Climate Therapy: Sustainability Solutions for Breast Cancer Care in the Anthropocene Era

Climate change is the greatest threat to human existence. Currently it impacts breast cancer care by disrupting treatment, by food poverty and economic hardship and through fossil fuel pollution which increases breast cancer incidence. These impacts are greatest in those already experiencing deprivation. However, healthcare (including breast cancer care) is not an innocent bystander in climate change. The carbon emissions of healthcare are equivalent to the continent of Africa with 1.5 billion people. Like all other enterprises healthcare has an obligation to move to net zero carbon emissions. Previously conducted studies of healthcare professionals have highlighted the role of guidance documents to facilitate climate engagement by them. This prompted the formation of an interdisciplinary group to review the intersection points between breast cancer care and planetary health. A solution tree of sustainable solutions for practicing clinicians is proposed which can be integrated into daily clinical practice and into their personal lives.

Systemic anticancer therapy near the end of life: an analysis of factors influencing treatment in advanced tumor disease

BACKGROUND

Systemic anticancer treatment (SACT) for advanced cancer patients with limited prognosis before death is associated with high toxicity and reduced quality of life. Guidelines discourage this approach as low-value care. However, a significant number of patients continue to receive SACT in the last 30 days of life.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was carried out at the University Hospital Krems, encompassing the analysis of patients who were diagnosed with a solid tumor and died between 2017 and 2021, with a particular focus on the use of end-of-life (EOL) SACT.

RESULTS

A total of 685 patients were included in the study. SACT was applied in 342 (49.9%) patients, of whom 143 (41.8%, total population: 20.9%) patients received SACT within the last 30 days of life. Median time from last SACT to death was 44.5 days. The analysis of potential factors impacting the administration of EOL SACT revealed the following significant findings: type of SACT [P < 0.001, targeted therapy odds ratio (OR) 5.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.26-11.48; chemotherapy/targeted therapy OR 3.60, 95% CI 1.47-8.82; immune checkpoint inhibitor OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.37-3.92], no referral to palliative care (PC) (P = 0.009, OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.16-2.96), no admission to PC ward (P < 0.001, OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.67-4.35), and poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (≥2, P < 0.001, OR 3.35, 95% CI 1.93-5.83).

CONCLUSION

The timing of SACT near the EOL is significantly influenced by several factors, including the type of SACT, referral to PC services, admission to PC unit, and ECOG performance status. These findings underscore the complexity of treatment decisions in advanced cancer care and highlight the need for personalized, patient-centered approaches that consider both clinical and patient-related factors to optimize care at the EOL.

Optimising oncology drug expenditure in Ireland

A combination of improvements in patient survival, increasing treatment duration, and the development of more expensive agents has led to a doubling of per-capita spending on cancer medicines in Ireland (2008-2018). Despite this, access to new drugs is poor in comparison to other EU countries. We examine methods to optimise oncology drug spending to facilitate access to newer anticancer agents. Key targets for spending optimisation (biosimilar use, clinical trials and expanded access programs, waste reduction, avoidance of futile treatment, and altered drug scheduling) were identified through an exploratory analysis. A structured literature search was performed, with a focus on articles relevant to the Irish Healthcare system, supplemented by reports from statutory bodies. At the present time, EMA-approved agents are available once approved by the NCPE. Optimising drug costs occurs through guideline-based practice and biosimilar integration, the latter provides €80 million in cost savings annually. Access to novel therapies can occur via over 50 clinical trials and 28 currently available expanded access programmes. Additional strategies include reversion to weight-based immunotherapy dosing, potentially saving €400,000 per year in our centre alone, vial sharing, and optimisation of treatment schedules. A variety of techniques are being employed by oncologists to optimise costs and increase access to innovation for patients. Use of biosimilars, drug wastage, and prescribing at end of life should be audited as key performance indicators, which may lead to reflective practice on treatment planning. Such measures could further optimise oncology drug expenditure nationally facilitating approval of new agents.

Systemic Anticancer Treatment Near the End of Life: a Narrative Literature Review

OPINION STATEMENT

Systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) includes different treatment modalities that can be effective in treating cancer. However, in the case of disease progression, cancers might become incurable and SACT might reach its limits. In the case of incurable cancers, SACT is often given in a palliative setting, with the goal of improving the patients' quality of life (QOL) and their survival. In contrast, especially for patients who approach end of life (EOL), such treatments might do more harm than good. Patients receiving EOL anticancer treatments often experience belated palliative care referrals. The use of systemic chemotherapy in patients with advanced cancer and poor prognosis approaching the EOL has been associated with significant toxicity and worse QOL compared to best supportive care. Therefore, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has discouraged this practice, and it is considered a metric of low-value care by Choosing Wisely (Schnipper et al. in J Clin Oncol 4;30(14):1715-24). Recommendations of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) suggest that especially chemotherapy and immunotherapy should be avoided in the last few weeks of the patients' lives. In this narrative review, we screened the current literature for the impact of SACT and factors predicting the use of SACT near the EOL with discussion on this topic.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Palliative Care at the End of Life: An Irish Multicentre Retrospective Study

Background and Objectives: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have less toxicity than standard chemotherapy and are now standard of care for many patients with advanced cancer. A manageable side effect profile and potential for durable responses may lead to aggressive care of the palliative patient. We sought to evaluate palliative care input and ICI use at the end of life at two Irish cancer centres. Methods: We identified deceased patients who received at least one dose of an ICI between first of January 2013 to 31st of December 2018. A retrospective electronic chart review was performed. Results: The electronic records of 102 patients were analysed. Fifty eight percent were male and the median age of diagnosis of advanced disease was 60 years (range 17-78). Median time from last dose of ICI to death was 57 days (range 8-574) and 20% of patients died within 30 days of last dose of ICI. Most patients, 92%, were referred to palliative care. The median time from palliative care referral to death was 64 days (range 1- 1010). In the last 30 days of life, 39% of patients attended the emergency department (ED) and 46% had at least one hospital admission. Late palliative care referrals, ≤3 months before death, were associated with hospitalisations in the last month of life (64% vs. 36%, P = .02). Timing of palliative care referral did not affect ICI prescribing at the end of life (P = 0.38). ICI use in the last 30 days of life was not associated with increased ED presentations or hospitalisations at the end of life. Patients who received ICI in the last month had a higher likelihood of in-hospital death (43% vs. 16%, P = 0.02). Conclusions: ICI within 30 days of death was associated with dying in hospital but did not lead to more hospitalisations and emergency department presentations. Early palliative care did not affect ICI use but reduced hospitalisations at the end of life.

Impact of gastric cancer treatment on quality of life of patients

Treatment of gastric cancer is stage specific and ranges from endoscopic resections in early gastric cancer to gastrectomy and multimodal treatment in locally advanced tumour situations. Palliative systemic treatment has the potential to prolong survival in advanced tumour stages. However, tumour-directed therapies and their side-effects potentially worsen the general condition of a patient. Treatment discussions and decisions, especially when trading-off the options with the patient, have widened their focus from 'technical' terms like overall survival, disease-free survival and progression-free survival to patient reported outcomes (PROs) including quality of life (QoL). The assessment of PROs has evolved as important endpoint in clinical studies. A precise definition of QoL seems impossible. Its multiple dimensions can be evaluated by various validated questionnaires like the QLQ-C30 and FACT-G focusing on different priorities. Special additional tools have been developed and validated to assess QoL in gastric cancer patients (QLQ-STO22, FACT-Ga). We herein give an overview on the options to evaluate QoL in patients with gastric cancer and on published data on the impact of tumour-targeted therapy on QoL in these patients.