De-escalating adjuvant therapies in older patients with lower risk estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

A bibliometric worldview of breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer from 2013 to 2023

Over the last decade, significant advancements have been made in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer. However, there is a lack of analytical and descriptive investigations on the trajectory, essential research directions, current research scenario, pivotal investigative focuses, and forthcoming perspectives. The objective of this research is to provide a thorough update on the progress made in BCS for breast cancer over the preceding decade. Retrieved from the Web of Science database, the data span from January 1, 2013, to November 30, 2023. Utilizing a set of advanced analytical instruments, we conducted comprehensive bibliometric and visual analyses. The findings underscore the predominant influence of the USA, representing 35.77% of the overall publications and playing a pivotal role in shaping research within this field. Notable productivity was evident at various institutions, including the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and the University of Toronto. Annals of Surgical Oncology contributed the most publications in this field. An examination of keywords indicated a change in the concentration of research attention, transitioning from molecular subtype, ultrasonography, and intraoperative aspects to SEER, male breast cancer, and adjuvant measures. By offering a comprehensive bibliometric assessment, this study enhances our understanding of BCS for breast cancer. Consequently, this benefits both experienced researchers and newcomers alike, providing prompt access to essential information and fostering the extraction of innovative concepts within this specific field.

The REthinking Clinical Trials Program Retreat 2023: Creating Partnerships to Optimize Quality Cancer Care

Patients, families, healthcare providers and funders face multiple comparable treatment options without knowing which provides the best quality of care. As a step towards improving this, the REthinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) pragmatic trials program started in 2014 to break down many of the traditional barriers to performing clinical trials. However, until other innovative methodologies become widely used, the impact of this program will remain limited. These innovations include the incorporation of near equivalence analyses and the incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical trial design. Near equivalence analyses allow for the comparison of different treatments (drug and non-drug) using quality of life, toxicity, cost-effectiveness, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data. AI offers unique opportunities to maximize the information gleaned from clinical trials, reduces sample size estimates, and can potentially "rescue" poorly accruing trials. On 2 May 2023, the first REaCT international symposium took place to connect clinicians and scientists, set goals and identify future avenues for investigator-led clinical trials. Here, we summarize the topics presented at this meeting to promote sharing and support other similarly motivated groups to learn and share their experiences.

Bridging research gaps in geriatric oncology: unraveling the potential of pragmatic clinical trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review examines the role of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) in addressing the underrepresentation of older adults with cancer (OAC) in clinical trials. Focusing on real-world evidence (RWE), it aims to provide a comprehensive overview of PCT utilization, emphasizing their potential to enhance treatment decisions and patient outcomes. Existing knowledge gaps in PCT implementation are also discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

PCTs are identified as effective tools to include OACs with comorbidities and complex conditions in research, bridging the representation gap. Despite their proven value in healthcare provision, their application in OAC contexts remains limited, hindering comprehensive understanding and inclusivity in clinical trials.

SUMMARY

While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard in oncology research, OACs have historically been excluded, perpetuating underrepresentation. Furthermore, even in current oncology clinical development trials, this demographic continues to be underrepresented. PCTs offer a valuable avenue for the identification and evaluation of therapies within authentic RW contexts, encompassing various healthcare settings, such as hospitals, clinics, and physician practices. RCTs and PCTs complement one another, and the utilization of PCTs has the potential to inform clinical decision-making across the OACs entire treatment trajectory.

Integrating Systematic Reviews into Supportive Care Trial Design: The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program

PURPOSE

To review the successes and challenges of integrating systematic reviews (SRs) into the Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program.

METHODS

All REaCT program SRs were evaluated and descriptive summaries presented.

RESULTS

Twenty-two SRs have been performed evaluating standard of care interventions for the management of: breast cancer (n = 15), all tumour sites (n = 4), breast and prostate cancers (n = 2), and prostate cancer (n = 1). The majority of SRs were related to supportive care (n = 14) and survivorship (n = 5) interventions and most (19/22, 86%) confirmed the existence of uncertainty relating to the clinical question addressed in the SR. Most SRs (15/22, 68%) provided specific recommendations for future studies and results were incorporated into peer-reviewed grant applications (n = 6) and clinical trial design (n = 12). In 12/22 of the SRs, the first author was a trainee. All SRs followed PRISMA guidelines.

CONCLUSION

SRs are important for identifying and confirming clinical equipoise and designing trials. SRs provide an excellent opportunity for trainees to participate in research.

Keynote Address at the ASBrS 2022 Annual Meeting Low-Risk Breast Cancer: When Is Local Therapy Enough?

Surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy have all been used to de-escalate the treatment of breast cancer patients. Despite its impact on local recurrence, systemic endocrine therapy (ET) has yet to be de-escalated, even though it has substantial adverse effects and a lower quality of life (QoL) over 5-10 years. The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) and MammaPrint have been used to identify subgroups of younger patients whose long-term survival is unaffected by adjuvant ET. Local treatment only, with de-escalation of long-term systemic ET for patients aged 50-69 with RS < 11, appears not to impact OS and should have an anticipated improvement in QoL.

Local and systemic therapy may be safely de-escalated in elderly breast cancer patients in China: A retrospective cohort study

Background

For elderly patients with breast cancer, the treatment strategy is still controversial. In China, preoperative axillary lymph node needle biopsy is not widely used, resulting in many patients receiving axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) directly. Our study aims to determine whether local and systemic therapy can be safely de-escalated in elderly breast cancer.

Methods

Patients aged ≥70 years were retrospectively enrolled from our institution’s medical records between May 2013 and July 2021. Groups were assigned according to local and systemic treatment regimens, and stratified analysis was performed by molecular subtypes. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were used to compare the effects of different regimens on relapse-free survival (RFS).

Results

A total of 653 patients were enrolled for preliminary data analysis, and 563 patients were screened for survival analysis. The mean follow-up was 19 months (range, 1–82 months). Axillary lymph node metastases were pathologically confirmed in only 2.1% of cN0 cases and up to 97.1% of cN+ cases. In the aspect of breast surgery, RFS showed no significant difference between mastectomy and BCS group (p = 0.3078). As for axillary surgery, patients in the ALND group showed significantly better RFS than those in the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) group among pN0 patients (p = 0.0128). Among these cases, the proportion of cN+ in ALND was significantly higher than that in SLNB (6.4% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.002), which meant axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) of ALND patients were larger in imaging and more likely to be misdiagnosed as metastatic. With regard to adjuvant therapy, univariate and multivariate analyses showed that RFS in different comprehensive adjuvant regimens were similar especially among hormone receptor (HR)+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)− subgroup where patients who did not receive any adjuvant therapy accounted for 15.7% (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

It is feasible to reduce some unnecessary local or systemic treatments for elderly breast cancer patients, especially in HR+/HER2− subtype. Multiple patient-related factors should be considered when making treatment plans.

Management Strategies for Older Patients with Low-Risk Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Physician Survey

When managing older patients with lower-risk hormone-receptor-positive (HR+), HER2 negative (HER2-) early-stage breast cancer (EBC), the harms and benefits of adjuvant therapies should be taken into consideration. A survey was conducted among Canadian oncologists on the definitions of "low risk" and "older", practice patterns, and future trial designs. We contacted 254 physicians and 21% completed the survey (50/242). Most respondents (68%, 34/50) agreed with the definition of "low risk" HR+/HER2- EBC being node-negative and either: ≤3 cm and low histological grade, ≤2 cm and intermediate grade, or ≤1 cm and high grade. The most popular chronological and biological age definition for older patients was ≥70 (45%, 22/49; 45% 21/47). In patients ≥ 70 with low risk EBC, most radiation and medical oncologists would recommend post-lumpectomy radiotherapy (RT) and endocrine therapy (ET). Seventy-eight percent (38/49) felt that trials are needed to evaluate RT and ET's role in patients ≥ 70. The favored design was ET alone, vs. RT plus ET (39%, 15/38). The preferred primary and secondary endpoints were disease-free survival and quality of life, respectively. Although oncologists recommended both RT and ET, there is interest in performing de-escalation trials in patients ≥ 70.

Experiences and Perceptions of Older Adults with Lower-Risk Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer about Adjuvant Radiotherapy and Endocrine Therapy: A Patient Survey

Older patients with lower-risk hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer are frequently offered both radiotherapy (RT) and endocrine therapy (ET) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). A survey was performed to assess older patients’ experiences and perceptions regarding RT and ET, and participation interest in de-escalation trials. Of the 130 patients approached, 102 eligible patients completed the survey (response rate 78%). The median age of respondents was 74 (interquartile range 71–76). Most participants (71%, 72/102) received both RT and ET. Patients felt the role of RT and ET, respectively, was to: reduce ipsilateral tumor recurrence (91%, 90/99 and 62%, 61/99) and improve survival (56%, 55/99 and 49%, 49/99). More patients had significant concerns regarding ET (66%, 65/99) than RT (39%, 37/95). When asked which treatment had the most negative effect on their quality of life, the results showed: ET (35%, 25/72), RT (14%, 10/72) or both (8%, 6/72). Participants would rather receive RT (57%, 41/72) than ET (43%, 31/72). Forty-four percent (44/100) of respondents were either, “not comfortable” or “not interested” in participating in potential de-escalation trials. Although most of the adjuvant therapy de-escalation trials evaluate the omission of RT, de-escalation studies of ET are warranted and patient centered.

The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program. A Canadian-Led Pragmatic Trials Program: Strategies for Integrating Knowledge Users into Trial Design

We reviewed patient and health care provider (HCP) surveys performed through the REaCT program. The REaCT team has performed 15 patient surveys (2298 respondents) and 13 HCP surveys (1033 respondents) that have addressed a broad range of topics in breast cancer management. Over time, the proportion of surveys distributed by paper/regular mail has fallen, with electronic distribution now the norm. For the patient surveys, the median duration of the surveys was 3 months (IQR 2.5-7 months) and the median response rate was 84% (IQR 80-91.7%). For the HCP surveys, the median survey duration was 3 months (IQR 1.75-4 months), and the median response rate, where available, was 28% (IQR 21.2-49%). The survey data have so far led to: 10 systematic reviews, 6 peer-reviewed grant applications and 19 clinical trials. Knowledge users should be an essential component of clinical research. The REaCT program has integrated surveys as a standard step of their trials process. The COVID-19 pandemic and reduced face-to-face interactions with patients in the clinic as well as the continued importance of social media highlight the need for alternative means of distributing and responding to surveys.