Understanding of BRCA VUS genetic results by breast cancer specialists.

BACKGROUND: Mainstreaming genetic medicine, increased media coverage and clinical trials for BRCA mutation carriers are leading oncologists into more patient discussions about BRCA genetic testing. BRCA variants of uncertain significance (VUS) occur in 10-20% of tests. VUS detection introduces additional uncertainty for patient and potentially clinician. We aimed to explore the ability of breast cancer specialists (BCS) in the UK to correctly respond to a VUS report. METHODS: A survey sent to 800 UK BCS collected demographics data, VUS general knowledge and interpretation and communication based on two genetics reports. A separate survey of UK clinical geneticists collected demographics data, laboratory reporting practice and methods used to clarify VUS pathogenicity including classification systems. RESULTS: Of the 155 BCS (22.5%) who completed the survey, 12% reported no genetics training. Ninety five percent referred patients for BRCA genetic tests, 71% felt unsure about the clinical implications of the test reports presented here. A VUS report from a patient with a positive family history was interpreted and theoretically communicated correctly by 94% but when presented with a different VUS report with no management guidance and negative family history, 39% did not know how to communicate this result to the patient. Geneticists reported multiple VUS classification systems; the most commonly used was word-based in 32%. CONCLUSIONS: A consistent and standardised format to report particularly VUS results across all diagnostic laboratories plus additional training of UK BCS will be necessary for effective mainstreaming of BRCA testing to the oncology clinic

Local recurrence and breast oncological surgery in young women with breast cancer: The POSH observational cohort study

Objective: To assess clinical and surgical factors affecting local recurrence and survival in young breast cancer patients in the Prospective study of Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary breast cancer (POSH). Background: Emerging data suggest young age is a predictor of increased local recurrence. Methods: POSH is a prospective cohort of 3024 women of 18 to 40 years with breast cancer. Cohort characteristics were grouped by mastectomy or BCS. Endpoints were local-recurrence interval (LRI), distant disease-free interval (DDFI), and overall survival (OS); described using cumulative-hazard and Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable analyses by Flexible Parametric and Cox regression models. Results: Mastectomy was performed in 1464 patients and breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in 1395. Patients undergoing mastectomy had larger tumors and higher proportions of positive family history, estrogen receptor+, progesterone receptor+, and/or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2+ tumors. Local events accounted for 15% of recurrences. LRI by surgical type varied over time with LRI similar at 18 months (1.0% vs 1.0%, P = 0.348) but higher for BCS at 5 and 10 years (5.3% vs 2.6%, P < 0.001; and 11.7% vs 4.9%, P < 0.001, respectively). Similar results were found in the adjusted model. Conversely, distant-metastases and deaths were lower for BCS but not after adjusting for prognostic factors. After mastectomy chest-wall radiotherapy was associated with improved LRI (hazard ratio, HR = 0.46, P = 0.015). Positive surgical margins, and development of local recurrence predicted for reduced DDFI (HR = 0.50, P < 0.001; and HR = 0.29, P = 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: Surgical extent appears less important for DDFI than completeness of excision or, where appropriate, chest-wall radiotherapy. Despite higher local-recurrence rates for BCS, surgical type does not influence DDFI or OS after adjusting for known prognostic factors in young breast cancer patients

Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of B-type natriuretic peptide-guided care in patients with heart failure

OBJECTIVE: Monitoring B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) to guide pharmacotherapy might improve survival in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, the cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care is uncertain and guidelines do not uniformly recommend it. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care in patient subgroups defined by age and ejection fraction. METHODS: We used a Markov model with a 3-month cycle length to estimate the lifetime health service costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental net monetary benefits (iNMBs) of BNP-guided versus clinically guided care in 3 patient subgroups: (1) HFrEF patients <75 years; (2) HFpEF patients <75 years; and (3) HFrEF patients ≥75 years. There is no evidence of benefit in patients with HFpEF aged ≥75 years. We used individual patient data meta-analyses and linked primary care, hospital and mortality data to inform the key model parameters. We performed probabilistic analysis to assess the uncertainty in model results. RESULTS: In younger patients (<75 years) with HFrEF, the mean QALYs (5.57 vs 5.02) and costs (£63 527 vs £58 139) were higher with BNP-guided care. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY, the positive iNMB (£5424 (95% CI £987 to £9469)) indicates that BNP-guided care is cost-effective in this subgroup. The evidence of cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care is less strong for younger patients with HFpEF (£3155 (−£10 307 to £11 613)) and older patients (≥75 years) with HFrEF (£2267 (−£1524 to £6074)). BNP-guided care remained cost-effective in the sensitivity analyses, albeit the results were sensitive to assumptions on its sustained effect. CONCLUSIONS: We found strong evidence that BNP-guided care is a cost-effective alternative to clinically guided care in younger patients with HFrEF. It is potentially cost-effective in younger patients with HFpEF and older patients with HFrEF, but more evidence is required, particularly with respect to the frequency, duration and BNP target for monitoring. Cost-effectiveness results from trials in specialist settings cannot be generalised to primary care

Wilms’ tumour antigen 1 Immunity via DNA fusion gene vaccination in haematological malignancies by intramuscular injection followed by intramuscular electroporation: a Phase II non-randomised clinical trial (WIN)

Background: In the UK almost 7000 people are diagnosed with leukaemia each year, but despite continuing advances in diagnosis and treatment with new drugs, such as the tyrosine kinase inhibitors, the majority of these patients will eventually die from their disease. Until quite recently, the only treatment to offer the possibility of long-term disease-free survival was allogeneic stem cell transplantation. However, this carries a substantial risk of mortality and is available to only a minority of patients.Objectives: The aim of the study was to test the hypothesis that molecular and clinical responses, induced by T lymphocytes (T cells), can be predicted by increases in the number of CD8+ (cluster of differentiation 8-positive) T cells specific for the vaccine-encoded T-cell epitopes. This project also aimed to build on the established programme of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fusion-gene vaccination delivered by intramuscular injection, exploiting a unique experience with electroporation, to induce durable immune responses with the aim of controlling disease by precision attack of the tumour by CD8+ T cells.Method: A non-randomised, open-label, single-dose-level Phase II clinical trial in two patient groups [chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML)] on stable doses of imatinib. Human leucocyte antigen A2-positive (HLA A2+) patients were vaccinated with two DNA vaccines: (1) p.DOM–WT1-37 (epitope sequence: VLDFAPPGA); and (2) p.DOM–WT1-126 (epitope sequence: RMFPNAPYL). The HLA A2-negative patients formed an unvaccinated control group. The sample size for the HLA A2+ group was originally determined following Simon’s optimal Phase II trial design (Simon R. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:1–10). This was changed to A’Hern’s single-stage design during the course of the trial (A’Hern RP. Sample size tables for single-stage phase II designs. Stat Med 2001;20:859–66), which was endorsed by the trial’s independent oversight committees.Results: The study included 12 patients with CML who were vaccinated and nine patients with CML who were unvaccinated as the control group. Both the vaccines and the electroporation were safe, with no new or unexpected toxicities. The evaluation adverse events of special interest (heart, bone marrow, renal) did not reveal safety concerns. Two BCR–ABL (breakpoint cluster region–Abelson murine leukaemia viral oncogene homolog 1) responses were observed, both of which were defined as a major response, with one in each group. Two Wilms’ tumour antigen 1 (WT1) molecular responses were observed in the vaccinated group and one was observed in the control group. At an immunological level, the vaccine performed as expected.Conclusions: The study met its primary decision-making target with one major molecular response in BCR–ABL transcript levels. Overall, the data showed, in this clinical setting, the immunogenicity and safety of the vaccine.Limitations: The study did not complete recruitment and there were multiple hurdles that contributed to this failure. This is disappointing given the robust induction immune responses against WT1 T-cell responses in 7 out of 10 evaluable patients.Future work: Evaluation of the p.DOM–WT1 vaccines in AML remains attractive clinically, but it is unlikely to be feasible at this time. Combination of the DNA vaccine approach with strategies to expand T-cell responses with immunomodulatory antibodies is in development.Funding details: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership, and Bloodwise

Effectiveness of nurse‐led group CBT for hot flushes and night sweats in women with breast cancer: results of the MENOS4 randomised controlled trial

Objective Troublesome hot flushes and night sweats (HFNS) are experienced by many women after treatment for breast cancer, impacting significantly on sleep and quality of life. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is known to be effective for the alleviation of HFNS. However, it is not known if it can effectively be delivered by specialist nurses. We investigated whether group CBT delivered by breast care nurses (BCNs) can reduce the impact of HFNS.MethodsWe recruited women with primary breast cancer following primary treatment with seven or more HFNS/week (including 4/10 or above on the HFNS problem rating scale), from six UK hospitals to an open, randomised, phase 3 effectiveness trial. Participants were randomised to Group CBT or usual care (UC). The primary endpoint was HFNS problem rating at 26 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included sleep, depression, anxiety and quality of life. ResultsBetween 2017-2018, 130 participants were recruited (CBT:63, control:67). We found a 46% (6.9 to 3.7) reduction in the mean HFNS problem rating score from randomisation to 26 weeks in the CBT arm and a 15% (6.5 to 5.5) reduction in the UC arm (adjusted mean difference -1.96, CI -3.68 to -0.23, p=0.039). Secondary outcomes, including frequency of HFNS, sleep, anxiety and depression all improved significantly.ConclusionOur results suggest that specialist nurses can be trained to deliver CBT effectively to alleviate troublesome menopausal hot flushes in women following breast cancer in the NHS setting

Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of a specialist and a generic parenting programme for the treatment of preschool ADHD

BACKGROUND: The New Forest Parenting Programme (NFPP) is a home-delivered, evidence-based parenting programme to target symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in preschool children. It has been adapted for use with 'hard-to-reach' or 'difficult-to-treat' children. This trial will compare the adapted-NFPP with a generic parenting group-based programme, Incredible Years (IY), which has been recommended for children with preschool-type ADHD symptoms.METHODS/DESIGN: This multicentre randomized controlled trial comprises three arms: adapted-NFPP, IY and treatment as usual (TAU). A sample of 329 parents of preschool-aged children with a research diagnosis of ADHD enriched for hard-to-reach and potentially treatment-resistant children will be allocated to the arms in the ratio 3:3:1. Participants in the adapted-NFPP and IY arms receive an induction visit followed by 12 weekly parenting sessions of 1½ hours (adapted-NFPP) or 2½ hours (IY) over 2.5 years. Adapted-NFPP will be delivered as a one-to-one home-based intervention; IY, as a group-based intervention. TAU participants are offered a parenting programme at the end of the study. The primary objective is to test whether the adapted-NFPP produces beneficial effects in terms of core ADHD symptoms. Secondary objectives include examination of the treatment impact on secondary outcomes, a study of cost-effectiveness and examination of the mediating role of treatment-induced changes in parenting behaviour and neuropsychological function. The primary outcome is change in ADHD symptoms, as measured by the parent-completed version of the SNAP-IV questionnaire, adjusted for pretreatment SNAP-IV score. Secondary outcome measures are: a validated index of behaviour during child's solo play; teacher-reported SNAP-IV (ADHD scale); teacher and parent SNAP-IV (ODD) Scale; Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory - Oppositional Defiant Disorder scale; Revised Client Service Receipt Inventory - Health Economics Costs measure and EuroQol (EQ5D) health-related quality-of-life measure. Follow-up measures will be collected 6 months after treatment for participants allocated to adapted-NFPP and IY.DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence as to whether the adapted-NFPP is more effective and cost-effective than the recommended treatment and TAU. It will also provide information about mediating factors (improved parenting and neuropsychological function) and moderating factors (parent and child genetic factors) in any increased benefit.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN39288126.</p