Dataset Information

Adjuvant bisphosphonate use in patients with early stage breast cancer: Patient perspectives on treatment acceptability and potential de-escalation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite the increasing use of adjuvant bisphosphonates for early stage breast cancer (EBC), little is known about the patient experience with such treatments. A patient survey was performed to identify current prescribing practices, perceptions around the role of treatment, the impact of treatment on patients' quality of life, and future trial designs.

Methods

EBC patients who had either completed or were currently receiving adjuvant bisphosphonates were sent an anonymized survey. The survey collected information on patient and disease characteristics, bisphosphonate scheduling, compliance, and tolerance. Questions also assessed patient interest in trials of de-escalated bisphosphonate therapy.

Results

A total of 255 patients were contacted, with 164 eligible respondents (eligible response rate 164/255, 64.3%). Median patient age was 52 years (range 28 to 82 years). The majority (111/163, 68.1%) were postmenopausal at the time of diagnosis, 23.3% (38/163) were premenopausal, and 7.4% (12/163) were perimenopausal. Most patients (78%) had received chemotherapy. Zoledronate was the most commonly used bisphosphonate (92%), with the majority receiving treatment every 6 months for 3 years (73%). While 66% (107/161) of respondents had experienced side effects with treatment, most had, or expected to, complete treatment (154/163, 94%). Provided there was no detriment in breast cancer outcomes, there was strong interest in future studies of de-escalating adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy.

Conclusion

While most patients tolerate their treatment, there is interest in performing trials of de-escalation of these agents.

SUBMITTER: McGee S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7930351 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adjuvant bisphosphonate use in patients with early stage breast cancer: Patient perspectives on treatment acceptability and potential de-escalation.

McGee Sharon S AlZahrani Mashari M Stober Carol C Ng Terry L TL Cole Katherine K Larocque Gail G Awan Arif A Sehdev Sandeep S Hilton John J Vandermeer Lisa L Hutton Brian B Pond Gregory G Saunders Deanna D Clemons Mark M

Journal of bone oncology 20210219

<h4>Background</h4>Despite the increasing use of adjuvant bisphosphonates for early stage breast cancer (EBC), little is known about the patient experience with such treatments. A patient survey was performed to identify current prescribing practices, perceptions around the role of treatment, the impact of treatment on patients' quality of life, and future trial designs.<h4>Methods</h4>EBC patients who had either completed or were currently receiving adjuvant bisphosphonates were sent an anonymi ...[more]

PMID: 33680749

Similar Datasets

Project description:Early-stage triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) has been traditionally treated with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. The current standard of care systemic treatment of early-stage II and III TNBC involves the use of anthracycline-cyclophosphamide and carboplatin-paclitaxel with pembrolizumab in the neoadjuvant setting followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab per KEYNOTE-522. It is increasingly clear that not all patients with early-stage TNBC need this intensive treatment, thus paving the way for exploring opportunities for regimen de-escalation in selected subgroups. For T1a tumors (≤5 mm), chemotherapy is not used, and for tumors 6-10 mm (T1b) in size with negative lymph nodes, retrospective studies have failed to show a significant benefit with chemotherapy. In low-risk patients, anthracycline-free chemotherapy may be as effective as conventional therapy, as shown in some studies where replacing anthracyclines with carboplatin has shown non-inferior results for pathological complete response (pCR), which may form the backbone of future combination therapies. Recent advances in our understanding of TNBC heterogeneity, mutations, and surrogate markers of response such as pCR have enabled the development of multiple treatment options in the (neo)adjuvant setting in order to de-escalate treatment. These de-escalation studies based on tumor mutational status, such as using Poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) in patients with BRCA mutations, and new immunotherapies such as PD1 blockade, have shown a promising impact on pCR. In addition, the investigational use of (bio)markers, such as high levels of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), low levels of tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), and complete remission on imaging, also look promising. In this review, we cover the current standard of care systemic treatment of early TNBC and review the opportunities for treatment de-escalation based on clinical risk factors, biomarkers, mutational status, and molecular subtype.

Project description:Treatment of locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma involves a multidisciplinary approach that combines surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic therapy. These curative strategies are associated with significant acute and long-term toxicities. With the emergence of human papillomavirus (HPV) as an etiologic factor associated primarily with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, higher cure rates juxtaposed with substantial treatment-related morbidity and mortality has led to interest in de-escalated therapeutic strategies, with the goal of optimizing oncologic outcomes while reducing treatment-related toxicity. Currently explored strategies include replacing, reducing, or omitting cytotoxic chemotherapy; reducing dose or volume of radiotherapy; and incorporation of less-invasive surgical approaches. Potential biomarkers to select patients for treatment de-escalation include clinical risk stratification, adjuvant de-escalation based on pathologic features, response to induction therapy, and molecular markers. The optimal patient selection and de-escalation strategy is critically important in the evolving treatment of locoregional head and neck cancer. Recently, two large phase III trials, RTOG 1016 and De-ESCALaTE, failed to de-escalate treatment in HPV-associated head and neck cancer by demonstrating inferior outcomes by replacing cisplatin with cetuximab in combination with radiation. This serves as a cautionary tale in the future design of de-escalation trials in this patient population, which will need to leverage toxicity and efficacy endpoints. Our review summarizes completed and ongoing de-escalation trials in head and neck cancer, with particular emphasis on biomarkers for patient selection and clinical trial design. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The toxicity associated with standard multimodality treatment for head and neck cancer underscores the need to seek less-intensive therapies with a reduced long-term symptom burden through de-escalated treatment paradigms that minimize toxicity while maintaining oncologic control in appropriately selected patients. Controversy regarding the optimal de-escalation strategy and criteria for patient selection for de-escalated therapy has led to multiple parallel strategies undergoing clinical investigation. Well-designed trials that optimize multimodal strategies are needed. Given the absence of positive randomized trials testing de-escalated therapy to date, practicing oncologists should exercise caution and administer established standard-of-care therapy outside the context of a clinical trial.

Dataset Information

Adjuvant bisphosphonate use in patients with early stage breast cancer: Patient perspectives on treatment acceptability and potential de-escalation.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Adjuvant bisphosphonate use in patients with early stage breast cancer: Patient perspectives on treatment acceptability and potential de-escalation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets