Psychometric validation of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer–Quality of Life Questionnaire Sexual Health (EORTC QLQ-SH22)

BACKGROUND: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group developed a questionnaire to assess sexual health in patients with cancer and cancer survivors. This study evaluates the psychometric properties of the questionnaire. METHODS: The 22-item EORTC sexual health questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-SH22) was administered with the EORTC QLQ-C30 to 444 patients with cancer. The hypothesised scale structure, reliability and validity were evaluated through standardised psychometric procedures. RESULTS: The cross-cultural field study showed that the majority of patients (94.7%) were able to complete the QLQ-SH22 in less than 20 min; 89% of the study participants did not need any help to fill in the questionnaire. Multi-item multi-trait scaling analysis confirmed the hypothesised scale structure with two multi-item scales (sexual satisfaction, sexual pain) and 11 single items (including five conditional items and four gender-specific items). The internal consistency yielded acceptable Cronbach's alpha coefficients (.90 for the sexual satisfaction scale, .80 for the sexual pain scale). The test-retest correlations (Pearson's r) ranged from .70 to .93 except for the scale communication with professionals (.67) and male body image (.69). The QLQ-SH22 discriminates well between subgroups of patients differing in terms of their performance and treatment status. CONCLUSION: The study supports the reliability, the content and construct validity of the QLQ-SH22. The newly developed questionnaire is clinically applicable to assess sexual health of patients with cancer at different treatment stages and during survivorship for clinical trials and for clinical practice

Association of Axillary Dissection With Systemic Therapy in Patients With Clinically Node-Positive Breast Cancer.

The role of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) to determine nodal burden to inform systemic therapy recommendations in patients with clinically node (cN)-positive breast cancer (BC) is currently unknown. To address the association of ALND with systemic therapy in cN-positive BC in the upfront surgery setting and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). This was a prospective, observational, cohort study conducted from August 2018 to June 2022. This was a preplanned study within the phase 3 randomized clinical OPBC-03/TAXIS trial. Included were patients with confirmed cN-positive BC from 44 private, public, and academic breast centers in 6 European countries. After NACT, residual nodal disease was mandatory, and a minimum follow-up of 2 months was required. All patients underwent tailored axillary surgery (TAS) followed by ALND or axillary radiotherapy (ART) according to TAXIS randomization. TAS removed suspicious palpable and sentinel nodes, whereas imaging-guidance was optional. Systemic therapy recommendations were at the discretion of the local investigators. A total of 500 patients (median [IQR] age, 57 [48-69] years; 487 female [97.4%]) were included in the study. In the upfront surgery setting, 296 of 335 patients (88.4%) had hormone receptor (HR)-positive and Erb-B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2; formerly HER2 or HER2/neu)-negative disease: 145 (49.0%) underwent ART, and 151 (51.0%) underwent ALND. The median (IQR) number of removed positive lymph nodes without ALND was 3 (1-4) nodes compared with 4 (2-9) nodes with ALND. There was no association of ALND with the proportion of patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy (81 of 145 [55.9%] vs 91 of 151 [60.3%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.19-2.67) and type of systemic therapy. Of 151 patients with NACT, 74 (51.0%) underwent ART, and 77 (49.0%) underwent ALND. The ratio of removed to positive nodes was a median (IQR) of 4 (3-7) nodes to 2 (1-3) nodes and 15 (12-19) nodes to 2 (1-5) nodes in the ART and ALND groups, respectively. There was no observed association of ALND with the proportion of patients undergoing postneoadjuvant systemic therapy (57 of 74 [77.0%] vs 55 of 77 [71.4%]; aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.43-1.70), type of postneoadjuvant chemotherapy (eg, capecitabine: 10 of 74 [13.5%] vs 10 of 77 [13.0%]; trastuzumab emtansine-DM1: 9 of 74 [12.2%] vs 11 of 77 [14.3%]), or endocrine therapy (eg, aromatase inhibitors: 41 of 74 [55.4%] vs 36 of 77 [46.8%]; tamoxifen: 8 of 74 [10.8%] vs 6 of 77 [7.8%]). Results of this cohort study suggest that patients without ALND were significantly understaged. However, ALND did not inform systemic therapy recommendations

Who are the women who enrolled in the POSITIVE trial: a global study to support young hormone receptor positive breast cancer survivors desiring pregnancy

Background: Premenopausal women with early hormone-receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer receive 5-10 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) during which pregnancy is contraindicated and fertility may wane. The POSITIVE study investigates the impact of temporary ET interruption to allow pregnancy. Methods: POSITIVE enrolled women with stage I-III HR + early breast cancer, <42 years, who had received 18-30 months of adjuvant ET and wished to interrupt ET for pregnancy. Treatment interruption for up to 2 years was permitted to allow pregnancy, delivery and breastfeeding, followed by ET resumption to complete the planned duration. Findings: From 12/2014 to 12/2019, 518 women were enrolled at 116 institutions/20 countries/4 continents. At enrolment, the median age was 37 years and 74.9 % were nulliparous. Fertility preservation was used by 51.5 % of women. 93.2 % of patients had stage I/II disease, 66.0 % were node-negative, 54.7 % had breast conserving surgery, 61.9 % had received neo/adjuvant chemotherapy. Tamoxifen alone was the most prescribed ET (41.8 %), followed by tamoxifen + ovarian function suppression (OFS) (35.4 %). A greater proportion of North American women were <35 years at enrolment (42.7 %), had mastectomy (59.0 %) and received tamoxifen alone (59.8 %). More Asian women were nulliparous (81.0 %), had node negative disease (76.2%) and received tamoxifen + OFS (56.0 %). More European women had received chemotherapy (69.3 %). Interpretation: The characteristics of participants in the POSITIVE study provide insights to which patients and doctors considered it acceptable to interrupt ET to pursue pregnancy. Similarities and variations from a regional, sociodemographic, disease and treatment standpoint suggest specific sociocultural attitudes across the world. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on nipple-sparing mastectomy

Purpose Indications for nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have broadened to include the risk reducing setting and locally advanced tumors, which resulted in a dramatic increase in the use of NSM. The Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on NSM and immediate reconstruction was held to address a variety of questions in clinical practice and research based on published evidence and expert panel opinion. Methods The panel consisted of 44 breast surgeons from 14 countries across four continents with a background in gynecology, general or reconstructive surgery and a practice dedicated to breast cancer, as well as a patient advocate. Panelists presented evidence summaries relating to each topic for debate during the in-person consensus conference. The iterative process in question development, voting, and wording of the recommendations followed the modified Delphi methodology. Results Consensus recommendations were reached in 35, majority recommendations in 24, and no recommendations in the remaining 12 questions. The panel acknowledged the need for standardization of various aspects of NSM and immediate reconstruction. It endorsed several oncological contraindications to the preservation of the skin and nipple. Furthermore, it recommended inclusion of patients in prospective registries and routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Considerable heterogeneity in breast reconstruction practice became obvious during the conference. Conclusions In case of conflicting or missing evidence to guide treatment, the consensus conference revealed substantial disagreement in expert panel opinion, which, among others, supports the need for a randomized trial to evaluate the safest and most efficacious reconstruction techniques

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen for the prevention of locoregional and contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ (IBIS-II DCIS): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Background Third-generation aromatase inhibitors are more effective than tamoxifen for preventing recurrence in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive invasive breast cancer. However, it is not known whether anastrozole is more effective than tamoxifen for women with hormone-receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Here, we compare the efficacy of anastrozole with that of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Methods In a double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial, we recruited women who had been diagnosed with locally excised, hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Eligible women were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by central computer allocation to receive 1 mg oral anastrozole or 20 mg oral tamoxifen every day for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by major centre or hub and was done in blocks (six, eight, or ten). All trial personnel, participants, and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation and only the trial statistician had access to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was all recurrence, including recurrent DCIS and new contralateral tumours. All analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis (in all women who were randomised and did not revoke consent for their data to be included) and proportional hazard models were used to compute hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN37546358. Results Between March 3, 2003, and Feb 8, 2012, we enrolled 2980 postmenopausal women from 236 centres in 14 countries and randomly assigned them to receive anastrozole (1449 analysed) or tamoxifen (1489 analysed). Median follow-up was 7·2 years (IQR 5·6–8·9), and 144 breast cancer recurrences were recorded. We noted no statistically significant difference in overall recurrence (67 recurrences for anastrozole vs 77 for tamoxifen; HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·64–1·23]). The non-inferiority of anastrozole was established (upper 95% CI <1·25), but its superiority to tamoxifen was not (p=0·49). A total of 69 deaths were recorded (33 for anastrozole vs 36 for tamoxifen; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·58–1·50], p=0·78), and no specific cause was more common in one group than the other. The number of women reporting any adverse event was similar between anastrozole (1323 women, 91%) and tamoxifen (1379 women, 93%); the side-effect profiles of the two drugs differed, with more fractures, musculoskeletal events, hypercholesterolaemia, and strokes with anastrozole and more muscle spasm, gynaecological cancers and symptoms, vasomotor symptoms, and deep vein thromboses with tamoxifen. Conclusions No clear efficacy differences were seen between the two treatments. Anastrozole offers another treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS, which may be be more appropriate for some women with contraindications for tamoxifen. Longer follow-up will be necessary to fully evaluate treatment differences

Oncoplastic breast consortium recommendations for mastectomy and whole breast reconstruction in the setting of post-mastectomy radiation therapy

Aim Demand for nipple- and skin- sparing mastectomy (NSM/SSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (BR) has increased at the same time as indications for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) have broadened. The aim of the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium initiative was to address relevant questions arising with this clinically challenging scenario. Methods A large global panel of oncologic, oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgeons, patient advocates and radiation oncologists developed recommendations for clinical practice in an iterative process based on the principles of Delphi methodology. Results The panel agreed that surgical technique for NSM/SSM should not be formally modified when PMRT is planned with preference for autologous over implant-based BR due to lower risk of long-term complications and support for immediate and delayed-immediate reconstructive approaches. Nevertheless, it was strongly believed that PMRT is not an absolute contraindication for implant-based or other types of BR, but no specific recommendations regarding implant positioning, use of mesh or timing were made due to absence of high-quality evidence. The panel endorsed use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. It was acknowledged that the shape and size of reconstructed breasts can hinder radiotherapy planning and attention to details of PMRT techniques is important in determining aesthetic outcomes after immediate BR. Conclusions The panel endorsed the need for prospective, ideally randomised phase III studies and for surgical and radiation oncology teams to work together for determination of optimal sequencing and techniques for PMRT for each patient in the context of BR

Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on nipple-sparing mastectomy.

Purpose Indications for nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have broadened to include the risk reducing setting and locally advanced tumors, which resulted in a dramatic increase in the use of NSM. The Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on NSM and immediate reconstruction was held to address a variety of questions in clinical practice and research based on published evidence and expert panel opinion. Methods The panel consisted of 44 breast surgeons from 14 countries across four continents with a background in gynecology, general or reconstructive surgery and a practice dedicated to breast cancer, as well as a patient advocate. Panelists presented evidence summaries relating to each topic for debate during the in-person consensus conference. The iterative process in question development, voting, and wording of the recommendations followed the modified Delphi methodology. Results Consensus recommendations were reached in 35, majority recommendations in 24, and no recommendations in the remaining 12 questions. The panel acknowledged the need for standardization of various aspects of NSM and immediate reconstruction. It endorsed several oncological contraindications to the preservation of the skin and nipple. Furthermore, it recommended inclusion of patients in prospective registries and routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Considerable heterogeneity in breast reconstruction practice became obvious during the conference. Conclusions In case of conflicting or missing evidence to guide treatment, the consensus conference revealed substantial disagreement in expert panel opinion, which, among others, supports the need for a randomized trial to evaluate the safest and most efficacious reconstruction techniques