 231 to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 249 to exemestane. Median PFS was 4·4 months (95% CI 3·4–5·4) in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 4·8 months (3·6–5·5) in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 3·4 months (3·0–4·6) in those assigned to exemestane. No difference was recorded between the patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole and fulvestrant plus placebo (hazard ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·83–1·21; log-rank p=0·98), or between those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo and exemestane (0·95, 0·79–1·14; log-rank p=0·56). 87 serious adverse events were reported: 36 in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 22 in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 29 in those assigned to exemestane. Grade 3–4 adverse events were rare; the most frequent were arthralgia (three in the group assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole; seven in that assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo; eight in that assigned to exemestane), lethargy (three; 11; 11), and nausea or vomiting (five; two; eight).InterpretationAfter loss of response to NSAIs in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, maximum double endocrine treatment with 250 mg fulvestrant combined with oestrogen deprivation is no better than either fulvestrant alone or exemestane.FundingCancer Research UK and AstraZeneca

Mortality Among Adults With Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy or Immunotherapy and Infected With COVID-19

Importance: Large cohorts of patients with active cancers and COVID-19 infection are needed to provide evidence of the association of recent cancer treatment and cancer type with COVID-19 mortality. // Objective: To evaluate whether systemic anticancer treatments (SACTs), tumor subtypes, patient demographic characteristics (age and sex), and comorbidities are associated with COVID-19 mortality. // Design, Setting, and Participants: The UK Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project (UKCCMP) is a prospective cohort study conducted at 69 UK cancer hospitals among adult patients (≥18 years) with an active cancer and a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. Patients registered from March 18 to August 1, 2020, were included in this analysis. // Exposures: SACT, tumor subtype, patient demographic characteristics (eg, age, sex, body mass index, race and ethnicity, smoking history), and comorbidities were investigated. // Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was all-cause mortality within the primary hospitalization. // Results: Overall, 2515 of 2786 patients registered during the study period were included; 1464 (58%) were men; and the median (IQR) age was 72 (62-80) years. The mortality rate was 38% (966 patients). The data suggest an association between higher mortality in patients with hematological malignant neoplasms irrespective of recent SACT, particularly in those with acute leukemias or myelodysplastic syndrome (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.30-3.60) and myeloma or plasmacytoma (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04-2.26). Lung cancer was also significantly associated with higher COVID-19–related mortality (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.11-2.25). No association between higher mortality and receiving chemotherapy in the 4 weeks before COVID-19 diagnosis was observed after correcting for the crucial confounders of age, sex, and comorbidities. An association between lower mortality and receiving immunotherapy in the 4 weeks before COVID-19 diagnosis was observed (immunotherapy vs no cancer therapy: OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.31-0.86). // Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study of patients with active cancer suggest that recent SACT is not associated with inferior outcomes from COVID-19 infection. This has relevance for the care of patients with cancer requiring treatment, particularly in countries experiencing an increase in COVID-19 case numbers. Important differences in outcomes among patients with hematological and lung cancers were observed

A Nationwide Survey of UK Oncologists’ Views on the Choice of Radiotherapy Regime for the Reconstructed Chest Wall in Breast Cancer Patients

Aims. This paper describes a UK survey of the choice of radiotherapy regime for the reconstructed chest wall in breast cancer patients. Questions focused on which fractionation regime consultants choose, their reasons for this, whether the type of reconstruction influences their choice, and whether bolus is used in patients who have undergone immediate reconstructive surgery. Materials and Methods. Between July 2014 and July 2015 a survey was sent by email to UK consultant radiation oncologists treating breast cancer. Results. The response rate was 73%. 67% of respondents use 40 Gray (Gy) in 15 fractions, with 22% using 50 Gy in 25 fractions and 7% using other regimes. For 90% of consultants the type of reconstruction did not influence their decision regarding choice of fractionation. 83% of respondents do not usually use a bolus for chest wall radiotherapy in patients who have had immediate reconstructive surgery. Conclusions. This survey illustrates there is variation in practice in the management of patients with breast cancer who have undergone immediate reconstructive surgery in the UK. There is a need for further research to determine which fractionation regime is optimal, whether the type of surgery is relevant, and whether bolus should be added

Osteonecrosis of the jaw and oral health-related quality of life after adjuvant zoledronic acid: an adjuvant zoledronic acid to reduce recurrence trial subprotocol (BIG01/04)

PURPOSE: In patients with early breast cancer, adjuvant zoledronic acid (zoledronate) may reduce recurrence and improve survival. However, zoledronate is associated with the occasional development of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). We report on the frequency of ONJ and investigate oral health-related quality of life (Oral-QoL) in a large randomized trial (Adjuvant Zoledronic Acid to Reduce Recurrence [AZURE]). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three thousand three hundred sixty women with stage II or III breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive standard adjuvant systemic therapy alone or with zoledronate administered at a dose of 4 mg for 19 doses over 5 years. All potential occurrences of ONJ were reported as serious adverse events and centrally reviewed. Additionally, we invited 486 study participants to complete the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) to assess Oral-QoL around the time the patients completed 5 years on study. Multivariable linear regression was used to calculate mean scores and 95% CIs in addition to identifying independent prognostic factors. RESULTS: With a median follow-up time of 73.9 months (interquartile range, 60.7 to 84.2 months), 33 possible cases of ONJ were reported, all in the zoledronate-treated patients. Twenty-six cases were confirmed as being consistent with a diagnosis of ONJ, representing a cumulative incidence of 2.1% (95% CI, 0.9% to 3.3%) in the zoledronate arm. Three hundred sixty-two patients (74%) returned the OHIP-14 questionnaire. Neither the prevalence nor severity of impacts on Oral-QoL differed significantly between zoledronate patients and control patients. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant zoledronate used in the intensive schedule studied in the AZURE trial is associated with a low incidence of ONJ but does not seem to adversely affect Oral-QoL

Phase 2 study of anastrozole in recurrent estrogen (ER)/progesterone (PR) positive endometrial cancer: The PARAGON trial – ANZGOG 0903

Background: The clinical benefit rate with aromatase inhibitors and the impact of treatment on quality of life (QOL) in endometrial cancer is unclear. We report the results of a phase 2 trial of anastrozole in endometrial cancer. Methods: Investigator initiated single-arm, open label trial of anastrozole, 1 mg/d in patients with ER and/or PR positive hormonal therapy naive metastatic endometrial cancer. Patients were treated until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end-point was clinical benefit (response + stable disease) at 3 months. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS), quality of life (QOL) and toxicity. Results: Clinical benefit rate in 82 evaluable patients at 3 months was 44% (95% CI: 34–55%) with a best response by RECIST of partial response in 6 pts. (7%; 95% CI: 3–15%). The median PFS was 3.2 months (95% CI: 2.8–5.4). Median duration of clinical benefit was 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.0–13.7). Treatment was well tolerated. Patients who had clinical benefit at 3 months reported clinically significant improvements in several QOL domains compared to those with PD; this was evident by 2 months including improvements in: emotional functioning (39 vs 6%: p = 0.002), cognitive functioning (45 vs 19%: p = 0.021), fatigue (47 vs 19%: p = 0.015) and global health status (42 vs 9%: p = 0.003). Conclusion: Although the objective response rate to anastrozole was relatively low, clinical benefit was observed in 44% of patients with ER/PR positive metastatic endometrial cancer and associated with an improvement in QOL

COVID-19 prevalence and mortality in patients with cancer and the effect of primary tumour subtype and patient demographics: a prospective cohort study

Background Patients with cancer are purported to have poor COVID-19 outcomes. However, cancer is a heterogeneous group of diseases, encompassing a spectrum of tumour subtypes. The aim of this study was to investigate COVID-19 risk according to tumour subtype and patient demographics in patients with cancer in the UK. Methods We compared adult patients with cancer enrolled in the UK Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project (UKCCMP) cohort between March 18 and May 8, 2020, with a parallel non-COVID-19 UK cancer control population from the UK Office for National Statistics (2017 data). The primary outcome of the study was the effect of primary tumour subtype, age, and sex and on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prevalence and the case–fatality rate during hospital admission. We analysed the effect of tumour subtype and patient demographics (age and sex) on prevalence and mortality from COVID-19 using univariable and multivariable models. Findings 319 (30·6%) of 1044 patients in the UKCCMP cohort died, 295 (92·5%) of whom had a cause of death recorded as due to COVID-19. The all-cause case–fatality rate in patients with cancer after SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly associated with increasing age, rising from 0·10 in patients aged 40–49 years to 0·48 in those aged 80 years and older. Patients with haematological malignancies (leukaemia, lymphoma, and myeloma) had a more severe COVID-19 trajectory compared with patients with solid organ tumours (odds ratio [OR] 1·57, 95% CI 1·15–2·15; p<0·0043). Compared with the rest of the UKCCMP cohort, patients with leukaemia showed a significantly increased case–fatality rate (2·25, 1·13–4·57; p=0·023). After correction for age and sex, patients with haematological malignancies who had recent chemotherapy had an increased risk of death during COVID-19-associated hospital admission (OR 2·09, 95% CI 1·09–4·08; p=0·028). Interpretation Patients with cancer with different tumour types have differing susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 phenotypes. We generated individualised risk tables for patients with cancer, considering age, sex, and tumour subtype. Our results could be useful to assist physicians in informed risk–benefit discussions to explain COVID-19 risk and enable an evidenced-based approach to national social isolation policies