Long-Term Toxicity in Patients Receiving Radiotherapy for Ultracentral Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer - A Secondary Analysis of the LUSTRE Randomized Trial

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Hypofractionated and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) are increasingly used in the treatment of centrally located, early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), though there are concerns of increased morbidity and mortality in patients with ultracentral tumors (UC). We report on the long-term toxicity of patients with UC lung cancer treated on a prospective randomized clinical trial of SBRT versus conventionally hypofractionated radiotherapy (CRT) for stage I NSCLC (NCT01968941).

MATERIALS/METHODS

Patients with UC tumors, defined as those where the planning target volume directly overlaps with the proximal bronchial tree (PBT), were identified from the larger cohort of patients treated on the trial. These patients received either SBRT with 60 Gy in 8 fractions or CRT with 60 Gy in 15 fractions. The primary endpoint of this secondary analysis was development of any grade 3 or higher toxicity defined using CTCAE version 3.0. Secondary endpoints included local control, as well as dosimetric analysis of the PBT, using EQD2 with α/β ratio of 3 to assess the relationship between dose to the PBT and toxicity.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients were identified with UC tumors; 21 received SBRT and 8 received CRT. Median age was 72 years (range 55-88 years) and 59% were female. Median FEV1 was 1.46L (range 0.64-2.37L). Patients had either T1 (59%) or T2 (41%) lesions, with median tumor size 2.5cm (range 1.1-4.9cm). Most patients had histologically confirmed disease (squamous cell, n = 10; adenocarcinoma, n = 8; radiographically suspicious, n = 11). The median follow-up was 2.9 years (range 0.7-5.2 years). The 3-year local control rate of all patients was 88.3% (95% confidence interval: 75.7-100%). There were 3 patients with late (>3 months) grade 3 toxicity (bronchial stricture, chest pain, and atelectasis) and 1 patient with late grade 5 toxicity (bleeding/hemorrhage), all treated in the SBRT arm. Median EQD2 dose to PBT in patients with grade ≥3 late toxicity compared to the rest of the cohort was: Dmax, 132 vs 129 Gy; D0.1cc, 129 vs 119 Gy; D1cc, 124 vs 80 Gy; and D5cc, 83 vs 41 Gy. Median EQD2 volumetric doses in grade ≥3 patients (compared to the rest) to PBT were: V65 Gy, 9.7 vs 2.2cc; V80 Gy, 7.9 vs 1.1cc; V90 Gy, 6.2 vs 0.4cc; and V100 Gy, 4.8 vs 0.3cc. The single patient with grade 5 toxicity had the highest D5cc (116 Gy) and V100 Gy (7cc) among all patients.

CONCLUSION

Stereotactic radiation with 60 Gy in 8 fractions for UC lung cancer provides good local control but carries an approximately 15-20% rate of late grade ≥3 toxicity. There appears to be a dosimetric association between toxicity and dose to the PBT. It may be more important to minimize volumetric PBT dose rather than maximum point dose to reduce risk of severe late toxicity.

Abstract GS6-03: Symptoms and health-related quality of life on endocrine therapy alone (E) versus chemoendocrine therapy (C+E): TAILORx patient-reported outcomes results

Background: TAILORx patient-reported outcomes (PRO) quantify symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQL) from C+E beyond E alone from the patient's perspective, thus can inform decision-making for women in the intermediate risk group for whom chemotherapy may still be considered.

Methods: TAILORx participants with OncoType DX Recurrence Scores 11-25 were randomly assigned to E or C+E. All TAILORx participants enrolled 1/2010-10/2010 (N=612) completed PROs measuring fatigue, endocrine symptoms, cognitive impairments (PCI), and fear of recurrence at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. HRQL was assessed at baseline, 12, and 36 months. Linear regression (LR) examined PRO scores among the per-protocol sample.

Results: Overall, participants reported significantly more fatigue, endocrine symptoms and PCI at 3, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months compared to baseline and those randomized to C+E reported a greater magnitude of change baseline-3 months compared to those randomized to E alone (Table 1). Overall, by 12 months symptoms were comparable between groups. Pre-menopausal women had comparable symptoms at 24 and 36 months. Post-menopausal women randomized to C+E had greater endocrine symptoms at 24 and 36 months and greater fatigue at 6 and 24 months. Fear of recurrence was comparable between arms during treatment and follow-up. Multiple linear regression identified increased fatigue (LR slope β=0.67), endocrine symptoms (β =0.14), and PCI (β=0.11) as significant predictors of decreased HRQL across arms (p< 0.001). HRQL was comparable between E and C+E at 12- and 36-months.

Mean PRO change scores from baseline by treatment arm and menopausal status in per protocol population  Months    36122436N=Overall454469458384343n=Pre-menopausal153151150118103n=Post-menopausal301318308266240FACIT-Fatigue     Overall sample     C+E-8.77-4.37-4.01-4.27-3.67E-2.48-1.97-2.14-1.49-1.83LMED-5.32***-1.55-1.01-1.76-0.90Pre-M     C+E-8.01-3.26-2.99-2.45-1.60E-3.87-1.66-1.32-2.52-2.11LMED-3.11-0.82-1.121.021.46Post-M     C+E-9.22-4.97-4.55-5.14-4.67E-1.87-2.10-2.52-1.09-1.71LMED-6.42***-1.99*-1.16-3.02*-2.01FACT-Endocrine Symptoms     Overall sample     C+E-5.56-5.63-6.96-6.81-7.14E-3.61-4.24-5.62-5.31-5.17LMED-1.62*-0.97-1.08-1.05-1.69Pre-M     C+E-7.62-8.34-7.94-8.29-8.96E-5.96-6.19-8.95-10.39-10.84LMED-1.44-1.631.062.272.18Post-M     C+E-4.39-4.19-6.45-6.10-6.28E-2.55-3.41-4.10-3.23-2.87LMED-1.49-0.45-2.04-2.39*-3.17**Significance between mean change scores *p<0.05;**p<0.01;***p<0.001. LMED=estimated tx difference using linear model regressing score on baseline value and tx

Conclusions: TAILORx is the first trial to examine patient-reported fatigue, endocrine symptoms, PCI and HRQL among breast cancer patients randomized to endocrine therapy alone vs chemoendocrine therapy, thus allowing us to quantify acute and long-term symptoms uniquely attributable to chemotherapy. As expected, chemotherapy is associated with greater fatigue, endocrine symptoms and PCI acutely during treatment, and for post-menopausal women with greater long-term endocrine symptoms. Increased symptoms were associated with poorer HRQL. Long-term HRQL was comparable between groups.

Citation Format: Wagner LI, Gray RJ, Garcia S, Whelan TJ, Tevarweerk A, Yanez B, Carlos R, Gareen I, McCaskill-Stevens W, Cella D, Sparano JA, Sledge, Jr. GW, On behalf of the TAILORx Study Team. Symptoms and health-related quality of life on endocrine therapy alone (E) versus chemoendocrine therapy (C+E): TAILORx patient-reported outcomes results [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS6-03.

Abstract GS4-07: Race, ethnicity and clinical outcomes in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer: results from the TAILORx trial

Background: Black race is associated with worse outcomes in localized hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer in population-based and in clinical trial cohorts, whether using self-identified race (Albain et al. JNCI 2009 [PMID: 19584328; Sparano et al. JNCI 2012 [PMID: 22250182) or genetically-identified race (Schneider et al. J Precision Oncol 2017 [PMID: 29333527]). This disparity persists after adjustment for treatment delivery parameters (Hershman et al. JCO 2009 [PMID:19307504]). We evaluated clinicopathologic characteristics, treatment delivered and clinical outcomes in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx) by race and ethnicity (Sparano et al. NEJM 2018 [PMID: 29860917]).

Methods: The analysis included 9719 evaluable TAILORx participants. The association between clinical outcomes and race (white, black, Asian, other/unknown) and ethnicity (Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic) was examined, including invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), distant relapse-free interval (DRFI), relapse-free interval (RFI), and overall survival (OS). Proportional hazards models were fit including age (5 categories), tumor size (>2 cm vs. <=2 cm), histologic grade (high vs. medium vs. low vs. unknown), continuous recurrence score (RS), race, and ethnicity in the overall population and randomized treatment arms in the RS 11-25 cohort.

Results: The study population included 8189 (84%) whites, 693 (7%) blacks, 405 (4%) Asians, and 432 (4%) with other/unknown race. Regarding ethnicity, 7635 (79%) were non-Hispanic, 889 (9%) Hispanic, and 1195 (12%) unknown. There was no significant difference in RS distribution (p=0.22) in blacks compared with whites, or in median (17 vs. 17) or mean RS (19.1 vs. 18.2). There was likewise no difference in Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic ethnicity for RS distribution (p=0.72) or median (17 vs. 17) or mean RS (18.5 vs. 18.0). Black race (39% vs. 30%) and Hispanic ethnicity (39% vs. 30%) were both associated with younger age (</=50 years) at diagnosis. The use and type of adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy, and duration of endocrine therapy, were similar in black (vs. white) and Hispanic (vs. non-Hispanic) populations. In proportional hazards models, black race (compared with white race) was associated with worse clinical outcomes in the entire population and in those with a RS 11-25 (see table). Hispanic ethnicity was generally associated with better outcomes (compared with non-Hispanic ethnicity). For the cohort with a RS of 11-25, there was no evidence for chemotherapy benefit for any racial or ethnic group.

Race (black vs.white) and clinical outcomes in proportional hazards modelsClinical endpointEntire Population (N=693 black) Hazard ratio for eventRS 11-25 (N=471 black) Hazard ratio for eveniDFS1.33 (p=0.005)1.49 (p=0.001)DRFI1.21 (p=0.28)1.60 (p=0.02)RFI1.39 (p=0.02)1.80 (p<0.001)OS1.52 (p=0.005)1.67 (p=0.003

Conclusions: In patients eligible and selected for participation in TAILORx, black women had worse clinical outcomes despite similar 21-gene assay RS results and comparable systemic therapy. This adds to an emerging body of evidence suggesting a biologic basis or other factors contributing to racial disparities in HR-positive breast cancer that requires further evaluation.

Citation Format: Albain K, Gray RJ, Sparano JA, Makower DF, Pritchard KI, Hayes DF, Geyer, Jr. CE, Dees EC, Goetz MP, Olson, Jr. JA, Lively T, Badve SS, Saphner TJ, Wagner LI, Whelan TJ, Ellis MJ, Paik S, Wood WC, Ravdin PM, Keane MM, Gomez HL, Reddy PS, Goggins TF, Mayer IA, Brufsky AM, Toppmeyer DL, Kaklamani VG, Berenberg JL, Abrams J, Sledge, Jr. GW. Race, ethnicity and clinical outcomes in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer: results from the TAILORx trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS4-07.

Impact of baseline BMI and weight change in CCTG adjuvant breast cancer trials

Background

We hypothesized that increased baseline BMI and BMI change would negatively impact clinical outcomes with adjuvant breast cancer systemic therapy.

Methods

Data from chemotherapy trials MA.5 and MA.21; endocrine therapy MA.12, MA.14 and MA.27; and trastuzumab HERA/MA.24 were analyzed. The primary objective was to examine the effect of BMI change on breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) landmarked at 5 years; secondary objectives included BMI changes at 1 and 3 years; BMI changes on disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS); and effects of baseline BMI. Stratified analyses included trial therapy and composite trial stratification factors.

Results

In pre-/peri-/early post-menopausal chemotherapy trials (N = 2793), baseline BMI did not impact any endpoint and increased BMI from baseline did not significantly affect BCFI (P = 0.85) after 5 years although it was associated with worse BCFI (P = 0.03) and DSS (P = 0.07) after 1 year. BMI increase by 3 and 5 years was associated with better DSS (P = 0.01; 0.01) and OS (P = 0.003; 0.05). In pre-menopausal endocrine therapy trial MA.12 (N = 672), patients with higher baseline BMI had worse BCFI (P = 0.02) after 1 year, worse DSS (P = 0.05; 0.004) after 1 and 5 years and worse OS (P = 0.01) after 5 years. Increased BMI did not impact BCFI (P = 0.90) after 5 years, although it was associated with worse BCFI (P = 0.01) after 1 year. In post-menopausal endocrine therapy trials MA.14 and MA.27 (N = 8236), baseline BMI did not significantly impact outcome for any endpoint. BMI change did not impact BCFI or DSS after 1 or 3 years, although a mean increased BMI of 0.3 was associated with better OS (P = 0.02) after 1 year. With the administration of trastuzumab (N = 1395) baseline BMI and BMI change did not significantly impact outcomes.

Conclusions

Higher baseline BMI and BMI increases negatively affected outcomes only in pre-/peri-/early post-menopausal trial patients. Otherwise, BMI increases similar to those expected in healthy women either did not impact outcome or were associated with better outcomes.

Clinical Trials numbers

CAN-NCIC-MA5; National Cancer Institute (NCI)-V90-0027; MA.12-NCT00002542; MA.14-NCT00002864; MA.21-NCT00014222; HERA, NCT00045032;CAN-NCIC-MA24; MA-27-NCT00066573.

De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017

The 15th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference 2017 in Vienna, Austria reviewed substantial new evidence on loco-regional and systemic therapies for early breast cancer. Treatments were assessed in light of their intensity, duration and side-effects, seeking where appropriate to escalate or de-escalate therapies based on likely benefits as predicted by tumor stage and tumor biology. The Panel favored several interventions that may reduce surgical morbidity, including acceptance of 2 mm margins for DCIS, the resection of residual cancer (but not baseline extent of cancer) in women undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, acceptance of sentinel node biopsy following neoadjuvant treatment of many patients, and the preference for neoadjuvant therapy in HER2 positive and triple-negative, stage II and III breast cancer. The Panel favored escalating radiation therapy with regional nodal irradiation in high-risk patients, while encouraging omission of boost in low-risk patients. The Panel endorsed gene expression signatures that permit avoidance of chemotherapy in many patients with ER positive breast cancer. For women with higher risk tumors, the Panel escalated recommendations for adjuvant endocrine treatment to include ovarian suppression in premenopausal women, and extended therapy for postmenopausal women. However, low-risk patients can avoid these treatments. Finally, the Panel recommended bisphosphonate use in postmenopausal women to prevent breast cancer recurrence. The Panel recognized that recommendations are not intended for all patients, but rather to address the clinical needs of the majority of common presentations. Individualization of adjuvant therapy means adjusting to the tumor characteristics, patient comorbidities and preferences, and managing constraints of treatment cost and access that may affect care in both the developed and developing world.

Abstract P4-12-09: The immune response in triple negative breast cancer

Background: Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) is often associated with a poor prognosis. However TNBC is a heterogeneous group of tumors and while some patients have a poor prognosis others appear to do well long-term. There are currently no clinical or pathologic tumor features that distinguish poor from good outcome. Some TNBCs have infiltration with immune cells and the degree of this infiltration correlates with prognosis.

Objectives: 1) To comprehensively examine immune factors associated with outcome in a cohort of TNBC patients, and 2) to develop an immune gene signature that can stratify patients into low and high risk groups.

Methods: We profiled RNA from 22 TNBCs (10 who had experienced a recurrence) from our institutional cohort using the PanCancer Immune Profiling Panel from NanoString. This panel consists of an extensive list of 770 genes designed to evaluate the immune microenvironment of tumors. The genes fall into a number of functional categories including; 1. Genes that identify specific immune cells, 2. Cytokines that promote an effective immune response and others that are associated with immunosuppression, 3. Chemokines, which attract immune cells into the tumor, 4. Genes that assess both the activation and inhibition of immune cell function, 5. Genes that identify tumor specific antigens. Analysis was performed in the nSolver Advanced Analysis Program.

Results: Using unsupervised hierarchical clustering of genes that were highly differentially expressed, the tumors were classified into 3 immune groups with distinct clinical outcomes. Group 1 ('Immune Excluded'), consisted of tumors with the lowest levels of expression of the immune markers assessed, suggesting that these tumors have a low or absent immune infiltrate; 7 of 7 patients in this group recurred. Group 2 ('Immune Activated') contains tumors that had the highest levels of anti-tumoral immune cell genes and their activation markers. This we interpret to represent a tumor group with a robust anti-tumor immune response; 0 of the 6 patients in this group recurred. In comparison Group 3 ('Immune Low') had moderate to low levels of expression of the majority of immune genes assessed. This we interpret to represent a group of tumors with limited immune cells present; 3 of 9 patients in this group recurred. Lastly, when comparing scores for immune cells, patients that recurred had lower scores for cytotoxic cells, CD8 T cells, Th1 cells and B cells.

Conclusion: In this pilot study high expression of anti-tumoral immune genes correlated with good outcome, whereas lower/absent expression of these genes correlated with poor outcome. We are currently extending these findings to our entire cohort of 180 TNBC patients.

Citation Format: Gillgrass AE, Pond GR, Levine MN, Whelan TJ, Hassell JA, Bane AL. The immune response in triple negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-12-09.

Tumor factors predictive of response to hypofractionated radiotherapy in a randomized trial following breast conserving therapy

PURPOSE

To determine whether tumor grade, molecular subtype and hypoxia predict response to hypofractionated versus standard radiotherapy (RT) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for node-negative breast cancer in a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor blocks were available on 989 of 1234 patients enrolled in the Hypofractionation Whole Breast Irradiation (HWBI) Trial. A central pathology review and assessment of tumor grade using the Nottingham grading system was carried out. Tumors were classified by molecular subtype as luminal A, luminal B, HER2 enriched, basal-like or unclassified using a six-biomarker panel; ER, PR, HER-2, Ki67, CK5/6 and EGFR. Tumors were also classified as hypoxic based on the expression of HIF1α, CAIX or GLUT-1. The primary end point was local recurrence (LR).

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 12 years. In the multivariable Cox model, molecular subtype was the only factor predictive of LR, the 10-year cumulative incidence was 4.5% for luminal A and basal-like, 7.9% for luminal B and 16.9% for HER-2 enriched tumors (P < 0.01). Tumor grade, molecular subtype or hypoxia did not predict response to hypofractionation.

CONCLUSIONS

In women enrolled in the HWBI trial following BCS tumor molecular subtype predicted LR. However tumor grade, molecular subtype and hypoxia did not predict response to hypofractionation suggesting that patients with node-negative breast tumors of all grades and molecular subtypes may be safely treated with hypofractionated RT regimens.

Do alternative methods of measuring tumor size, including consideration of multicentric/multifocal disease, enhance prognostic information beyond TNM staging in women with early stage breast cancer: an analysis of the NCIC CTG MA.5 and MA.12 clinical trials

The AJCC staging criteria consider tumor size to be the largest dimension of largest tumor. Some case series suggest using summation of all tumor dimensions in patients with multicentric/multifocal (MC/MF) disease. We used data from NCIC CTG MA.5 and MA.12 clinical trials to examine alternative methods of assessing tumor size on breast-cancer-free-interval (BCFI). The 710 MA.5 pre-/peri-menopausal node positive and 672 MA.12 pre-menopausal node-negative/-positive patients have 10-year median follow-up. All patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. Tumors were centrally reviewed for grade, hormone receptor, and HER2 status. Continuous pathologic tumor size was: (1) largest dimension of largest tumor (cm); (2) tumor area (cm(2)); (3) volume of tumor (cm(3)); (4) with MC/MF disease, summation of (1)-(3) for up to 3 foci. We examined univariate and multivariate effects of tumor size on BCFI utilizing (un)stratified Cox regression and the Wald test statistic. In univariate analysis, larger tumor dimension was significantly associated with worse BFCI in node positive patients: p < 0.0001 for MA.5; p = 0.01 for MA.12. In MA.5 multivariate analysis, larger summation of largest tumor dimensions was associated with worse BCFI (p = 0.0003), while larger single dimension was associated with worse BCFI (p = 0.02) for MA.12. Presence of MC/MF and other tumor size measurements were not associated (p > 0.05) with BFCI. While physicians could consider the largest diameter of the largest focus of disease or the sum of the largest diameters of all foci in their T-stage determination, it appears that the current method of T-staging offers equivalent determinations of prognosis.

P5-14-01: Differences in Efficacy by Assessment Method: NCIC CTG Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trials MA.5, MA.12, MA.14, MA.21, MA.27 Meta-Analysis

Background: Based on recent breast cancer literature, we hypothesized that there could be substantive differences in apparent efficacy estimates using a log-normal (LN) survival model rather than with standard Kaplan-Meier (K-M) or Cox model methods. While both Cox and LN survival analyses offer greater specification by individual patient characteristics, the LN model may more robustly estimate survival under model misspecification. Methods: We recently pooled data for 5 NCIC CTG primary breast cancer trials: MA.5, MA.12, MA.14, MA.21, and MA.27. The total patient count for patients who received at least 1 dose of trial therapy is 11,253. Compilation included definition of STEEP endpoints (C Hudis, JCO, 2008) and standardized factor categorizations. The primary endpoint is Breast Cancer Free Interval (BCFI) defined as the time from randomization until recurrence: first local invasive or DCIS; regional, or distant; contralateral invasive or DCIS; or death from breast cancer. We found substantive evidence of non-proportionality for 7 factors compiled for the meta-analyses. In this work, we fit multivariate Cox and LN models with these 7 factors, lymph node status and pathologic T status. We then compare BCFI efficacy estimates for patient and tumour characteristics at 1-, 3-, and 5-years obtained with K-M, Cox, and LN models. Results: There was evidence that the Cox assumption of proportional hazards was violated for 7 factors: age, menopausal status, hormone receptor status, anthracycline use, chemotherapy use, race, and ECOG performance status. Differences between models were intrinsically affected by timing and extent of non-proportionality; there was no consistent pattern. In particular, investigations to date indicate efficacy estimates with absolute differences between K-M, Cox and LN estimates which varied by time of assessment: at 1-year 0.0 to 6.7%, at 3-years 0.4 to 18.6%, and at 5-years 0.2 to 17.0%. BCFI estimates with the K-M were inconsistently closer to those with the LN or Cox model: for K-M to Cox at 1-year 0.4 to 5.2%, at 3-years 0.4 to 15%, at 5-years 0.4 to 14.3%; for K-M to LN at 1-year 0.0 to 6.7%, at 3-years 0.5 to 18.6%, at 5-years 0.2 to 17.0%; for Cox to LN at 1-year 0.8 to 1.8%, at 3-years 1.9 to 6.0%, at 5-years 0.6 to 5.7%. K-M and Cox models have step-wise adjustments at events for K-M and Cox, rather than smooth modeling with the LN. Discussion: Even with reasonably large population subgroups, there were substantive differences in apparent survival (0.0 to 18.6%) between K-M, Cox and LN model types. The magnitude of differences in survival estimates was large enough to be clinically relevant and warrant further consideration as we evaluate new therapies and prognostic/predictive factors. We will be statistically investigating framework robustness under differing levels of model misspecification.

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-14-01.

NCIC-CTG MA.20: An intergroup trial of regional nodal irradiation in early breast cancer

LBA1003

Background: Randomized trials have demonstrated that locoregional radiation after mastectomy reduces locoregional recurrence and improves overall survival (OS) in women with node positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant systemic therapy. MA.20 evaluated the addition of regional nodal irradiation (RNI) to whole breast irradiation (WBI) following breast conserving surgery (BCS). Methods: Women with high risk node-negative or node-positive breast cancer treated with BCS and adjuvant chemotherapy and/or endocrine therapy were stratified by positive nodes, axillary nodes removed, chemo- and endocrine therapy and randomized to WBI (50Gy in 25 fractions +/- boost irradiation) or WBI plus RNI (45Gy in 25 fractions) to the internal mammary, supraclavicular, and high axillary lymph nodes. The primary outcome was OS. The Data Safety Monitoring Committee approved the analysis plan for the protocol specified interim analysis of relapse patterns, survival and toxicity at 5 years. Upon review of the data, they recommended release of the results. Results: Between March 2000 to March 2007, 1,832 women were randomly assigned to WBI+RNI (916) or WBI (916). Median follow-up was 62 months. Characteristics of the study population were: mean age, 53.3 years; node negative, 10%; 1-3 positive nodes, 85%; > 4 positive nodes, 5%; adjuvant chemotherapy, 91%; and adjuvant endocrine therapy, 71%. WBI+RNI in comparison to WBI alone was associated with an improvement in isolated locoregional disease free survival (DFS; HR=.59, p=.02, 5 year risk: 96.8% and 94.5% respectively), distant DFS (HR=.64, p=.002, 5 year risk: 92.4% and 87.0% respectively), DFS (HR=.68, p=.003, 5 year risk: 89.7% and 84.0% respectively) and OS (HR=.76, p=.07, 5 year risk: 92.3% and 90.7% respectively). WBI+RNI in comparison to WBI was associated with an increase in grade 2 or greater pneumonitis (1.3% and 0.2% respectively, p=.01), and lymphedema (7.3% and 4.1% respectively, p=.004). Conclusions: The majority of women with node positive breast cancer are now managed by BCS followed by WBI and adjuvant systemic therapy. Results from MA.20 demonstrate that additional RNI reduces the risk of locoregional and distant recurrence, and improves DFS with a trend in improved OS.

Lymphedema in women with breast cancer: characteristics of patients screened for a randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

Accrual rates for a randomized trial of decongestive therapy in breast cancer patients with lymphedema were lower than anticipated. In two centres, patients presenting to lymphedema clinic were screened for eligibility to understand the accrual process and help define the patient population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All breast cancer patients presenting to two lymphedema clinics in regional cancer centres were screened for study entry. Circumferential arm measurements were taken and volumes calculated. Patients were then screened for trial eligibility. All report forms were sent to the trial coordinating centre.

RESULTS

A total of 408 patients were screened. Median arm volume excess was 239 ml (9.5%). One third of patients had little or no excess volume. Only 28.3% of patients had sufficient excess volume for trial eligibility. Of these, a significant number of patients were excluded because of active malignancy or previous decongestive therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The finding of moderate to severe lymphedema observed in clinics screening for trial eligibility was less than expected. The natural history of lymphedema in breast cancer patients is potentially changing. Some patients may be presenting with sensory changes suggestive of lymphedema but due to other causes, such as nerve disruption following axillary dissection.

What can physicians do to promote patient involvement in decision making (DM) in the oncology consultation?

19553

Background: Facilitating patient involvement in TDM is a desirable feature of the oncology consultation. Greater patient involvement in TDM may lead to improved patient satisfaction, compliance and reduced psychological morbidity. However, there is little empiric evidence defining physician behaviors and attributes that facilitate patient involvement in TDM. This study used qualitative methods to identify such behaviors and attributes suggested by both practicing oncologists and patients. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 medical, 10 radiation oncologists and 19 patients with breast, lung, GI, or GU cancer to determine physician behaviors and attributes that facilitate patient involvement in TDM. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim, then analyzed independently by two researchers using inductively derived coding categories and predetermined coding rules. Behaviors and attributes were identified and coded into common themes. Six focus groups with an additional 37 patients were conducted to review these behaviors and attributes. Results: A total of 231 individual physician behaviors and attributes were identified by physicians (179) and patients (52) that facilitate patient involvement in DM. Common behaviors and attributes identified from the interviews include: assessing patient’s understanding and preferences, providing information, explaining the DM process, providing information on treatment options, allowing time to consider treatment options, checking patient understanding of options and inviting patient input into decisions. Other behaviors such as physicians’ communication skills were reported as facilitating TDM. Specific physician personality attributes, such as empathy, were identified as important facilitators. Conclusions: Physicians and patients identify a large number of physician behaviors and attributes that may facilitate patient involvement in TDM. These include both behaviors that are important in general physician-patient communication, as well as those that are specifically related to the decision making process. Further research is ongoing to determine the importance of these factors and approaches to encourage their use in the oncology consultation.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

A randomized trial of computer and pamphlet-based versions of the Decision Board (DB)

6508

Background: Many women with breast cancer want to be involved in treatment decision making. The DB is a visual aid poster board which sequentially presents written and graphical information from clinical trials regarding treatment options for early breast cancer. The physician presents the DB to the patient during the consultation. Randomized trials have demonstrated that the standard version of the DB improves patient comprehension, satisfaction and comfort with decision making. The standard DB is cumbersome to use and hard to update. Computer based instruments are attractive as they provide more flexibility in presenting information, and can be easily updated and accessed via the Internet. On the other hand pamphlet based versions may be easier to use. We developed computer versions of the DB for breast cancer surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy options using a Windows type format. Pamphlet versions were also developed. The objective of this study was to compare the computer and pamphlet versions of the DB to the proven standard version. Methods: 309 women were randomized to the physician consultation plus the standard (105), computer (103) or pamphlet (101) versions of the DB. Patients were stratified according to type of decision: surgical treatment or adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were evaluated following the consultation for their knowledge about the breast cancer treatments offered, decisional conflict, and satisfaction with preparation for decision making using established validated instruments. Usefulness of the instrument for the patient and physician was also assessed. Results: Study outcomes were similar between the three versions of the DB ( Table ). Usefulness of the instrument for the patient and physician was also similar for the different versions. Conclusions: The different versions of the DB appeared equally effective in facilitating shared decision making. Physicians and patients now have the option of choosing which instrument best suits their needs. Such versatility may encourage wider use of the DB.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

[Table: see text]

Clinical outcomes of ethnic minority women in MA.17: a trial of letrozole after 5 years of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early stage breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Aromatase inhibitors are widely employed in the adjuvant treatment of early stage breast cancer. The impact of aromatase inhibitors has not been established in ethnic minority women.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of letrozole on minority women in MA.17, a placebo-controlled trial of letrozole following 5 years of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early stage breast cancer. Retrospective comparison of disease-free survival (DFS), side effects, and mean changes in quality of life (QOL) scores from baseline between Caucasian and minority women was performed.

RESULTS

Minority (n = 352) and Caucasian (n = 4708) women were analyzed. There was no difference between these groups in DFS (91.6% versus 92.4% respectively for 4 year DFS). Letrozole, compared with placebo, significantly improved DFS for Caucasians (HR = 0.55; P < 0.0001) but not for minorities (HR = 1.39; P = 0.53). Among women who received letrozole, minorities had a significantly lower incidence of hot flashes (49% versus 58%; P = 0.02), fatigue (29% versus 39%; P = 0.005), and arthritis (2% versus 7%; P = 0.006) compared with Caucasians. Mean change in QOL scores for minority women who received letrozole demonstrated improved mental health at the 6-month assessment (P = 0.02) and less bodily pain at the 12-month assessment (P = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

Letrozole improved DFS in Caucasians but a definite benefit in minority women has not yet been demonstrated. Minority women tolerated letrozole better than Caucasians in terms of toxicity. These results need confirmation in other trials of aromatase inhibitors.

Cross-border referral for early breast cancer: an analysis of radiation fractionation patterns

Because of increasing waiting times for adjuvant radiation in the province of Ontario, patients from one Canadian centre were referred to two centres in the United States. This situation provided an opportunity to compare radiation practices.We performed a retrospective review of radiation prescribed to patients following breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer. Patients with positive margins, 4 or more positive lymph nodes, recurrent disease, or large tumours (>5 cm) were excluded. For comparison, we reviewed a random sample of similar patients treated at the Canadian centre during the same period. A total of 120 referred and 217 non-referred patients were eligible for comparison. The analysis included 98 pairs of patients (N = 196), fully matched on age, nodal status, T stage, grade, and estrogen receptor (er) status.Mean patient age was 60.7 years. The median total dose and number of fractions differed between centres [6040 cGy in 32 fractions (United States) vs. 4250 cGy in 16 fractions (Canadian), both p < 0.001). Boost was used more often in the United States (97% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). Variation in prescribing patterns was seen. In the United States, seven different schedules for whole-breast irradiation were used; at the Canadian centre, two schedules were prescribed. Predicted radiobiologic effects of these schedules were calculated to be similar.Differences in fractionation patterns were observed between and within U.S. and Canadian centres. Such variability is likely to affect patient convenience and resource utilization. Although patient selection, referring surgeon, and change in policies may account for some of the observed differences, further research is necessary to better understand the causes.

A comparison of patient and physician attributes that promote patient involvement in treatment decision making in the oncology consultation

6098

Background: Cancer patients have indicted a desire to be more involved in treatment decision making (TDM). However, little is known about the attributes of patients, physicians and their interaction that promotes patient involvement in TDM in the oncology consultation. This study compared attributes generated by patients and physicians that make it easier for patients to be involved in TDM. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 19 patients with cancer (lung, breast, prostate, GI) and 21 medical and radiation oncologists at a regional cancer centre. Participants were asked to identify attributes of physicians, patients and their interaction that promotes patient involvement in TDM. Interview transcripts were independently coded by 2 analysts using decision rules to identify specific attributes. Attributes identified by each analyst were compared and a high level of agreement was found. The analysts then independently compared the physician and patient generated lists and identified common vs unique items. There was a high level of agreement on which attributes were common to both lists versus unique. Results: Oncologists identified 173 physician, 59 patient and 9 interaction items. Patients identified 50 physician, 42 patient and 11 interaction items. Patients and physicians identified 17 common physician items, 29 common patients items and 1 common interaction item. Physicians identified 138 more attributes than patients, most of which were physician related. Common patient attributes centred on information seeking (eg prepare for the consultation by reading, be aware of all treatment options and question the options). Common physician attributes focused on specific communication behaviors (eg, make eye contact, tailor information to patient needs, be direct with patients, ensure patient understands information). The common interaction item was to keep the discussion informal. Conclusions: Patients and physicians appear to have different ideas about what is important to promote patient involvement in TDM. Many of the attributes identified can be easily incorporated into current practice. There is a need to develop and evaluate communication skills training to promote patient involvement in TDM.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Agreement between physicians and patients about what constitutes shared decision making

6065

Background: Involving patients in making decisions about their own care is increasingly desirable for patients with serious illness. Shared decision making is one such model, the attributes of which have been well defined (Charles et al., Soc Sci Med,1997,1999). However, it is unclear whether physicians and patients agree on what constitutes a SDM interaction. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 21 medical and radiation oncologists and 14 cancer patients attending a regional cancer centre. Participants were asked what they thought it meant for the patient and physician to share in DM. Responses were compared to the theoretical constructs of SDM defined by Charles et al: information exchange (flow, direction, type, amount), deliberation, and who makes the decision. Two analysts independently reviewed the interviews for patient and physician definitions of SDM and compared these with the Charles et al. model of SDM using explicit classification decision rules. There were few discrepancies between analysts and agreement was reached in all cases. Results: 71% of physicians and 29% of patients described a two-way flow and direction of information exchange as necessary for SDM. Only 24% of physicians and 21% of patients described the exchange of both medical and personal information. All participants indicated that more than the minimum legally required amount of information was needed. 67% of physicians and 36% of patients described both patient and physician involvement in deliberation about treatment as a component of SDM. 48% of physicians and 21% of patients identified both patients and physicians are involved in deciding what treatment to implement in a shared approach. Overall, none of the participant definitions identified all the components of the SDM model. Physicians in their definitions, identified more components than did patients. Conclusions: Physicians appear to have a stronger understanding of the elements involved in SDM. These differences may lead to different expectations about patient involvement in DM. Physicians have a responsibility for ensuring that patients are invited to contribute to all components of SDM in the oncology consultation.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Understanding decision supports (DS) for women with breast cancer eligible for clinical trials (CT)

10534

Background: CTs are vital to the development of treatments for patients with cancer, but a low proportion of patients participate in trials, resulting in decreased access to new options. Methods: The study purpose was to explore DS for CT participation decision-making with women diagnosed with breast cancer who were offered a CT. 31 women took part in 6 focus groups - 3 groups of women who consented to a CT, 3 groups who declined a CT. Open-ended questions were asked about specific DS and ideas for new ones. Information rich cases were selected for the sample. Data analyses were conducted by 2 independent coders using a line-by-line, open coding process. Reliability was checked by a 3rd coder. Data was organized with template and editing approaches. Results were compared by group type (declined/consented to CT). Results: Common themes emerged from both group types: too much information is given at the first oncology consult; patients prefer to get CT information from the cancer centre, after their surgery, but prior to their oncology consult; no strong preference about who acts as a DS—family doctor, surgeon, other—as long as good relationship exists; oncologist (to lesser degree surgeon) is seen as most informed about their case; preference for oncologist vs trials nurse to describe CT concept, answer questions, direct them to other information sources; patients doubt family doctors or surgeons have detailed knowledge of CTs, know specific trial data; patients want to feel prepared, know what may happen before they come to oncologist - consult process, CT may be option - to avoid surprise; helpful to know that there is time to make CT decision; other patients are a good source of DS and information. Conclusions: Patients had strong preference to receive information about CTs prior to their consultation with an oncologist; this timing was seen as helpful for decision-making about a CT by both group types.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

NCIC CTG MA.17: Tolerability of letrozole among ethnic minority women

6018

Background: Disease free survival was significantly improved in women receiving letrozole after standard adjuvant tamoxifen in the MA.17 trial. Based on the results of MA.17 and of other trials of aromatase inhibitors in early stage breast cancer, chronic aromatase inhibitor therapy, in postmenopausal women free of breast cancer recurrence, is now being widely employed. We analyzed the toxicity of letrozole according to ethnic status among women enrolled in MA.17. Methods: The chi-square test was used for comparison of rates of side effects between the two groups, Caucasian vs. ethnic minority (defined as all non-Caucasians). In a subset of women, quality of life (QOL) was assessed by the SF-36 Health Survey. Mean change scores in QOL from baseline were compared between groups for summary measures and domains using the Wilcoxon test. Results: 352 minority women and 4,708 Caucasians were enrolled in MA.17, of which 183 minority women and 2,339 Caucasians were randomized to receive letrozole. Caucasians were older than minority women and had a slightly longer duration of treatment with prior tamoxifen. Tumor size and nodal status were not significantly different between the two groups. In women who received letrozole, minority women had significantly lower incidence of hot flashes (49% vs. 58%; p = 0.02), fatigue (29% vs. 39%; p = 0.005), and arthritis (2% vs. 7%; p = 0.006) compared with Caucasians. Mean QOL change scores of SF-36 domains for women who received letrozole were not different but minority women had better mental health at 6 month assessment (p = 0.02) and worse bodily pain at 12 month assessment (p = 0.046). Conclusions: Minority women tolerated letrozole considerably better than Caucasians in the MA.17 trial. These preliminary findings suggest that minority women respond differently to letrozole in terms of toxicity. Recent demonstration of genotypic variations in the aromatase gene in different ethnic groups plus likely pharmacogenomic differences suggests that further research is needed to clarify the clinical outcomes of aromatase inhibition in women of diverse ethnicities. Future research strategies should focus on examining in vivo genotype-phenotype correlations to determine the effects of genetic variation on response to anticancer therapy and on toxicities and end-organ effects.

[Table: see text]

The difference between study recommendations, stated policy, and actual practice in a clinical trial

BACKGROUND

We determined whether physicians involved in a clinical trial adhere to the study recommendations or the stated policy of their treatment centre with respect to the administration of boost radiation after breast conserving surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Boost radiation treatment policy was determined by survey at 25 oncology centres involved in a randomised trial of breast or breast plus nodal radiation in Canada. Actual practice was compared with stated policy and study recommendations.

RESULTS

Among 248 subjects, 201 (81%) were treated according to stated policy [kappa=0.40, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.27-0.52; P<0.0001], indicating only a fair to moderate agreement between stated and actual practice, while 232 (94%) were treated according to study recommendations (kappa=0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.77; P<0.0001), indicating moderate to near substantial agreement between study recommendations and actual practice (P=0.88 for z-test of difference). In a multivariate analysis, subjects who had invasive disease at a resection margin were more likely to get a boost than those with margins clear of invasive tumour by 2 mm [odds ratio (OR) 49, 95% CI 7.6-322; P<0.0001].

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians appear compliant with study recommendations for a non-randomised manoeuvre in a clinical trial, possibly at the expense of compliance with stated local policy. Clinical trial protocols should incorporate standard practice.

Postmastectomy radiotherapy: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology

OBJECTIVE

To determine indications for the use of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) for patients with invasive breast cancer with involved axillary lymph nodes or locally advanced disease who receive systemic therapy. These guidelines are intended for use in the care of patients outside of clinical trials.

POTENTIAL INTERVENTION

The benefits and risks of PMRT in such patients, as well as subgroups of these patients, were considered. The details of the PMRT technique were also evaluated.

OUTCOMES

The outcomes considered included freedom from local-regional recurrence, survival (disease-free and overall), and long-term toxicity.

EVIDENCE

An expert multidisciplinary panel reviewed pertinent information from the published literature through July 2000; certain investigators were contacted for more recent and, in some cases, unpublished information. A computerized search was performed of MEDLINE data; directed searches based on the bibliographies of primary articles were also performed.

VALUES

Levels of evidence and guideline grades were assigned by the Panel using standard criteria. A "recommendation" was made when level I or II evidence was available and there was consensus as to its meaning. A "suggestion" was made based on level III, IV, or V evidence and there was consensus as to its meaning. Areas of clinical importance were pointed out where guidelines could not be formulated due to insufficient evidence or lack of consensus.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations, suggestions, and expert opinions of the Panel are described in this article.

VALIDATION

Seven outside reviewers, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Research Committee members, and the ASCO Board of Directors reviewed this document.

Cancer care workers in Ontario: prevalence of burnout, job stress and job satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Cancer Care Ontario's Systemic Therapy Task Force recently reviewed the medical oncology system in the province. There has been growing concern about anecdotal reports of burnout, high levels of stress and staff leaving or decreasing their work hours. However, no research has systematically determined whether there is evidence to support or refute these reports. To this end, a confidential survey was undertaken.

METHODS

A questionnaire was mailed to all 1016 personnel of the major providers of medical oncology services in Ontario. The questionnaire consisted of the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the 12-item General Health Questionnaire, a questionnaire to determine job satisfaction and stress, and questions to obtain demographic characteristics and to measure the staff's consideration of alternative work situations.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 70.9% (681 of 961 eligible subjects): by group it was 63.3% (131/207) for physicians, 80.9% (314/388) for allied health professionals and 64.5% (236/366) for support staff. The prevalence of emotional exhaustion were significantly higher among the physicians (53.3%) than among the allied health professionals (37.1%) and the support staff (30.5%) (p < or = 0.003); the same was true for feelings of depersonalization (22.1% v. 4.3% and 5.5% respectively) (p < or = 0.003). Feelings of low personal accomplishment were significantly higher among physicians (48.4%) and allied health professionals (54.0%) than among support staff (31.4%) (p < or = 0.002). About one-third of the respondents in each group reported that they have considered leaving for a job outside the cancer care system. Significantly more physicians (42.6%) than allied health professionals (7.6%) or support staff (4.5%) stated that they have considered leaving for a job outside the province.

INTERPRETATION

The findings support the concern that medical oncology personnel are experiencing burnout and high levels of stress and that large numbers are considering leaving or decreasing their work hours. This is an important finding for the cancer care system, where highly trained and experienced health care workers are already in short supply.

The effects of radiation therapy on quality of life of women with breast carcinoma: results of a randomized trial. Ontario Clinical Oncology Group

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of breast irradiation on quality of life, including cosmetic outcome, for patients enrolled in a clinical trial.

METHODS

Between 1984 and 1989, a randomized trial was conducted in Ontario, Canada, in which women with lymph node negative breast carcinoma who had undergone lumpectomy and axillary lymph node dissection were randomized to either breast irradiation or no further treatment. A modified version of the Breast Cancer Chemotherapy Questionnaire (BCQ) was administered to women at baseline, 1 month (4 weeks), and 2 months (8 weeks) after randomization. Irritation of the skin of the breast, breast pain, and appearance of the breast to the patient were also assessed every 3 months for the first 2 years of the study.

RESULTS

Of 837 patients, 416 were randomly allocated to radiation therapy and 421 to no further treatment. The mean change in quality of life from baseline to 2 months was -0.05 for the radiation group and +0.30 for the control group. The difference between groups was statistically significant (P = 0.0001). Longer term radiation therapy increased the proportion of patients who were troubled by irritation of the skin of the breast and breast pain. Radiation therapy did not increase the proportion of patients at 2 years who were troubled by the appearance of the treated breast; 4.8% in irradiated and nonirradiated patients (P = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Breast irradiation therapy had an effect on quality of life during treatment. After treatment, irradiated patients reported increased breast symptoms compared with controls. However, no difference was detected between groups at 2 years in the rates of skin irritation, breast pain, and being upset by the appearance of the breast.

Does locoregional radiation therapy improve survival in breast cancer? A meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Recent randomized trials in women with node-positive breast cancer who received systemic treatment report that locoregional radiation therapy improves survival. Previous trials failed to detect a difference in survival that results from its use. A systematic review of randomized trials that examine the effectiveness of locoregional radiation therapy in patients treated by definitive surgery and adjuvant systemic therapy was conducted.

METHODS

Randomized trials published between 1967 and 1999 were identified through MEDLINE database, CancerLit database, and reference lists of relevant articles. Relevant data was abstracted. The results of randomized trials were pooled using meta-analyses to estimate the effect of treatment on any recurrence, locoregional recurrence, and mortality.

RESULTS

Eighteen trials that involved a total of 6,367 patients were identified. Most trials included both pre- and postmenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer treated with modified radical mastectomy. The type of systemic therapy received, sites irradiated, techniques used, and doses of radiation delivered varied between trials. Data on toxicity were infrequently reported. Radiation was shown to reduce the risk of any recurrence (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.83), local recurrence (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.34), and mortality (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.94).

CONCLUSION

Locoregional radiation after surgery in patients treated with systemic therapy reduced mortality. Several questions remain on how these results should be translated into current-day clinical practice.

Direct identification and quantitation of prednisone in the presence of overlapping hydrocortisone by liquid chromatography with electrospray and atmospheric-pressure chemical-ionisation mass spectrometry

The paper describes the application of liquid chromatography interfaced to a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer utilising the multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode. The technique was shown to provide detection limits lower than 0.01% for the analysis of prednisone in the presence of hydrocortisone. Prednisone was mixed in concentrations from 0.500 to 0.0005 ppm (corresponding to 1% to 0.001% of the hydrocortisone concentration). These solutions were assayed using MRM observing the product ion transitions of 359.2-->147.1 and 359.2-->171.2 and was shown to be capable of detecting co-eluting impurities at concentrations of less than 0.001% of the major component. The assay of prednisone was shown to be linear over the range 0.500-0.0005 ppm with a correlation coefficient of 0.999 and a precision of 6.9% at the concentration of 0.005 ppm. The analysis was carried out using both atmospheric pressure chemical ionisation (APCI) and electrospray ionisation (ESI) as an interface. However, for these compounds APCI provided significantly more sensitive data compared to ESI.

Offering a choice between two adjuvant chemotherapy regimens: a pilot study to develop a decision aid for women with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The primary objective of this study was to develop a decision aid which would encourage and assist patients to become involved in treatment decision making, and help clinicians to objectively educate patients about the benefits and risks of adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. A secondary objective was to investigate the factors influencing this treatment decision-making process for women when choosing between adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC) versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) chemotherapy.

METHODS

An educational visual instrument called a Decision Board was developed consisting of written and graphical material. The Decision Board displays general information about chemotherapy and detailed information about each chemotherapy regimen, including the schedule and side effects, and was presented to patients with a scripted standardized oral explanation. The instrument was evaluated in 46 premenopausal women newly diagnosed with node-positive breast cancer. Following presentation of the board, the patients were given a take home version to review and asked to return 1-2 weeks later with a decision. During the second visit each patient was asked to complete a questionnaire regarding demographics, learning and comprehension, treatment preference, and factors influencing their decision.

RESULTS

Recall of information was acceptable (> or = 80%). The Decision Board was found helpful by all, but the level of difficulty with decision making was variable. Out of 46 women, 23 women chose AC, 21 chose CMF, and two chose no treatment. The major factors affecting treatment preference were related to the impact on quality of life, the length of therapy, and the side effects, in particular, vomiting and alopecia.

CONCLUSIONS

The Decision Board appears to be a valuable educational tool that enables patients to become well-informed and directly involved in their treatment decisions.

Evaluation of a patient file folder to improve the dissemination of written information materials for cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Many cancer centers make available to patients written information material to supplement verbal information provided by clinicians. Randomized trials have demonstrated that providing such information can increase patient knowledge and satisfaction. However, little data are available regarding effective means of dissemination of such materials. The purpose of this study was to determine whether providing patients with a personal file folder after their first clinic appointment would improve the dissemination of written information materials and increase patient satisfaction.

METHODS

A before/after study was performed. Consecutive patients with newly diagnosed cancer attending the Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre were selected randomly and interviewed by telephone within 1-2 weeks of the first clinic appointment regarding the number of information pamphlets received, patient satisfaction, and general preference for written information materials. The preintervention evaluation (T1) occurred over a 4-month period followed by the introduction of the personal file folder into the clinical practice. Six weeks after its introduction, the postintervention (T2) evaluation took place over the ensuing 4 months.

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients completed the evaluation (150 each in T1 and T2). Responding patients in the two time periods were comparable with respect to background demographic variables. The mean number of information pamphlets received by patients increased with the introduction of the personal file folder from 2.4+/-2.0 standard deviations (SD) in T1 to 3.6+/-2.5 SD in T2 (P=0.0001). The percentage of patients planned for treatment who received treatment-related information increased from 36% (42 of 116 patients) in T1 to 65% (68 of 105 patients) in T2 (P=0.002). Mean patient satisfaction increased from 3.3+/-1.1 SD to 3.8+/-1.0 SD over the 2 time periods (P=0.0001). The majority of patients (87%) believed it was important to receive written information materials.

CONCLUSIONS

The patient file folder increased the dissemination of written information materials and currently is being incorporated into routine practice.

Surgical management of early stage invasive breast cancer (stage I and II). Provincial Breast Disease Site Group

GUIDELINE QUESTION

What is the optimal surgical management of early stage invasive breast cancer (stage I and II)? More specifically, what is the relative efficacy (and safety) of breast conservation therapy (lumpectomy with axillary dissection) compared with modified radical mastectomy?

OBJECTIVE

To make recommendations about surgical management and techniques in the treatment of early stage invasive breast disease (stage I and II).

OUTCOMES

Survival, local recurrence (for lumpectomy patients) and quality of life are the primary outcomes of interest.

PERSPECTIVE (VALUES)

Evidence was selected and reviewed by 6 members of the Ontario Cancer Treatment Practice Guidelines Initiative, Disease Site Group for Breast Cancer (Breast DSG). Earlier drafts of this evidence-based recommendation have been reviewed, discussed and approved by the Breast DSG, which comprises surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, epidemiologists, a pathologist and a medical sociologist. There was no consumer participation in the development of this guideline.

QUALITY OF EVIDENCE

There are 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing breast conservation therapy with mastectomy in women with early stage breast cancer.

BENEFITS

In 6 RCTs, no statistically significant differences were detected in survival rate between the mastectomy and conservative therapy (lumpectomy) groups. In 1 RCT, a statistically significant differences was detected in favour of the mastectomy arm; however, this was an early trial with substantial methodologic weaknesses.

HARMS

None.

PRACTICE GUIDELINE

Women with early stage invasive breast cancer (stage I and II) who are candidates for breast conservation therapy (see discussion of technical factors) should be offered the choice of either breast conservation therapy (excision of tumour with clear margins and axillary dissection) or modified radical mastectomy. The choice is an individual one for the patient, and thus she should be fully informed of the options, including the risks and benefits of each procedure. She should be informed that breast irradiation is part of the procedure for breast conservation therapy. In addition, she should be aware of the potential need for further surgery if the margins are positive. For further information about the use of radiotherapy in the management of early stage breast cancer, please refer to the Ontario Cancer Treatment Practice Guidelines Initiative's practice guideline Breast Irradiation in Women with Early Stage Invasive Breast Cancer Following Breast Conserving Surgery.

The supportive care needs of newly diagnosed cancer patients attending a regional cancer center

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to examine the physical and emotional health status, self-perceived problems, and needs of newly diagnosed cancer patients to determine and plan supportive care strategies.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of newly diagnosed cancer patients attending a regional cancer center during a 6-month period was performed. Patients with breast, colorectal, head and neck, lung, and prostate carcinoma as well as nonmelanoma of the skin were selected randomly. Patients were interviewed prior to their first appointment at the clinic. Physical health status was assessed using the Symptom Distress Scale, psychologic health status was assessed with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), day-to-day functioning with the Rapid Disability Scale, and social support with the modified Sarason's Social Support Scale. Perceived needs were assessed in a number of ways, including identification of patients' specific social concerns and informational needs, and by asking them to list their current problems or concerns.

RESULTS

Of 156 eligible patients, 134 completed the interview. One hundred and twenty-nine patients (96%) reported current symptoms that included fatigue (66%), worried outlook (61%), difficulty sleeping (48%), and pain (42%). Forty-four patients (33%) were identified as psychologically distressed with a GHQ score of > or = 6. One hundred and fourteen patients (85%) had informational needs, 89 (66%) indicated > or = 1 social concerns, and 55 (41%) reported a need for assistance with day-to-day living.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with newly diagnosed cancer commonly report symptoms related to fatigue, pain, and psychologic distress. Other frequently reported issues relate to the need for information and social concerns regarding the patients' ability to take care of their home and maintain family and other relationships. Awareness of these issues is important for planning supportive care interventions for newly diagnosed cancer patients.

Breast irradiation in women with early stage invasive breast cancer following breast conservation surgery. Provincial Breast Disease Site Group

GUIDELINE QUESTIONS

1) Should breast irradiation be given to women with early stage invasive breast cancer (stage I and II) following breast conservation surgery (lumpectomy with clear resection margins and axillary dissection)? 2) Is there an optimal schedule for breast irradiation? 3) What is a reasonable interval between definitive surgery and the start of breast irradiation? 4) Are there patients who can be spared breast irradiation after lumpectomy?

OBJECTIVE

To make recommendations about the use of breast irradiation in women with early stage invasive breast cancer following breast conservation surgery.

OUTCOMES

Local control is the primary endpoint of interest. Survival, quality of life (addressed through the adverse effects of radiotherapy) and cosmesis are also considered.

PERSPECTIVE (VALUES)

Evidence was selected and reviewed by 6 members of the Breast Disease Site Group (Breast DSG) of the Ontario Cancer Treatment Practice Guidelines Initiative. Earlier drafts of the evidence-based recommendation were reviewed, discussed and approved by the Breast DSG, which comprises medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgeons, epidemiologists, pathologists and a medical sociologist. There was no participation by a community representative in the development of this guideline.

QUALITY OF EVIDENCE

There are 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 meta-analysis comparing breast irradiation with no breast irradiation following breast conservation surgery; 6 randomized trials comparing breast conservation surgery plus breast irradiation with mastectomy are also included, as well as several retrospective studies.

BENEFITS

All of the 5 RCTs showed a significant decrease in local recurrence rates among patients receiving radiotherapy. In the 4 trials with a median follow-up of 5 years or longer, the relative risk reduction with breast irradiation ranged from 69% to 88%. The absolute differences ranged from 16% (p < 0.001) to 25% (p < 0.001). Despite the effect on local recurrence, no difference in survival was detected in any of the 5 trials. Most of the patients with local recurrence in these trials underwent mastectomy.

HARMS

Major adverse effects of breast irradiation occur very infrequently.

PRACTICE GUIDELINE

Women with early stage invasive breast cancer (stage I and II) who have undergone breast conservation surgery should be offered postoperative breast irradiation. The optimal fractionation schedule for breast irradiation has not been established, and the role of boost irradiation is unclear. Outside of a clinical trial, 2 commonly used fractionation schedules are suggested: 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the whole breast, or 40 Gy in 16 fractions to the whole breast with a local boost to the primary site of 12.5 Gy in 5 fractions. Shorter schedules (e.g., 40 or 44 Gy in 16 fractions) have also been used routinely in some centres. The enrollment of patients in ongoing clinical trials is encouraged. Women who have undergone breast conservation surgery should receive local breast irradiation as soon as possible after wound healing. A safe interval between surgery and the start of radiotherapy is unknown, but it is reasonable to start breast irradiation within 12 weeks after definitive surgery. For women who are candidates for chemotherapy, the optimal sequencing of chemotherapy and breast irradiation is unknown. It is reasonable to start radiotherapy after the completion of chemotherapy, or concurrently if anthracycline-containing regimens are not used. For further information, please refer to Ontario Cancer Treatment Practice Guidelines Initiative's practice guideline "Surgical Management of Early Stage Invasive Breast Cancer (stage I and II)."

Patients' preferences for therapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: development, testing, and application of a bedside decision instrument

The objective of this study was to determine a patient's preference for treatment in the poor prognostic situation of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. A standardized method of information transfer was developed and pretested for feasibility, acceptability, comprehension, interobserver reliability, and validity. The Decision Board (DB) describes to the patient who has completed surgery for suboptimally debulked ovarian cancer two treatment options, their potential side effects, and possible outcomes. The psychometric properties of the DB were determined in 37 volunteers without cancer and 11 women following first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. The Board was then administered to 12 patients with stage IIIc and IV ovarian cancer at the point of deciding future chemotherapy. The feasibility of presenting poor prognostic information, patient comprehension in an emotionally charged situation, and her treatment choice were determined. Observation of patient-physician interviews revealed that survival information is not usually discussed on the initial consultation. Using the DB, it was feasible to provide survival information to 98% of the healthy women. Comprehension was high, with 96% of the questions being correctly answered. Interobserver reliability was high (kappa = 1.00). The construct that hypothesized that understanding information is a determinant of choice was verified, as 95.2% of women had predictable shifts in expressed preference. The strength of preference in healthy women was statistically significantly higher for Plan B (paclitaxel-cisplatin) than for Plan A (cisplatin-cyclophosphamide) (P < 0.001). The method of presenting survival information (median survival versus percentage survival at 3.5 years) influenced choice (P < 0.04). At the point of decision making, 33% of patients with advanced ovarian cancer chose Plan A and 67% chose Plan B. All volunteers and patients stated that they wanted to be fully informed of the choices of therapy for their disease and to be involved in treatment decisions. The DB is a reliable and valid method for sharing information about advanced ovarian cancer with patients. At the point of deciding first-line chemotherapy in this poor prognostic situation, patients still value survival more highly than the quality of life during chemotherapy.

A randomised trial of two information packages distributed to new cancer patients before their initial appointment at a regional cancer centre

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent to which a new patient information package (NPIP) or a mini version of the same package (mini-NPIP) reduces emotional distress and meets the informational needs of patients arriving at a tertiary cancer centre for the first time. A comprehensive package, NPIP, consisting of procedural information regarding cancer centre location, description of the health care team, treatment services, research, educational activities, accommodation and community services provided at the centre; and a condensed version of the same package, mini-NPIP, were developed. Consecutive patients with newly diagnosed breast, gynaecological, lung and prostate cancer, referred to the centre for the first time were prerandomised to receive NPIP, mini-NPIP or no information package. Patients randomised to NPIP or mini-NPIP were mailed the information package at least one week before their first appointment. On arrival at the centre, patients were administered the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) which measures psychological distress, and interviewed regarding preferences for information and acceptability of the information packages. Of 465 randomised patients, 161 were excluded post-randomisation and 304 completed the entire interview: 100 were randomised to the NPIP, 102 to the mini-NPIP and 102 to the control group. Emotional distress as measured by the BSI was similar for all groups (P = 0.98). Most patients preferred to receive the information (98%), receive it before the first appointment (84%) and by mail (79%). These preferences were more evident for those given the information packages. The majority of patients found the information packages easy to understand (88%) and useful (89%), and no differences were detected between packages. The cost of production and dissemination of NPIP was more than double the cost for mini-NPIP: $ 8.93 vs $ 3.98 (Canadian dollars) per patient. For patients presenting to a cancer centre for the first time, packages of procedural information do not appear to reduce psychological distress, but are preferred by patients. Given the cost of producing NPIP, mini-NPIP is the preferred approach.

Breast irradiation postlumpectomy: development and evaluation of a decision instrument

PURPOSE

To develop an instrument to help clinicians inform patients about the benefits and risks of breast irradiation following lumpectomy and to help an informed patient decide whether she prefers this treatment.

METHODS

A Decision Board consisting of written material and visual aids was developed. It provides the patient with detailed information about her choices (breast irradiation or not), outcomes (breast recurrence and survival), probability of those outcomes, and quality of life associated with treatment and outcome. We studied the decision-making process in 82 consecutive node-negative lumpectomy patients who were seen in consultation by a radiation oncologist and oncology nurse. The Decision Board was used in the last 30 patients in the cohort.

RESULTS

Patient comprehension following the consultation without the Decision Board was greater than 65% for all questions addressed, except for poor understanding of the lack of survival benefit associated with breast irradiation (12% of patients answered correctly) and that it could not be repeated (15% of patients answered correctly). Comprehension following the consultation with the Decision Board was similar, but understanding regarding the repetition of radiation (83%) was improved. Only 70% of patients in the no-Decision Board group felt they were offered a choice. This was increased to 97% in the Decision-Board group. Overall, 95% of patients chose breast irradiation, and this did not differ between groups. Patients reported several reasons for choosing breast irradiation, all of equal importance.

CONCLUSION

The Decision Board facilitated shared decision making in node-negative lumpectomy patients who chose breast irradiation, but it did not affect a patient's choice to select breast irradiation.

Surgical management of cecal diverticulitis

Ninety surgical cases of cecal diverticulitis at the University of Hawaii hospitals were reviewed from 1980 to 1991. Seventy-eight percent of the study group were of Asian descent, with a mean age of 41.7 years. Right lower quadrant pain and tenderness were the only constant findings, occurring in 86 and 87 of the 90 patients, respectively. The most common preoperative diagnosis was acute appendicitis, occurring in 73% of patients. A right colectomy or cecectomy was performed in 49 patients, an appendectomy in 29, and a diverticulectomy in 10. Seventeen complications occurred, only 1 of which was in the appendectomy group. Follow-up of up to 10 years was successful in 27 of 29 appendectomy patients, only 4 of whom had recurrent pain. There were no instances of a missed cecal carcinoma. We concluded that in those patients in whom carcinoma can be ruled out and in whom there is no evidence of abscess formation, appendectomy combined with postoperative antibiotics is a safe and effective method for the treatment of cecal diverticulitis.