Use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer in the Netherlands

Use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer in the Netherlands P.E.R. Spronk1, A.C.M. Van Bommel1, S. Siesling2,3, M.J.T. Baas- Vrancken Peeters4, C.H. Smorenburg5. 1Leiden University Medical Centre, Surgery, Leiden, Netherlands; 2Comprehensive Cancer Centre the Netherlands IKNL, Epidemiology, Utrecht, Netherlands; 3University of Twente, MIRA Biomedical science and Technical Medicine, Twente, Netherlands; 4Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Surgery, Amsterdam, Netherlands; 5Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Medical Oncology, Amsterdam, Netherlands Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is the treatment of choice for patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). The aim of this study is to examine the use of NAC for LABC in all Dutch hospitals participating in breast cancer care and to assess what patient, tumour and hospital characteristics influence its use. Material and Methods: Data were derived from the national multidisciplinary NABON Breast Cancer Audit (NBCA), regarding all women aged >18 years and newly diagnosed with LABC from January 2011 to September 2013. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between the use of NAC and patient, tumour and hospital related factors. Results: Of 1419 woman diagnosed with LABC, 70% were treated with NAC. This percentage varied from 12.5% to 90% between hospitals and did not increase over time. Factors associated with the use of NAC included young age, large tumour size, more advanced nodal disease and triple negative or hormone-receptor negative tumours. Also patients treated in hospitals with a multidisciplinary preoperative work-up and participation in neoadjuvant studies were more likely to receive NAC. However, considerable variation between hospitals remained after casemix correction. Table 1. Multivariable odds ratios (ORs) for receipt of NAC among 1419 stage III patients 2011 through 2013 OR 95% CI P-value Age 0.000 5 cm 5.68 2.34−13.79 Clinical nodal status 0.000 cNx/N0 ref. cN1 1.32 0.86−2.04 cN2 2.93 1.18−7.29 cN3 10.28 4.18−25.25 Receptor status 0.000 Triple negative 2.35 1.40−3.93 HR−, Her2+ 3.37 1.67−6.78 HR+, Her2+ 0.91 0.51−1.60 HR+, Her2− ref. Type of surgery 0.026 Breast conservation therapy 2.05 1.09−3.84 Mastectomy ref. Multidisciplinary team 0.021 Yes 1.98 1.11−3.53 No ref. Type of hospital 0.569 General 1.20 0.73−1.98 Top clinical ref. Academic 1.50 0.64−3.47 Hospital surgical volume 0.729 200 1.27 0.70−2.31 Study participation 0.005 Yes 1.80 1.20−2.70 No ref. Conclusions: There is considerable variation in the use of NAC for LABC in the Netherlands. Although various patient, tumor and institutional factors are associated with the use of NAC in LABC, these can only explain part of the observed variation in treatment patterns between hospitals

Efficacy of anastrozole after tamoxifen in early breast cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced ovarian function failure

The DATA study (NCT00301457) compared 6 and 3 years of anastrozole in postmenopausal women with hormone receptorpositive early breast cancer after 2–3 years of tamoxifen. Patients with chemotherapy-induced ovarian function failure (CIOFF) were also eligible, but could be at risk of ovarian function recovery (OFR). The current analysis compared the survival of women with CIOFF with definitely postmenopausal women and examined the influence of OFR on survival. Therefore, w

Optimal Pre-infusion Cooling Time in Patients Treated With Chemotherapy and Scalp Cooling

Clinical Oncolog

Efficacy of anastrozole after tamoxifen in early breast cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced ovarian function failure

Contains fulltext : 203571.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Patient-reported health problems and healthcare use after treatment for early-stage breast cancer.

Background: A clear picture of treatment-related health problems following breast cancer treatment is useful in anticipating the informational and other needs of patients during follow-up. This study aimed to identify treatment-related health problems in breast cancer patients up to five years after diagnosis. Secondly, the use of care associated with these health problems was identified. Methods: 876 surgically-treated female patients diagnosed between 2012 and 2016 with early-stage breast cancer were asked to complete an online survey about their current health problems and use of care. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were applied to determine the effect of patient and treatment characteristics on health problems. Results: 404 patients responded (46%). The median age was 62.0 years (SD:10.9). Apart from breast surgery, patients had been treated with radiotherapy (72%), chemotherapy (49%), anti-hormonal therapy (57%), and axillary dissection (21%). Ninety-three percent experienced one or more health problems. Over 50% of respondents experienced fatigue, psychological problems, and health problems regarding the breast, and/or musculoskeletal, central nervous, and reproductive system. Treatment with chemotherapy was significantly associated (p < 0.05) with an increased risk of health problems, respectively fatigue (OR:2.00), respiratory (OR:1.81), gastrointestinal (OR:1.87), central nervous (OR:3.40), and skin problems (OR:2.62). Use of healthcare for one or more health problems was reported by 64% of respondents. Discussion: Almost all patients experienced health problems up to five years after breast cancer diagnosis, with a range of complaints that were consistently present over time. Factors associated with the development of health problems are useful for better informing patients beforehand and targeting follow-up care

Patients' experiences with decisions on timing of chemotherapy for breast cancer

Introduction: Despite potential advantages, application of chemotherapy in the neo-adjuvant (NAC) instead of adjuvant (AC) setting for breast cancer (BC) patients varies among hospitals. The aim of this study was to gain insight in patients' experiences with decisions on the timing of chemotherapy for stage II and III BC. Materials and methods: A 35-item online questionnaire was distributed among female patients (age>18) treated with either NAC or AC for clinical stage II/III invasive BC in 2013–2014 in the Netherlands. Outcome measures were the experienced exchange of information on the possible choice between both options and patients' involvement in the final decision on chemotherapy timing. Chemotherapy treatment experience was measured with the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ). Results: Of 805 invited patients, 49% responded (179 NAC, 215 AC). NAC-treated patients were younger and more often treated in teaching/academic hospitals and high-volume hospitals. Information on the possibility of NAC was given to a minority of AC-treated patients (AC, stage II:14%, stage III: 31%). Information on pros and cons of both NAC and AC was rated sufficient in about three fourth of respondents. Respondents not always felt having a choice in the timing of chemotherapy (stage II: 54% NAC vs 36% AC; stage III: 26% NAC, 54% AC). Conclusion: The need to make a treatment decision on NAC was found to be made explicit in only a small number of adjuvant treated patients, in particular in BC stage II. Less than half of the respondents felt they had a real choice

Current decisions on neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: Experts’ experiences in the Netherlands

Purpose: To evaluate the opinion of surgical and medical oncologists on neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for early breast cancer. Methods: Surgical and medical oncologists (N = 292) participating in breast cancer care in the Netherlands were invited for a 20-question survey on the influence of patient, disease, and management related factors on their decisions towards NAC. Results: A total of 138 surgical and medical oncologists from 64 out of 89 different Dutch hospitals completed the survey. NAC was recommended for locally advanced breast cancer (94%) and for downstaging to enable breast conserving surgery (BCS) (75%). Despite willingness to downstage, 64% of clinicians routinely recommended NAC when systemic therapy was indicated preoperatively. Reported reasons to refrain from NAC are comorbidities (68%), age >70 years (52%), and WHO-performance status ≥2 (93%). Opinions on NAC and surgical management were inconclusive; while 75% recommends NAC to enable BCS, some stated that BCS after NAC increases the risk of a non-radical resection (21%), surgical complications (9%) and recurrence of disease (5%). Conclusion: This article emphasizes the need for more consensus among specialists on the indications for NAC in early BC patients. Unambiguous and evidence-based treatment information could improve doctor-patient communication, supporting the patient in chemotherapy timing decision-making