Psychological impact of lung cancer screening using a novel antibody blood test followed by imaging: the ECLS randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The Early CDT®-Lung antibody blood test plus serial computed tomography scans for test-positives (TPGs) reduces late-stage lung cancer presentation. This study assessed the psychological outcomes of this approach.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trial (n = 12 208) comparing psychological outcomes 1-12 months post-recruitment in a subsample (n = 1032) of TPG, test-negative (TNG) and control groups (CG).

RESULTS

Compared to TNG, TPG had lower positive affect (difference between means (DBM), 3 months (3m: -1.49 (-2.65, - 0.33)), greater impact of worries (DBM 1m: 0.26 (0.05, 0.47); 3m: 0.28 (0.07, 0.50)), screening distress (DBM 1m: 3.59 (2.28, 4.90); 3m: 2.29 (0.97, 3.61); 6m: 1.94 (0.61, 3.27)), worry about tests (odds ratio (OR) 1m: 5.79 (2.66, 12.63) and more frequent lung cancer worry (OR 1m: 2.52 (1.31, 4.83); 3m: 2.43 (1.26, 4.68); 6m: 2.87 (1.48, 5.60)). Compared to CG, TPG had greater worry about tests (OR 1m: 3.40 (1.69, 6.84)). TNG had lower negative affect (log-transformed DBM 3m: -0.08 (-0.13, -0.02)), higher positive affect (DBM 1m: 1.52 (0.43, 2.61); 3m: 1.43 (0.33, 2.53); 6m: 1.27 (0.17, 2.37)), less impact of worries (DBM 3m: -0.27 (-0.48, -0.07)) and less-frequent lung cancer worry (OR 3m: 0.49 (0.26, 0.92)).

CONCLUSIONS

Negative psychological effects in TPG and positive effects in TNG were short-lived and most differences were small.

Abstract PD5-09: Fulvestrant for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer in patients with visceral vs non-visceral metastases: Findings from FALCON, FIRST, and CONFIRM

BACKGROUND

Patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (LA/MBC) and non-visceral metastases (non-VM) generally have a better prognosis than patients with visceral metastases (VM). However, in the absence of visceral crisis, endocrine therapy (ET) remains an effective treatment option in both patient groups. This descriptive analysis examined the treatment effect of fulvestrant 500 mg vs comparators in postmenopausal patients with HR+ LA/MBC, with or without VM.

METHODS

Three randomized studies of fulvestrant 500 mg for postmenopausal HR+ LA/MBC were included. The Phase 3 FALCON study (NCT01602380) compared fulvestrant 500 mg with anastrozole in patients without any prior ET (n=462; fulvestrant 500 mg: 58.7% with VM; anastrozole: 51.3% with VM). The Phase 2 FIRST study (NCT00274469) compared fulvestrant 500 mg with anastrozole in patients who had not received ET for advanced disease (n=205; fulvestrant 500 mg: 47.1% with VM; anastrozole: 56.3% with VM). The Phase 3 CONFIRM study (NCT00099437) compared fulvestrant 500 mg with fulvestrant 250 mg (n=736; fulvestrant 500 mg: 56.6% with VM; fulvestrant 250 mg: 52.9% with VM); patients had received prior ET for adjuvant/advanced disease. The treatment effect of fulvestrant 500 mg vs comparator ET was determined using log-rank tests.

RESULTS

In FALCON, there was a greater treatment effect with fulvestrant 500 mg vs anastrozole for progression-free survival (PFS) in the non-VM group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.59) vs the VM group (HR 0.99). A consistent treatment effect was observed for fulvestrant 500 mg vs comparator for PFS in FIRST (non-VM HR 0.58; VM HR 0.82) and CONFIRM (non-VM HR 0.72; VM HR 0.86). Median PFS of fulvestrant 500 mg vs comparator in non-VM and VM subgroups was: 22.3 months (m) vs 13.8 m and 13.8 m vs 15.9 m, respectively, in FALCON; 34.0 m vs 21.3 m and 9.8 m vs 9.9 m in FIRST; and 10.4 m vs 5.9 m and 4.7 m vs 4.0 m in CONFIRM.

Clinical benefit rate with fulvestrant 500 mg vs anastrozole in FALCON was 87.4% vs 75.2% in the non-VM group, and 71.9% vs 73.1% in the VM group.

Overall survival (OS) in FALCON (31% maturity) showed a greater treatment effect with fulvestrant 500 mg vs anastrozole in the non-VM group vs the VM group (HR 0.60 vs 1.09). In terms of OS, in FIRST there was a greater treatment effect with fulvestrant 500 mg vs anastrozole in the non-VM group compared with the VM group (HR 0.68 vs 0.86). In CONFIRM, improved OS was observed with fulvestrant 500 mg vs fulvestrant 250 mg; this treatment effect was consistent in non-VM (HR 0.78) and VM subgroups (HR 0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

In three studies, an improved treatment effect of fulvestrant 500 mg vs comparator ET for HR+ LA/MBC was observed in patients with non-VM. The treatment effect of fulvestrant 500 mg vs comparator for PFS across all three studies appeared consistent. A reduced treatment effect of fulvestrant 500 mg vs comparator was generally seen in patients with VM, although fulvestrant 500 mg was still as effective as, or slightly more effective than, the comparator. These data suggest that patients without VM may benefit more from fulvestrant 500 mg than patients with VM.

Citation Format: Roberston JFR, Di Leo A, Fazal M, Lichfield J, Ellis MJ. Fulvestrant for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer in patients with visceral vs non-visceral metastases: Findings from FALCON, FIRST, and CONFIRM [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD5-09.

Abstract P3-06-03: The short term effects of an AKT inhibitor (AZD5363) on biomarkers of the AKT pathway and anti-tumour activity in a breast cancer paired biopsy study (STAKT trial)

This abstract was withdrawn by the authors.