Breast Cancer

Progression-free survival (PFS) is now the dominant endpoint in cancer clinical trials, but simply prolonging time to progression without extending overall survival or quality of life does not justify additional therapy for many patients, new research indicates.
 

“The results of our study demonstrate that more than half of patients with advanced cancer would not want a treatment that delays time to progression on imaging without any improvement in survival or quality of life,” Christopher Booth, MD, an oncologist and professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview.

Even with an overall survival benefit of 6 months, one in five patients said they would decline additional treatment, which indicates the limited value of extra months of life with better quality of life.

“This has very important implications for our field – how we design trials, how we write guidelines, and how we make treatment recommendations to our patients,” said Booth.

The findings highlight the importance of “making sure that we incorporate patient perspectives into what we do and the research around it,” agreed Richard Lee, MD, with City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., who wasn’t involved in the study.

“It’s easy for us to pick outcome measures that are important to us as researchers but really have very little value to the patient,” said Dr. Lee, associate editor (palliative care) for Cancer.Net, the American Society of Clinical Oncology patient information website.

The study was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Although PFS is often used as a primary endpoint in cancer drug trials, evidence indicates that PFS is typically a poor surrogate both for overall survival and quality of life. It’s also unclear how much patients value additional time with no progression, especially if it means extra toxicity with no overall survival or quality of life gains.

In the current study, Dr. Booth and colleagues wanted to better understand patients’ attitudes toward a treatment that offers PFS but does not improve overall survival.

The study involved 100 patients who had received at least 3 months of systemic therapy for incurable solid tumors. Nearly two-thirds of the patients were older than 60. They were asked about their preferences and goals for additional therapy. A variety of primary cancer sites were represented, most commonly gastrointestinal, breast, lung, genitourinary, and brain.

Among the patients interviewed, 80 were currently receiving palliative systemic treatment. Only one patient described the intent as curative; 45% described it as intending to prolong life, and 5% described it as intending to improve quality of life. The remainder had a combination of goals.

Overall, patients expressed a variety of preferences about additional treatment.

More than half (52%) said they would decline additional treatment that only offered PFS gains, while 26% said they would accept more treatment in the absence of an overall survival benefit if it meant delaying disease progression by 3-9 months.

About one in six patients (17%) said they would prefer additional treatment, even without any gain in PFS. These patients expressed “wanting to fight or hoping that they would defy the survival statistics” – an attitude that is “not irrational,” the researchers noted, but rather reflects the “more must be better” line of thinking.

Compared with the 26% of patients willing to undergo additional treatment for a PFS benefit but no overall survival benefit, 71% of patients said they would undergo more treatment for a 6-month gain in overall survival.
 

Weighing the benefits of more treatment

Overall, the findings suggest that while some patients are willing to undergo more toxic treatment regardless of PFS outcomes, most prefer to explicitly weigh the benefits of PFS, overall survival, and quality of life, Dr. Booth and colleagues said.

The findings also make clear the need to design randomized clinical trials that focus on endpoints and the gains that are of greatest value to patients.

“While there are a handful of circumstances in which PFS is a valid surrogate for overall survival, this is the exception and not the rule,” said Dr. Booth, who, along with colleagues, recently launched a global movement called Common Sense Oncology to help make cancer care and clinical trials more patient centered.

Drug companies like the PFS measure because it gives an answer quickly. “They don’t have to wait for the overall survival surrogate,” but in many cases, PFS is not a good primary endpoint, said Dr. Lee.

The exception, he noted, would be for some slow-growing cancers, such as low-grade prostate cancer, in which overall survival takes 10 years to gauge. “But outside of those few cancers, we need to stick to overall survival as the gold standard, and patients are basically telling us the same,” Dr. Lee explained.

What about a treatment that might not extend overall survival but could improve quality of life?

“It is easy to measure a year in life, but what about the life within a year,” Rachel Koven, MSc, author and patient advocate, Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, said in an interview. “Beyond the potential for an extended number of days, what constitutes a ‘good’ day or a day well lived, and are the treatment decisions impacting that? While this may be different for each person, regardless of the definition used, it will still be of the utmost importance for all.”

Overall, Dr. Lee stressed, it’s important for oncologists to inform patients about what trial results show.

“We have to talk to patients and tell them a drug has shown progression-free improvement but not an overall survival benefit. That absolutely needs to be included in the discussion so that patients can give full, informed consent to what the treatment options are,” he said.

Ms. Koven agreed. “We must continuously strive to improve doctor-patient communication to ensure that patients facing incurable cancer can make evidence-based choices that match their unique goals, preferences, and needs,” she said.

“It is essential that care plans be created with outcomes that matter,” Ms. Koven said. “Treatments with small benefits lead to lost time for patients spent at the cancer center rather than with family and friends.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Booth, Ms. Koven, and Dr. Lee reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Progression-free survival (PFS) is now the dominant endpoint in cancer clinical trials, but simply prolonging time to progression without extending overall survival or quality of life does not justify additional therapy for many patients, new research indicates.
 

“The results of our study demonstrate that more than half of patients with advanced cancer would not want a treatment that delays time to progression on imaging without any improvement in survival or quality of life,” Christopher Booth, MD, an oncologist and professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview.

Even with an overall survival benefit of 6 months, one in five patients said they would decline additional treatment, which indicates the limited value of extra months of life with better quality of life.

“This has very important implications for our field – how we design trials, how we write guidelines, and how we make treatment recommendations to our patients,” said Booth.

The findings highlight the importance of “making sure that we incorporate patient perspectives into what we do and the research around it,” agreed Richard Lee, MD, with City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., who wasn’t involved in the study.

“It’s easy for us to pick outcome measures that are important to us as researchers but really have very little value to the patient,” said Dr. Lee, associate editor (palliative care) for Cancer.Net, the American Society of Clinical Oncology patient information website.

The study was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Although PFS is often used as a primary endpoint in cancer drug trials, evidence indicates that PFS is typically a poor surrogate both for overall survival and quality of life. It’s also unclear how much patients value additional time with no progression, especially if it means extra toxicity with no overall survival or quality of life gains.

In the current study, Dr. Booth and colleagues wanted to better understand patients’ attitudes toward a treatment that offers PFS but does not improve overall survival.

The study involved 100 patients who had received at least 3 months of systemic therapy for incurable solid tumors. Nearly two-thirds of the patients were older than 60. They were asked about their preferences and goals for additional therapy. A variety of primary cancer sites were represented, most commonly gastrointestinal, breast, lung, genitourinary, and brain.

Among the patients interviewed, 80 were currently receiving palliative systemic treatment. Only one patient described the intent as curative; 45% described it as intending to prolong life, and 5% described it as intending to improve quality of life. The remainder had a combination of goals.

Overall, patients expressed a variety of preferences about additional treatment.

More than half (52%) said they would decline additional treatment that only offered PFS gains, while 26% said they would accept more treatment in the absence of an overall survival benefit if it meant delaying disease progression by 3-9 months.

About one in six patients (17%) said they would prefer additional treatment, even without any gain in PFS. These patients expressed “wanting to fight or hoping that they would defy the survival statistics” – an attitude that is “not irrational,” the researchers noted, but rather reflects the “more must be better” line of thinking.

Compared with the 26% of patients willing to undergo additional treatment for a PFS benefit but no overall survival benefit, 71% of patients said they would undergo more treatment for a 6-month gain in overall survival.
 

Weighing the benefits of more treatment

Overall, the findings suggest that while some patients are willing to undergo more toxic treatment regardless of PFS outcomes, most prefer to explicitly weigh the benefits of PFS, overall survival, and quality of life, Dr. Booth and colleagues said.

The findings also make clear the need to design randomized clinical trials that focus on endpoints and the gains that are of greatest value to patients.

“While there are a handful of circumstances in which PFS is a valid surrogate for overall survival, this is the exception and not the rule,” said Dr. Booth, who, along with colleagues, recently launched a global movement called Common Sense Oncology to help make cancer care and clinical trials more patient centered.

Drug companies like the PFS measure because it gives an answer quickly. “They don’t have to wait for the overall survival surrogate,” but in many cases, PFS is not a good primary endpoint, said Dr. Lee.

The exception, he noted, would be for some slow-growing cancers, such as low-grade prostate cancer, in which overall survival takes 10 years to gauge. “But outside of those few cancers, we need to stick to overall survival as the gold standard, and patients are basically telling us the same,” Dr. Lee explained.

What about a treatment that might not extend overall survival but could improve quality of life?

“It is easy to measure a year in life, but what about the life within a year,” Rachel Koven, MSc, author and patient advocate, Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, said in an interview. “Beyond the potential for an extended number of days, what constitutes a ‘good’ day or a day well lived, and are the treatment decisions impacting that? While this may be different for each person, regardless of the definition used, it will still be of the utmost importance for all.”

Overall, Dr. Lee stressed, it’s important for oncologists to inform patients about what trial results show.

“We have to talk to patients and tell them a drug has shown progression-free improvement but not an overall survival benefit. That absolutely needs to be included in the discussion so that patients can give full, informed consent to what the treatment options are,” he said.

Ms. Koven agreed. “We must continuously strive to improve doctor-patient communication to ensure that patients facing incurable cancer can make evidence-based choices that match their unique goals, preferences, and needs,” she said.

“It is essential that care plans be created with outcomes that matter,” Ms. Koven said. “Treatments with small benefits lead to lost time for patients spent at the cancer center rather than with family and friends.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Booth, Ms. Koven, and Dr. Lee reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Progression-free survival (PFS) is now the dominant endpoint in cancer clinical trials, but simply prolonging time to progression without extending overall survival or quality of life does not justify additional therapy for many patients, new research indicates.
 

“The results of our study demonstrate that more than half of patients with advanced cancer would not want a treatment that delays time to progression on imaging without any improvement in survival or quality of life,” Christopher Booth, MD, an oncologist and professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview.

Even with an overall survival benefit of 6 months, one in five patients said they would decline additional treatment, which indicates the limited value of extra months of life with better quality of life.

“This has very important implications for our field – how we design trials, how we write guidelines, and how we make treatment recommendations to our patients,” said Booth.

The findings highlight the importance of “making sure that we incorporate patient perspectives into what we do and the research around it,” agreed Richard Lee, MD, with City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., who wasn’t involved in the study.

“It’s easy for us to pick outcome measures that are important to us as researchers but really have very little value to the patient,” said Dr. Lee, associate editor (palliative care) for Cancer.Net, the American Society of Clinical Oncology patient information website.

The study was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Although PFS is often used as a primary endpoint in cancer drug trials, evidence indicates that PFS is typically a poor surrogate both for overall survival and quality of life. It’s also unclear how much patients value additional time with no progression, especially if it means extra toxicity with no overall survival or quality of life gains.

In the current study, Dr. Booth and colleagues wanted to better understand patients’ attitudes toward a treatment that offers PFS but does not improve overall survival.

The study involved 100 patients who had received at least 3 months of systemic therapy for incurable solid tumors. Nearly two-thirds of the patients were older than 60. They were asked about their preferences and goals for additional therapy. A variety of primary cancer sites were represented, most commonly gastrointestinal, breast, lung, genitourinary, and brain.

Among the patients interviewed, 80 were currently receiving palliative systemic treatment. Only one patient described the intent as curative; 45% described it as intending to prolong life, and 5% described it as intending to improve quality of life. The remainder had a combination of goals.

Overall, patients expressed a variety of preferences about additional treatment.

More than half (52%) said they would decline additional treatment that only offered PFS gains, while 26% said they would accept more treatment in the absence of an overall survival benefit if it meant delaying disease progression by 3-9 months.

About one in six patients (17%) said they would prefer additional treatment, even without any gain in PFS. These patients expressed “wanting to fight or hoping that they would defy the survival statistics” – an attitude that is “not irrational,” the researchers noted, but rather reflects the “more must be better” line of thinking.

Compared with the 26% of patients willing to undergo additional treatment for a PFS benefit but no overall survival benefit, 71% of patients said they would undergo more treatment for a 6-month gain in overall survival.
 

Weighing the benefits of more treatment

Overall, the findings suggest that while some patients are willing to undergo more toxic treatment regardless of PFS outcomes, most prefer to explicitly weigh the benefits of PFS, overall survival, and quality of life, Dr. Booth and colleagues said.

The findings also make clear the need to design randomized clinical trials that focus on endpoints and the gains that are of greatest value to patients.

“While there are a handful of circumstances in which PFS is a valid surrogate for overall survival, this is the exception and not the rule,” said Dr. Booth, who, along with colleagues, recently launched a global movement called Common Sense Oncology to help make cancer care and clinical trials more patient centered.

Drug companies like the PFS measure because it gives an answer quickly. “They don’t have to wait for the overall survival surrogate,” but in many cases, PFS is not a good primary endpoint, said Dr. Lee.

The exception, he noted, would be for some slow-growing cancers, such as low-grade prostate cancer, in which overall survival takes 10 years to gauge. “But outside of those few cancers, we need to stick to overall survival as the gold standard, and patients are basically telling us the same,” Dr. Lee explained.

What about a treatment that might not extend overall survival but could improve quality of life?

“It is easy to measure a year in life, but what about the life within a year,” Rachel Koven, MSc, author and patient advocate, Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, said in an interview. “Beyond the potential for an extended number of days, what constitutes a ‘good’ day or a day well lived, and are the treatment decisions impacting that? While this may be different for each person, regardless of the definition used, it will still be of the utmost importance for all.”

Overall, Dr. Lee stressed, it’s important for oncologists to inform patients about what trial results show.

“We have to talk to patients and tell them a drug has shown progression-free improvement but not an overall survival benefit. That absolutely needs to be included in the discussion so that patients can give full, informed consent to what the treatment options are,” he said.

Ms. Koven agreed. “We must continuously strive to improve doctor-patient communication to ensure that patients facing incurable cancer can make evidence-based choices that match their unique goals, preferences, and needs,” she said.

“It is essential that care plans be created with outcomes that matter,” Ms. Koven said. “Treatments with small benefits lead to lost time for patients spent at the cancer center rather than with family and friends.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Booth, Ms. Koven, and Dr. Lee reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Data are limited regarding the effect of interrupting radiation therapy for patients with BC. A retrospective study by Chow and colleagues looked at 35,845 patients with nonmetastatic triple-negative BC from the National Cancer Database who had received external beam radiation therapy as part of the management of their BC. The analysis showed inferior overall survival in patients with a longer duration of radiation treatment (hazard ratio 1.023; 95% CI 1.015-1.031) The more days of interruption, the higher the likelihood of mortality seen. In reference to 0-1 days of interruption, patients with 2-5 interrupted days (hazard ratio 1.069; 95% CI 1.002-1.140), 6-10 interrupted days (hazard ratio 1.239; 95% CI 1.140-1.348), and 11-15 interrupted days (hazard ratio 1.265; 95% CI 1.126-1.431) did worse. These findings should encourage further studies to explore ways to minimize treatment interruptions among patients with BC.

A lack of adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy has been associated with increased mortality among women with BC. The retrospective study by Zheng and Thomas  included 25,796 older women (> 65 years old) diagnosed with stage I-III hormone receptor–positive BC and looked at associations between adherence to and persistence with adjuvant endocrine therapy and mortality in this cohort. Their findings showed that the risk for all-cause mortality was reduced by 25% in patients with vs without cumulative adherence to endocrine therapy (hazard ratio 0.75; P < .001), although no association was seen with BC-specific mortality. Persistence with endocrine therapy, which was defined as having taken the treatment for ≥ 180 continuous days, was associated with 11% reduction in all-cause mortality and 37% reduction in BC-specific mortality. This study supports prior studies in highlighting the importance of endocrine therapy adherence among women with hormone-positive BC.

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) are considered significant prognostic markers in patients with BC, although the prognostic effect of TIL in human epidermal growth factor reception 2 (HER2)–low BC has not been identified. A large-cohort, single-institution retrospective analysis by Sun and colleagues investigated the prognostic role of TIL in HER2-low early-stage BC. The analysis included 1763 patients with early-stage BC who underwent surgery, of whom 429 patients were HER2+, 739 were HER2-low, and 595 were HER2-0. No differences in disease-free survival (DFS) were seen between the three cohorts. However, in patients with HER2-low BC, high (>10%) vs low (≤10%) TIL levels were associated with a 53% improvement in DFS overall (hazard ratio 0.47; P = .035), and a 58% improvement in DFS was seen for the hormone receptor–positive/HER2-low cohort (hazard ratio 0.42; P = .032).

Data are limited regarding the effect of interrupting radiation therapy for patients with BC. A retrospective study by Chow and colleagues looked at 35,845 patients with nonmetastatic triple-negative BC from the National Cancer Database who had received external beam radiation therapy as part of the management of their BC. The analysis showed inferior overall survival in patients with a longer duration of radiation treatment (hazard ratio 1.023; 95% CI 1.015-1.031) The more days of interruption, the higher the likelihood of mortality seen. In reference to 0-1 days of interruption, patients with 2-5 interrupted days (hazard ratio 1.069; 95% CI 1.002-1.140), 6-10 interrupted days (hazard ratio 1.239; 95% CI 1.140-1.348), and 11-15 interrupted days (hazard ratio 1.265; 95% CI 1.126-1.431) did worse. These findings should encourage further studies to explore ways to minimize treatment interruptions among patients with BC.

A lack of adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy has been associated with increased mortality among women with BC. The retrospective study by Zheng and Thomas  included 25,796 older women (> 65 years old) diagnosed with stage I-III hormone receptor–positive BC and looked at associations between adherence to and persistence with adjuvant endocrine therapy and mortality in this cohort. Their findings showed that the risk for all-cause mortality was reduced by 25% in patients with vs without cumulative adherence to endocrine therapy (hazard ratio 0.75; P < .001), although no association was seen with BC-specific mortality. Persistence with endocrine therapy, which was defined as having taken the treatment for ≥ 180 continuous days, was associated with 11% reduction in all-cause mortality and 37% reduction in BC-specific mortality. This study supports prior studies in highlighting the importance of endocrine therapy adherence among women with hormone-positive BC.

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) are considered significant prognostic markers in patients with BC, although the prognostic effect of TIL in human epidermal growth factor reception 2 (HER2)–low BC has not been identified. A large-cohort, single-institution retrospective analysis by Sun and colleagues investigated the prognostic role of TIL in HER2-low early-stage BC. The analysis included 1763 patients with early-stage BC who underwent surgery, of whom 429 patients were HER2+, 739 were HER2-low, and 595 were HER2-0. No differences in disease-free survival (DFS) were seen between the three cohorts. However, in patients with HER2-low BC, high (>10%) vs low (≤10%) TIL levels were associated with a 53% improvement in DFS overall (hazard ratio 0.47; P = .035), and a 58% improvement in DFS was seen for the hormone receptor–positive/HER2-low cohort (hazard ratio 0.42; P = .032).

Data are limited regarding the effect of interrupting radiation therapy for patients with BC. A retrospective study by Chow and colleagues looked at 35,845 patients with nonmetastatic triple-negative BC from the National Cancer Database who had received external beam radiation therapy as part of the management of their BC. The analysis showed inferior overall survival in patients with a longer duration of radiation treatment (hazard ratio 1.023; 95% CI 1.015-1.031) The more days of interruption, the higher the likelihood of mortality seen. In reference to 0-1 days of interruption, patients with 2-5 interrupted days (hazard ratio 1.069; 95% CI 1.002-1.140), 6-10 interrupted days (hazard ratio 1.239; 95% CI 1.140-1.348), and 11-15 interrupted days (hazard ratio 1.265; 95% CI 1.126-1.431) did worse. These findings should encourage further studies to explore ways to minimize treatment interruptions among patients with BC.

A lack of adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy has been associated with increased mortality among women with BC. The retrospective study by Zheng and Thomas  included 25,796 older women (> 65 years old) diagnosed with stage I-III hormone receptor–positive BC and looked at associations between adherence to and persistence with adjuvant endocrine therapy and mortality in this cohort. Their findings showed that the risk for all-cause mortality was reduced by 25% in patients with vs without cumulative adherence to endocrine therapy (hazard ratio 0.75; P < .001), although no association was seen with BC-specific mortality. Persistence with endocrine therapy, which was defined as having taken the treatment for ≥ 180 continuous days, was associated with 11% reduction in all-cause mortality and 37% reduction in BC-specific mortality. This study supports prior studies in highlighting the importance of endocrine therapy adherence among women with hormone-positive BC.

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) are considered significant prognostic markers in patients with BC, although the prognostic effect of TIL in human epidermal growth factor reception 2 (HER2)–low BC has not been identified. A large-cohort, single-institution retrospective analysis by Sun and colleagues investigated the prognostic role of TIL in HER2-low early-stage BC. The analysis included 1763 patients with early-stage BC who underwent surgery, of whom 429 patients were HER2+, 739 were HER2-low, and 595 were HER2-0. No differences in disease-free survival (DFS) were seen between the three cohorts. However, in patients with HER2-low BC, high (>10%) vs low (≤10%) TIL levels were associated with a 53% improvement in DFS overall (hazard ratio 0.47; P = .035), and a 58% improvement in DFS was seen for the hormone receptor–positive/HER2-low cohort (hazard ratio 0.42; P = .032).

The addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab plus chemotherapy has demonstrated improvement in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates compared with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer.³ The framework of oncology is built on clinical trials through their rigorous design, enrollment, and synthesis of data; however, real-world studies are an integral component of cancer research because they provide a more representative sample of the general population treated in routine clinical practice. Neopearl was a retrospective, observational, real-world study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab plus chemotherapy with or without pertuzumab among 271 patients with stage II-III HER2-positive breast cancer (Fabbri et al). The addition of pertuzumab led to an increase in pCR rate (49% vs 62%; odds ratio 1.74; P = .032) and improvement in 5-year event-free survival (81% vs 93%; hazard ratio 2.22; P = .041), and the benefit on univariate analysis was restricted to patients with positive axillary nodes. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in adverse events, including cardiac, between the two groups. These results serve to strengthen the available data regarding the clinical efficacy and favorable safety profile of dual HER2-targeted therapy combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Lifestyle factors, including physical activity and diet, are becoming increasingly recognized as important determinants of various cancer-specific outcomes and overall health. Furthermore, because these are modifiable, there is often motivation on behalf of an individual to change behaviors that can affect their outcome. Adherence to the Mediterranean diet (MD) has been associated with reduced risk for breast cancer development and lower mortality among women with breast cancer.^4,5 Data from a prospective multicenter European cohort including 13,270 breast cancer survivors demonstrated that low compared with medium adherence to a MD before a breast cancer diagnosis was associated with a 13% higher risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.13; 95% CI 1.01-1.26). A three-unit increase in the adapted relative MD score was associated with an 8% reduced risk for overall mortality (hazard ratio_3-unit 0.92; 95% CI 0.87-0.97); this result was sustained in the postmenopausal population and strengthened in metastatic disease (Castro-Espin et al). The connection between diet and cancer outcomes is complex, and future research evaluating specific dietary interventions and the underlying biologic pathways by which nutrition exerts its effects will be important to inform our counseling for patients with breast cancer in the survivorship setting.

Additional References

1. Whelan TJ, Olivotto IA, Parulekar WR, et al, for the MA.20 Study Investigators. Regional nodal irradiation in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:307-16. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1415340
2. ClinicalTrials.gov. Regional radiotherapy in biomarker low-risk node positive and T3N0 breast cancer (TAILOR RT). National Library of Medicine. Last updated November 23, 2022. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03488693
3. Gianni L, Pienkowski T, Im YH, et al. Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in women with locally advanced, inflammatory, or early HER2-positive breast cancer (NeoSphere): A randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:25-32. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70336-9
4. Buckland G, Travier N, Cottet V, et al. Adherence to the mediterranean diet and risk of breast cancer in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition cohort study. Int J Cancer. 2013;132:2918-27. doi:10.1002/ijc.27958
5. Haslam DE, John EM, Knight JA, et al. Diet quality and all-cause mortality in women with breast cancer from the Breast Cancer Family Registry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2023;32:678-686. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-1198

The addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab plus chemotherapy has demonstrated improvement in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates compared with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer.³ The framework of oncology is built on clinical trials through their rigorous design, enrollment, and synthesis of data; however, real-world studies are an integral component of cancer research because they provide a more representative sample of the general population treated in routine clinical practice. Neopearl was a retrospective, observational, real-world study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab plus chemotherapy with or without pertuzumab among 271 patients with stage II-III HER2-positive breast cancer (Fabbri et al). The addition of pertuzumab led to an increase in pCR rate (49% vs 62%; odds ratio 1.74; P = .032) and improvement in 5-year event-free survival (81% vs 93%; hazard ratio 2.22; P = .041), and the benefit on univariate analysis was restricted to patients with positive axillary nodes. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in adverse events, including cardiac, between the two groups. These results serve to strengthen the available data regarding the clinical efficacy and favorable safety profile of dual HER2-targeted therapy combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Lifestyle factors, including physical activity and diet, are becoming increasingly recognized as important determinants of various cancer-specific outcomes and overall health. Furthermore, because these are modifiable, there is often motivation on behalf of an individual to change behaviors that can affect their outcome. Adherence to the Mediterranean diet (MD) has been associated with reduced risk for breast cancer development and lower mortality among women with breast cancer.^4,5 Data from a prospective multicenter European cohort including 13,270 breast cancer survivors demonstrated that low compared with medium adherence to a MD before a breast cancer diagnosis was associated with a 13% higher risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.13; 95% CI 1.01-1.26). A three-unit increase in the adapted relative MD score was associated with an 8% reduced risk for overall mortality (hazard ratio_3-unit 0.92; 95% CI 0.87-0.97); this result was sustained in the postmenopausal population and strengthened in metastatic disease (Castro-Espin et al). The connection between diet and cancer outcomes is complex, and future research evaluating specific dietary interventions and the underlying biologic pathways by which nutrition exerts its effects will be important to inform our counseling for patients with breast cancer in the survivorship setting.

Additional References

1. Whelan TJ, Olivotto IA, Parulekar WR, et al, for the MA.20 Study Investigators. Regional nodal irradiation in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:307-16. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1415340
2. ClinicalTrials.gov. Regional radiotherapy in biomarker low-risk node positive and T3N0 breast cancer (TAILOR RT). National Library of Medicine. Last updated November 23, 2022. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03488693
3. Gianni L, Pienkowski T, Im YH, et al. Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in women with locally advanced, inflammatory, or early HER2-positive breast cancer (NeoSphere): A randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:25-32. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70336-9
4. Buckland G, Travier N, Cottet V, et al. Adherence to the mediterranean diet and risk of breast cancer in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition cohort study. Int J Cancer. 2013;132:2918-27. doi:10.1002/ijc.27958
5. Haslam DE, John EM, Knight JA, et al. Diet quality and all-cause mortality in women with breast cancer from the Breast Cancer Family Registry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2023;32:678-686. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-1198

The addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab plus chemotherapy has demonstrated improvement in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates compared with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer.³ The framework of oncology is built on clinical trials through their rigorous design, enrollment, and synthesis of data; however, real-world studies are an integral component of cancer research because they provide a more representative sample of the general population treated in routine clinical practice. Neopearl was a retrospective, observational, real-world study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab plus chemotherapy with or without pertuzumab among 271 patients with stage II-III HER2-positive breast cancer (Fabbri et al). The addition of pertuzumab led to an increase in pCR rate (49% vs 62%; odds ratio 1.74; P = .032) and improvement in 5-year event-free survival (81% vs 93%; hazard ratio 2.22; P = .041), and the benefit on univariate analysis was restricted to patients with positive axillary nodes. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in adverse events, including cardiac, between the two groups. These results serve to strengthen the available data regarding the clinical efficacy and favorable safety profile of dual HER2-targeted therapy combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Lifestyle factors, including physical activity and diet, are becoming increasingly recognized as important determinants of various cancer-specific outcomes and overall health. Furthermore, because these are modifiable, there is often motivation on behalf of an individual to change behaviors that can affect their outcome. Adherence to the Mediterranean diet (MD) has been associated with reduced risk for breast cancer development and lower mortality among women with breast cancer.^4,5 Data from a prospective multicenter European cohort including 13,270 breast cancer survivors demonstrated that low compared with medium adherence to a MD before a breast cancer diagnosis was associated with a 13% higher risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.13; 95% CI 1.01-1.26). A three-unit increase in the adapted relative MD score was associated with an 8% reduced risk for overall mortality (hazard ratio_3-unit 0.92; 95% CI 0.87-0.97); this result was sustained in the postmenopausal population and strengthened in metastatic disease (Castro-Espin et al). The connection between diet and cancer outcomes is complex, and future research evaluating specific dietary interventions and the underlying biologic pathways by which nutrition exerts its effects will be important to inform our counseling for patients with breast cancer in the survivorship setting.

Additional References

1. Whelan TJ, Olivotto IA, Parulekar WR, et al, for the MA.20 Study Investigators. Regional nodal irradiation in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:307-16. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1415340
2. ClinicalTrials.gov. Regional radiotherapy in biomarker low-risk node positive and T3N0 breast cancer (TAILOR RT). National Library of Medicine. Last updated November 23, 2022. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03488693
3. Gianni L, Pienkowski T, Im YH, et al. Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in women with locally advanced, inflammatory, or early HER2-positive breast cancer (NeoSphere): A randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:25-32. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70336-9
4. Buckland G, Travier N, Cottet V, et al. Adherence to the mediterranean diet and risk of breast cancer in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition cohort study. Int J Cancer. 2013;132:2918-27. doi:10.1002/ijc.27958
5. Haslam DE, John EM, Knight JA, et al. Diet quality and all-cause mortality in women with breast cancer from the Breast Cancer Family Registry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2023;32:678-686. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-1198

One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.

These television ads are quite formulaic:

We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.

The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”

Big pharma spends nearly $10 billion on DTC advertising, with television ads accounting for the vast majority of these dollars. Is this type of advertising appropriate? Or even ethical?

Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.

Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?

Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?

Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”

Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.

Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.

How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?

It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.

Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.

The time to end DTC advertising has come!
 

Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.

These television ads are quite formulaic:

We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.

The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”

Big pharma spends nearly $10 billion on DTC advertising, with television ads accounting for the vast majority of these dollars. Is this type of advertising appropriate? Or even ethical?

Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.

Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?

Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?

Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”

Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.

Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.

How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?

It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.

Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.

The time to end DTC advertising has come!
 

Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.

These television ads are quite formulaic:

We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.

The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”

Big pharma spends nearly $10 billion on DTC advertising, with television ads accounting for the vast majority of these dollars. Is this type of advertising appropriate? Or even ethical?

Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.

Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?

Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?

Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”

Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.

Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.

How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?

It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.

Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.

The time to end DTC advertising has come!
 

Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the number of female veterans continues to grow, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is adjusting by focusing more on breast/gynecological cancer and referring fewer cases to outside clinicians.

The VA’s effort reflects the reality that female veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are approaching the ages—50s, 60s, and 70s—when cancer diagnoses become more common, said Sarah Colonna, MD, national medical director of breast oncology for VA's Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence and an oncologist at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and Wahlen VA Medical Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. “This is preparation for the change that we know is coming.”

In response, the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) is devoting a regional meeting in Tampa, Florida (July 29, 2023) to improving survivorship for patients with women’s cancers. “This meeting is designed to educate both cancer experts and primary care providers on the care of women who have already gone through breast and gynecological cancer treatment,” Colonna explained.

Adherence Challenges

Colonna will speak in a session about the importance of adherence to endocrine therapy. “When we prescribe endocrine therapy for breast cancer, we usually ask women to stay on it for 5 to 10 years, and sometimes that’s hard for them,” she said. “I’ll talk about tips and tricks to help women stay on endocrine therapy for the long haul because we know that is linked to better survival.”

Between two-thirds and three-quarters of women with breast cancer are advised to stay on endocrine drugs, she said, but the medications can be difficult to tolerate due to adverse effects such as hot flashes and sleep disturbances.

In addition, patients are often anxious about the medications. “Women are very leery of anything that changes or makes their hormones different,” Colonna noted. “They feel like it’s messing with something that is natural for them.”

Colonna urges colleagues to focus on their “soft skills,” the ability to absorb and validate the worries of patients. Instead of dismissing them, she said, focus on messages that acknowledge concerns but are also firm: “That’s real, that sucks. But we’ve got to do it.”

It’s also helpful to guide patients away from thinking that taking a pill every day means they’re sick. “I try to flip that paradigm: ‘You’re taking this pill every day because you have power over this thing that happened to you.’”

Education is also key, she said, so that patients “understand very clearly why this medication is important for them: It increases the chance of surviving breast cancer or it increases the chances that the cancer will never come back in your arm or in your breast. Then, whether they make a decision to take it or not, at least they’re making the choice with knowledge.”

As for adverse effects, Colonna said medications such as antidepressants and painkillers can relieve hot flashes, which can disturb sleep.

Identifying the best strategy to address adverse effects “requires keeping in frequent contact with the patient during the first 6 months of endocrine therapy, which are really critical,” she said. “Once they’ve been on it for a year, they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and hang in there even if they have adverse effects.”

Some guidelines suggest that no doctor visits are needed until the 6-month mark, but Colonna prefers to check in at the 4- to 6-week mark, even if it’s just via a phone call. Otherwise, “often they’ll stop taking the pill, and then you won’t know about it until you see them at 6 six months.” At that point, she said, a critical period for treatment has passed.

The Role of Nurse Navigators

In another session at the Tampa regional meeting, AVAHO president-elect Cindy Bowman, MSN, RN, OCN, will moderate a session about the role of nurse navigators in VA cancer care. She is the coordinator of the Cancer Care Navigation Program at the C. W. Bill Young VA Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida.

“Veterans become survivors the day they’re diagnosed with cancer,” she said. Within the VA, cancer-care navigator teams developed over the past decade aim to help patients find their way forward through survivorship, she said, and nurses are crucial to the effort.

As Sharp and Scheid reported in a 2018 Journal Oncology Navigation Survivorship article, “research demonstrates that navigation can improve access to the cancer care system by addressing barriers, as well as facilitating quality care. The benefits of patient navigation for improving cancer patient outcomes is considerable.” McKenney and colleagues found that “patient navigation has been demonstrated to increase access to screening, shorten time to diagnostic resolution, and improve cancer outcomes, particularly in health disparity populations, such as women of color, rural populations, and poor women.” 

According to Bowman, “it has become standard practice to have nurse navigators be there each step of the way from a high suspicion of cancer to diagnosis and through the clinical workup into active treatment and survivorship.” Within the VA, she said, “the focus right now is to look at standardizing care that all VAs will be able to offer holistic, comprehensive cancer-care navigation teams.”

At the regional meeting, Bowman’s session will include updates from nurse navigators about helping patients through breast/gynecological cancer, abnormal mammograms, and survivorship.

Nurse navigators are typically the second medical professionals who talk to cancer patients after their physicians, Bowman said. The unique knowledge of oncology nurse navigators gives them invaluable insight into treatment plans and cancer drug regimens, she said.

“They’re able to sit down and discuss the actual cancer drug regimen with patients—what each of those drugs do, how they’re administered, the short-term and long-term side effects,” she said. “They have the knowledge about all aspects of cancer care that can really only come from somebody who’s specialty trained.”

Other sessions at the AVAHO regional meeting will highlight breast cancer and lymphedema, breast cancer and bone health; diet, exercise and cancer; sexual health for breast/gynecological cancer survivors; and imaging surveillance after diagnosis.

As the number of female veterans continues to grow, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is adjusting by focusing more on breast/gynecological cancer and referring fewer cases to outside clinicians.

The VA’s effort reflects the reality that female veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are approaching the ages—50s, 60s, and 70s—when cancer diagnoses become more common, said Sarah Colonna, MD, national medical director of breast oncology for VA's Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence and an oncologist at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and Wahlen VA Medical Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. “This is preparation for the change that we know is coming.”

In response, the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) is devoting a regional meeting in Tampa, Florida (July 29, 2023) to improving survivorship for patients with women’s cancers. “This meeting is designed to educate both cancer experts and primary care providers on the care of women who have already gone through breast and gynecological cancer treatment,” Colonna explained.

Adherence Challenges

Colonna will speak in a session about the importance of adherence to endocrine therapy. “When we prescribe endocrine therapy for breast cancer, we usually ask women to stay on it for 5 to 10 years, and sometimes that’s hard for them,” she said. “I’ll talk about tips and tricks to help women stay on endocrine therapy for the long haul because we know that is linked to better survival.”

Between two-thirds and three-quarters of women with breast cancer are advised to stay on endocrine drugs, she said, but the medications can be difficult to tolerate due to adverse effects such as hot flashes and sleep disturbances.

In addition, patients are often anxious about the medications. “Women are very leery of anything that changes or makes their hormones different,” Colonna noted. “They feel like it’s messing with something that is natural for them.”

Colonna urges colleagues to focus on their “soft skills,” the ability to absorb and validate the worries of patients. Instead of dismissing them, she said, focus on messages that acknowledge concerns but are also firm: “That’s real, that sucks. But we’ve got to do it.”

It’s also helpful to guide patients away from thinking that taking a pill every day means they’re sick. “I try to flip that paradigm: ‘You’re taking this pill every day because you have power over this thing that happened to you.’”

Education is also key, she said, so that patients “understand very clearly why this medication is important for them: It increases the chance of surviving breast cancer or it increases the chances that the cancer will never come back in your arm or in your breast. Then, whether they make a decision to take it or not, at least they’re making the choice with knowledge.”

As for adverse effects, Colonna said medications such as antidepressants and painkillers can relieve hot flashes, which can disturb sleep.

Identifying the best strategy to address adverse effects “requires keeping in frequent contact with the patient during the first 6 months of endocrine therapy, which are really critical,” she said. “Once they’ve been on it for a year, they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and hang in there even if they have adverse effects.”

Some guidelines suggest that no doctor visits are needed until the 6-month mark, but Colonna prefers to check in at the 4- to 6-week mark, even if it’s just via a phone call. Otherwise, “often they’ll stop taking the pill, and then you won’t know about it until you see them at 6 six months.” At that point, she said, a critical period for treatment has passed.

The Role of Nurse Navigators

In another session at the Tampa regional meeting, AVAHO president-elect Cindy Bowman, MSN, RN, OCN, will moderate a session about the role of nurse navigators in VA cancer care. She is the coordinator of the Cancer Care Navigation Program at the C. W. Bill Young VA Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida.

“Veterans become survivors the day they’re diagnosed with cancer,” she said. Within the VA, cancer-care navigator teams developed over the past decade aim to help patients find their way forward through survivorship, she said, and nurses are crucial to the effort.

As Sharp and Scheid reported in a 2018 Journal Oncology Navigation Survivorship article, “research demonstrates that navigation can improve access to the cancer care system by addressing barriers, as well as facilitating quality care. The benefits of patient navigation for improving cancer patient outcomes is considerable.” McKenney and colleagues found that “patient navigation has been demonstrated to increase access to screening, shorten time to diagnostic resolution, and improve cancer outcomes, particularly in health disparity populations, such as women of color, rural populations, and poor women.” 

According to Bowman, “it has become standard practice to have nurse navigators be there each step of the way from a high suspicion of cancer to diagnosis and through the clinical workup into active treatment and survivorship.” Within the VA, she said, “the focus right now is to look at standardizing care that all VAs will be able to offer holistic, comprehensive cancer-care navigation teams.”

At the regional meeting, Bowman’s session will include updates from nurse navigators about helping patients through breast/gynecological cancer, abnormal mammograms, and survivorship.

Nurse navigators are typically the second medical professionals who talk to cancer patients after their physicians, Bowman said. The unique knowledge of oncology nurse navigators gives them invaluable insight into treatment plans and cancer drug regimens, she said.

“They’re able to sit down and discuss the actual cancer drug regimen with patients—what each of those drugs do, how they’re administered, the short-term and long-term side effects,” she said. “They have the knowledge about all aspects of cancer care that can really only come from somebody who’s specialty trained.”

Other sessions at the AVAHO regional meeting will highlight breast cancer and lymphedema, breast cancer and bone health; diet, exercise and cancer; sexual health for breast/gynecological cancer survivors; and imaging surveillance after diagnosis.

As the number of female veterans continues to grow, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is adjusting by focusing more on breast/gynecological cancer and referring fewer cases to outside clinicians.

The VA’s effort reflects the reality that female veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are approaching the ages—50s, 60s, and 70s—when cancer diagnoses become more common, said Sarah Colonna, MD, national medical director of breast oncology for VA's Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence and an oncologist at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and Wahlen VA Medical Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. “This is preparation for the change that we know is coming.”

In response, the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) is devoting a regional meeting in Tampa, Florida (July 29, 2023) to improving survivorship for patients with women’s cancers. “This meeting is designed to educate both cancer experts and primary care providers on the care of women who have already gone through breast and gynecological cancer treatment,” Colonna explained.

Adherence Challenges

Colonna will speak in a session about the importance of adherence to endocrine therapy. “When we prescribe endocrine therapy for breast cancer, we usually ask women to stay on it for 5 to 10 years, and sometimes that’s hard for them,” she said. “I’ll talk about tips and tricks to help women stay on endocrine therapy for the long haul because we know that is linked to better survival.”

Between two-thirds and three-quarters of women with breast cancer are advised to stay on endocrine drugs, she said, but the medications can be difficult to tolerate due to adverse effects such as hot flashes and sleep disturbances.

In addition, patients are often anxious about the medications. “Women are very leery of anything that changes or makes their hormones different,” Colonna noted. “They feel like it’s messing with something that is natural for them.”

Colonna urges colleagues to focus on their “soft skills,” the ability to absorb and validate the worries of patients. Instead of dismissing them, she said, focus on messages that acknowledge concerns but are also firm: “That’s real, that sucks. But we’ve got to do it.”

It’s also helpful to guide patients away from thinking that taking a pill every day means they’re sick. “I try to flip that paradigm: ‘You’re taking this pill every day because you have power over this thing that happened to you.’”

Education is also key, she said, so that patients “understand very clearly why this medication is important for them: It increases the chance of surviving breast cancer or it increases the chances that the cancer will never come back in your arm or in your breast. Then, whether they make a decision to take it or not, at least they’re making the choice with knowledge.”

As for adverse effects, Colonna said medications such as antidepressants and painkillers can relieve hot flashes, which can disturb sleep.

Identifying the best strategy to address adverse effects “requires keeping in frequent contact with the patient during the first 6 months of endocrine therapy, which are really critical,” she said. “Once they’ve been on it for a year, they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and hang in there even if they have adverse effects.”

Some guidelines suggest that no doctor visits are needed until the 6-month mark, but Colonna prefers to check in at the 4- to 6-week mark, even if it’s just via a phone call. Otherwise, “often they’ll stop taking the pill, and then you won’t know about it until you see them at 6 six months.” At that point, she said, a critical period for treatment has passed.

The Role of Nurse Navigators

In another session at the Tampa regional meeting, AVAHO president-elect Cindy Bowman, MSN, RN, OCN, will moderate a session about the role of nurse navigators in VA cancer care. She is the coordinator of the Cancer Care Navigation Program at the C. W. Bill Young VA Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida.

“Veterans become survivors the day they’re diagnosed with cancer,” she said. Within the VA, cancer-care navigator teams developed over the past decade aim to help patients find their way forward through survivorship, she said, and nurses are crucial to the effort.

As Sharp and Scheid reported in a 2018 Journal Oncology Navigation Survivorship article, “research demonstrates that navigation can improve access to the cancer care system by addressing barriers, as well as facilitating quality care. The benefits of patient navigation for improving cancer patient outcomes is considerable.” McKenney and colleagues found that “patient navigation has been demonstrated to increase access to screening, shorten time to diagnostic resolution, and improve cancer outcomes, particularly in health disparity populations, such as women of color, rural populations, and poor women.” 

According to Bowman, “it has become standard practice to have nurse navigators be there each step of the way from a high suspicion of cancer to diagnosis and through the clinical workup into active treatment and survivorship.” Within the VA, she said, “the focus right now is to look at standardizing care that all VAs will be able to offer holistic, comprehensive cancer-care navigation teams.”

At the regional meeting, Bowman’s session will include updates from nurse navigators about helping patients through breast/gynecological cancer, abnormal mammograms, and survivorship.

Nurse navigators are typically the second medical professionals who talk to cancer patients after their physicians, Bowman said. The unique knowledge of oncology nurse navigators gives them invaluable insight into treatment plans and cancer drug regimens, she said.

“They’re able to sit down and discuss the actual cancer drug regimen with patients—what each of those drugs do, how they’re administered, the short-term and long-term side effects,” she said. “They have the knowledge about all aspects of cancer care that can really only come from somebody who’s specialty trained.”

Other sessions at the AVAHO regional meeting will highlight breast cancer and lymphedema, breast cancer and bone health; diet, exercise and cancer; sexual health for breast/gynecological cancer survivors; and imaging surveillance after diagnosis.

Key clinical point: Women who survive stages I-III breast cancer (BC) may experience improved survival outcomes on adhering to a low-carbohydrate diet, particularly one that is plant-rich.

Major finding: Compared with women having the highest carbohydrate intake, lowest protein intake, and lowest fat intake after BC diagnosis, those adhering to an overall low‐carbohydrate diet (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82; P_trend = .0001) and a plant‐rich low‐carbohydrate diet (HR 0.73; P_trend <.0001) had a significantly lower risk for all-cause mortality.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of two ongoing cohort studies, the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and NHS II, including 9621 women with stages I-III BC, of which 1269 women died from BC.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health and University of Toronto. Two authors declared being the founder of or receiving personal fees, nonfinancial support, and grants from various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Farvid MS et al. Associations of low-carbohydrate diets with breast cancer survival. Cancer. 2023 (Jun 10). Doi: 10.1002/cncr.34819

Key clinical point: Women who survive stages I-III breast cancer (BC) may experience improved survival outcomes on adhering to a low-carbohydrate diet, particularly one that is plant-rich.

Major finding: Compared with women having the highest carbohydrate intake, lowest protein intake, and lowest fat intake after BC diagnosis, those adhering to an overall low‐carbohydrate diet (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82; P_trend = .0001) and a plant‐rich low‐carbohydrate diet (HR 0.73; P_trend <.0001) had a significantly lower risk for all-cause mortality.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of two ongoing cohort studies, the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and NHS II, including 9621 women with stages I-III BC, of which 1269 women died from BC.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health and University of Toronto. Two authors declared being the founder of or receiving personal fees, nonfinancial support, and grants from various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Farvid MS et al. Associations of low-carbohydrate diets with breast cancer survival. Cancer. 2023 (Jun 10). Doi: 10.1002/cncr.34819

Key clinical point: Women who survive stages I-III breast cancer (BC) may experience improved survival outcomes on adhering to a low-carbohydrate diet, particularly one that is plant-rich.

Major finding: Compared with women having the highest carbohydrate intake, lowest protein intake, and lowest fat intake after BC diagnosis, those adhering to an overall low‐carbohydrate diet (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82; P_trend = .0001) and a plant‐rich low‐carbohydrate diet (HR 0.73; P_trend <.0001) had a significantly lower risk for all-cause mortality.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of two ongoing cohort studies, the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and NHS II, including 9621 women with stages I-III BC, of which 1269 women died from BC.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health and University of Toronto. Two authors declared being the founder of or receiving personal fees, nonfinancial support, and grants from various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Farvid MS et al. Associations of low-carbohydrate diets with breast cancer survival. Cancer. 2023 (Jun 10). Doi: 10.1002/cncr.34819

Key clinical point: The level of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) can provide insights on disease-free survival (DFS) outcomes in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-low-positive (HER2-low+) early-stage breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: High (>10%) vs low (≤10%) TIL levels were associated with a 53% improvement in DFS in HER2-low+ BC (hazard ratio [HR] 0.47; P = .035) and 58% improvement in DFS in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-low+ BC (HR 0.42; P = .032).

Study details: Findings are from a single-institution retrospective analysis including 1763 patients with early-stage BC who underwent surgery, of whom 429 patients were HER2+, 739 were HER2-low+, and 595 were HER2-0.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sun T et al. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes provides recent survival information for early-stage HER2-low-positive breast cancer: A large cohort retrospective study. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1148228 (Jun 20). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1148228

Key clinical point: The level of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) can provide insights on disease-free survival (DFS) outcomes in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-low-positive (HER2-low+) early-stage breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: High (>10%) vs low (≤10%) TIL levels were associated with a 53% improvement in DFS in HER2-low+ BC (hazard ratio [HR] 0.47; P = .035) and 58% improvement in DFS in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-low+ BC (HR 0.42; P = .032).

Study details: Findings are from a single-institution retrospective analysis including 1763 patients with early-stage BC who underwent surgery, of whom 429 patients were HER2+, 739 were HER2-low+, and 595 were HER2-0.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sun T et al. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes provides recent survival information for early-stage HER2-low-positive breast cancer: A large cohort retrospective study. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1148228 (Jun 20). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1148228

Key clinical point: The level of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) can provide insights on disease-free survival (DFS) outcomes in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-low-positive (HER2-low+) early-stage breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: High (>10%) vs low (≤10%) TIL levels were associated with a 53% improvement in DFS in HER2-low+ BC (hazard ratio [HR] 0.47; P = .035) and 58% improvement in DFS in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-low+ BC (HR 0.42; P = .032).

Study details: Findings are from a single-institution retrospective analysis including 1763 patients with early-stage BC who underwent surgery, of whom 429 patients were HER2+, 739 were HER2-low+, and 595 were HER2-0.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sun T et al. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes provides recent survival information for early-stage HER2-low-positive breast cancer: A large cohort retrospective study. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1148228 (Jun 20). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1148228

Key clinical point: High cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) may prevent the development of breast cancer (BC) in postmenopausal women.

Major finding: Compared with women with low-to-moderate estimated CRF, those with high eCRF had 24% lower odds of developing BC (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97).

Study details: This study used the UK Biobank data to evaluate 17,840 post-menopausal women who were free of cancer and were followed for 11 years, of which 529 women developed BC.

Disclosures: This project was funded in part by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and discretionary funds held by JD Brooks. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Christensen RAG et al. Association between estimated cardiorespiratory fitness and breast cancer: A prospective cohort study. Br J Sports Med. 2023 (Jun 19). Doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-104870

Key clinical point: High cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) may prevent the development of breast cancer (BC) in postmenopausal women.

Major finding: Compared with women with low-to-moderate estimated CRF, those with high eCRF had 24% lower odds of developing BC (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97).

Study details: This study used the UK Biobank data to evaluate 17,840 post-menopausal women who were free of cancer and were followed for 11 years, of which 529 women developed BC.

Disclosures: This project was funded in part by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and discretionary funds held by JD Brooks. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Christensen RAG et al. Association between estimated cardiorespiratory fitness and breast cancer: A prospective cohort study. Br J Sports Med. 2023 (Jun 19). Doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-104870

Key clinical point: High cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) may prevent the development of breast cancer (BC) in postmenopausal women.

Major finding: Compared with women with low-to-moderate estimated CRF, those with high eCRF had 24% lower odds of developing BC (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97).

Study details: This study used the UK Biobank data to evaluate 17,840 post-menopausal women who were free of cancer and were followed for 11 years, of which 529 women developed BC.

Disclosures: This project was funded in part by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and discretionary funds held by JD Brooks. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Christensen RAG et al. Association between estimated cardiorespiratory fitness and breast cancer: A prospective cohort study. Br J Sports Med. 2023 (Jun 19). Doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-104870

Key clinical point: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) led to similar overall survival (OS) and better disease-specific survival (DSS) outcomes compared with mastectomy in patients with stage I/II adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast (BACC).

Major finding: The 10-year OS rates were comparable between the BCS and mastectomy groups (P = .968), whereas DSS was significantly improved in patients who underwent BCS vs mastectomy (95% vs 89%; P = .002).

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) including 583 patients with stage I/II BACC, of whom 386 patients underwent BCS and 197 patients underwent mastectomy.

Disclosures: This study was supported by various grants from the Science and Technology Department of Henan Province, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Huang T et al. Optimal surgical procedure for treating early-stage adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast. Sci Rep. 2023;13:10222 (Jun 23). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-36644-w

Key clinical point: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) led to similar overall survival (OS) and better disease-specific survival (DSS) outcomes compared with mastectomy in patients with stage I/II adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast (BACC).

Major finding: The 10-year OS rates were comparable between the BCS and mastectomy groups (P = .968), whereas DSS was significantly improved in patients who underwent BCS vs mastectomy (95% vs 89%; P = .002).

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) including 583 patients with stage I/II BACC, of whom 386 patients underwent BCS and 197 patients underwent mastectomy.

Disclosures: This study was supported by various grants from the Science and Technology Department of Henan Province, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Huang T et al. Optimal surgical procedure for treating early-stage adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast. Sci Rep. 2023;13:10222 (Jun 23). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-36644-w

Key clinical point: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) led to similar overall survival (OS) and better disease-specific survival (DSS) outcomes compared with mastectomy in patients with stage I/II adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast (BACC).

Major finding: The 10-year OS rates were comparable between the BCS and mastectomy groups (P = .968), whereas DSS was significantly improved in patients who underwent BCS vs mastectomy (95% vs 89%; P = .002).

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) including 583 patients with stage I/II BACC, of whom 386 patients underwent BCS and 197 patients underwent mastectomy.

Disclosures: This study was supported by various grants from the Science and Technology Department of Henan Province, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Huang T et al. Optimal surgical procedure for treating early-stage adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast. Sci Rep. 2023;13:10222 (Jun 23). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-36644-w

Key clinical point: Adherence and persistence to adjuvant hormone therapy was associated with improved survival outcomes in older women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: The risk for all-cause mortality reduced by 25% in patients with vs without cumulative adherence to hormone therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.75; P < .001) and decreased by 11% for every 1-year increase in persistence (HR 0.89; P < .001). Each 1-year increase in persistence to hormone therapy also significantly improved breast cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.63; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data linked with US Medicare claims that included 25,796 older women with HR+ BC who were ≥66 years old and received adjuvant hormone therapy.

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by a grant from the Lilly Endowment, Inc. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zheng D and Thomas J 3rd. Survival benefits associated with being adherent and having longer persistence to adjuvant hormone therapy across up to five years among U.S. Medicare population with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023;201:89-104 (Jun 16). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-023-06992-2

Key clinical point: Adherence and persistence to adjuvant hormone therapy was associated with improved survival outcomes in older women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: The risk for all-cause mortality reduced by 25% in patients with vs without cumulative adherence to hormone therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.75; P < .001) and decreased by 11% for every 1-year increase in persistence (HR 0.89; P < .001). Each 1-year increase in persistence to hormone therapy also significantly improved breast cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.63; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data linked with US Medicare claims that included 25,796 older women with HR+ BC who were ≥66 years old and received adjuvant hormone therapy.

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by a grant from the Lilly Endowment, Inc. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zheng D and Thomas J 3rd. Survival benefits associated with being adherent and having longer persistence to adjuvant hormone therapy across up to five years among U.S. Medicare population with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023;201:89-104 (Jun 16). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-023-06992-2

Key clinical point: Adherence and persistence to adjuvant hormone therapy was associated with improved survival outcomes in older women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: The risk for all-cause mortality reduced by 25% in patients with vs without cumulative adherence to hormone therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.75; P < .001) and decreased by 11% for every 1-year increase in persistence (HR 0.89; P < .001). Each 1-year increase in persistence to hormone therapy also significantly improved breast cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.63; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data linked with US Medicare claims that included 25,796 older women with HR+ BC who were ≥66 years old and received adjuvant hormone therapy.

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by a grant from the Lilly Endowment, Inc. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zheng D and Thomas J 3rd. Survival benefits associated with being adherent and having longer persistence to adjuvant hormone therapy across up to five years among U.S. Medicare population with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023;201:89-104 (Jun 16). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-023-06992-2