Measuring Quality of Life Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Real-World Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients: The Need for a Standardized Approach

Health-related quality of life with sacituzumab govitecan in HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer in the phase III TROPiCS-02 trial

BACKGROUND

The TROPiCS-02 study (NCT03901339) demonstrated that sacituzumab govitecan (SG) has superior clinical outcomes over treatment of physician's choice (TPC) chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2 receptor-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Here, we present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) patient-reported outcome (PRO) findings from this study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible adults with HR+/HER2- mBC who previously received a taxane, endocrine-based therapy, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and 2-4 lines of chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to receive SG or TPC until progression or unacceptable toxicity. PROs were assessed at baseline and on day 1 of each cycle, using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), EQ-5D-5L, and PRO Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

RESULTS

Compared to TPC, overall least square mean change from baseline was significantly better for SG for physical functioning and dyspnea, but worse for diarrhea. Time to first clinically meaningful worsening or death was significantly longer for SG in global health status/quality of life, physical functioning, fatigue, emotional functioning, dyspnea, insomnia, and financial difficulties of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EQ-VAS, but longer for TPC in diarrhea. Few patients in both arms reported experiencing any worsening to level 3 or 4 treatment-related symptomatic events during treatment, as assessed by 16 PRO-CTCAE items, except for diarrhea frequency and amount of hair loss, which favored TPC.

CONCLUSIONS

SG was associated with an HRQoL benefit in most symptoms and functioning, compared with TPC. This supports the favorable profile of SG as a treatment option for patients with pretreated HR+/HER2- mBC.

Capivasertib and fulvestrant for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (CAPItello-291): patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

CAPItello-291 is an ongoing phase 3 trial in which capivasertib-fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo-fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after aromatase inhibitor treatment, in both the overall population and in patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. This study further explored patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functioning, symptoms, and symptom tolerability in CAPItello-291.

METHODS

This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, which was conducted across 193 hospitals and cancer centres in 19 countries, enrolled women with any menopausal status or men, aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Japan), with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4 or 6 inhibitor therapy. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/WHO performance score of 0 or 1 and could have received up to two previous lines of endocrine therapy and up to one previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using block randomisation (stratified according to the presence or absence of liver metastases, previous use of a CDK4/6 inhibitor [yes vs no], and geographical region) to receive oral capivasertib 400 mg (twice daily for 4 days, followed by 3 days off) plus intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (every 14 days for the first three injections, then every 28 days) or placebo with matching fulvestrant dosing. The dual primary endpoint of the trial was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module (QLQ-C30) and breast module (QLQ-BR23), Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Patient Global Impression of Treatment Tolerability (PGI-TT) questionnaires were used to assess patient-reported outcomes. Evaluation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 were secondary endpoints and evaluation of PRO-CTCAE and PGI-TT were pre-defined exploratory endpoints, and these endpoints are the subject of analysis in this Article. Data were collected at baseline and prespecified timepoints. Patient-reported outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients with an evaluable baseline assessment and at least one evaluable post-baseline assessment. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed model with repeated measures for EORTC QLQ-C30 and summarised for QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration was described using the Kaplan-Meier method. PGI-TT and PRO-CTCAE responses were summarised at each treatment cycle. Patient-reported outcomes were not prospectively powered for statistical comparison. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04305496.

FINDINGS

Between June 2, 2020, and Oct 13, 2021, 901 patients were enrolled, of whom 708 patients were randomly assigned to receive capivasertib-fulvestrant (n=355) or placebo-fulvestrant (n=353). The median age of the patients was 59 years (IQR 51-67) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 58 years (IQR 49-66) in the placebo-fulvestrant group. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2022), the median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival in censored patients was 13·0 months (IQR 9·1-16·7) for capivasertib-fulvestrant and 12·7 months (IQR 2·0-16·4) for placebo-fulvestrant in the overall population. EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL) scores were maintained from baseline and were similar between treatment groups throughout the study period (difference in mean change from baseline of -2·5 [95% CI -4·5 to -0·6] with capivasertib-fulvestrant vs -5·6 [-7·9 to -3·4] with placebo-fulvestrant; treatment difference 3·1 [95% CI 0·2 to 6·0]). Median time to deterioration in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL was 24·9 months (95% CI 13·8 to not reached) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 12·0 months (10·2 to 15·7) in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·53 to 0·92). Time to deterioration HRs for all EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 subscale scores showed little difference between the treatment groups, except for diarrhoea, which was worse in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group (HR 2·75, 95% CI 2·01-3·81). In PRO-CTCAE symptom assessment, the proportion of patients reporting loose and watery stools "frequently" or "almost constantly" was 29% higher at cycle 1, day 15 in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group, decreasing at subsequent cycles. Other PRO-CTCAE-reported symptoms (rash, mouth or throat sores, itchy skin, and numbness or tingling in hands or feet) were absent or mild in most patients in both groups throughout treatment. According to the PGI-TT, most patients in both groups reported "not at all" or "a little bit" of bother from treatment side-effects.

INTERPRETATION

Patient-reported outcomes from CAPItello-291 demonstrated that capivasertib-fulvestrant delayed time to deterioration of GHS/QOL and maintained other dimensions of HRQOL (except symptoms of diarrhoea) similarly to fulvestrant. With the clinical efficacy and manageable safety profile, these exploratory results further support the positive benefit-risk profile of capivasertib-fulvestrant in this population.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

6th and 7th International consensus guidelines for the management of advanced breast cancer (ABC guidelines 6 and 7)

This manuscript describes the Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) international consensus guidelines updated at the last two ABC international consensus conferences (ABC 6 in 2021, virtual, and ABC 7 in 2023, in Lisbon, Portugal), organized by the ABC Global Alliance. It provides the main recommendations on how to best manage patients with advanced breast cancer (inoperable locally advanced or metastatic), of all breast cancer subtypes, as well as palliative and supportive care. These guidelines are based on available evidence or on expert opinion when a higher level of evidence is lacking. Each guideline is accompanied by the level of evidence (LoE), grade of recommendation (GoR) and percentage of consensus reached at the consensus conferences. Updated diagnostic and treatment algorithms are also provided. The guidelines represent the best management options for patients living with ABC globally, assuming accessibility to all available therapies. Their adaptation (i.e. resource-stratified guidelines) is often needed in settings where access to care is limited.

Outcomes of De Novo Oligometastatic Breast Cancer Treated With Surgery of Primary and Metastasis Directed Radiotherapy

OBJECTIVES

With sensitive imaging for breast cancer, the question arises whether present-day oncologists treat dOMBC with palliative systemic therapy (ST), which, a few years earlier, would have been treated with curative intent. We retrospectively analyzed outcomes of dOMBC treated with curative intent using a combination of surgery, metastasis-directed radiotherapy (RT), and adjuvant/neoadjuvant ST and have also explored the possible role of total lesional glycolysis of metastases and p53 immunohistochemistry in predicting outcomes.

METHODS

Data were collected from a prospectively maintained database using electronic medical records and Radiation Oncology Information System. In the study, dOMBC was defined as up to 3 metastatic sites, all amenable to treatment with ablative RT and primary and axillary disease amenable to curative surgery. Patients were treated with surgery, ST, and RT.

RESULTS

Patients underwent either breast conservation surgery or modified radical mastectomy. Patients were treated with 6 to 8 cycles of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant setting. Hormone receptor-positive patients received either tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors. Trastuzumab was offered to Her-2-neu receptor-positive patients. RT included locoregional RT and metastases-directed ablative body RT. The median progression-free survival was 39 months (95% CI: -28.7 to 50.1 mo). Two and 3 year estimated disease-free survival (DFS) was 79% and 60.5%, respectively. The median overall survival was not reached. The estimated 3-year overall survival was 87.3%. Total lesional glycolysis of metastases score and p53 status did not affect DFS.

CONCLUSION

Combination treatment of surgery, metastases-directed ablative RT, and ST may provide prolonged DFS in dOMBC.

TROPION-Breast01: Datopotamab deruxtecan vs chemotherapy in pre-treated inoperable or metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer

Improving the prognosis for patients with metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer remains an unmet need. Patients with tumors that have progressed on endocrine therapy and/or are not eligible for endocrine therapy had limited treatment options beyond chemotherapy. Antibody-drug conjugates are a novel and promising treatment class in this setting. Datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) consists of a TROP2-directed humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody attached via a serum-stable cleavable linker to a topoisomerase I inhibitor payload. TROPION-Breast01 is an ongoing phase III study that is evaluating the efficacy and safety of Dato-DXd compared with investigator's choice of standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with inoperable or metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer who have received one or two prior lines of systemic chemotherapy in the inoperable or metastatic setting. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05104866 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Assessing the Impact of Organ Failure and Metastases on Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Patients: A Prospective Study Based on Utilizing EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR45 Questionnaires in Romania

Breast cancer (BC) significantly impacts the quality of life (QoL) of affected individuals. This study, conducted at Colțea Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, aimed to assess the impact of organ failures and metastases on QoL in breast cancer patients using EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR45 questionnaires and the survival rate to understand the clinical journey and the quality of life status in breast cancer patients. From January 2019 to October 2022, a prospective, observational study surveyed 874 patients, revealing 201 fatalities, 66 refusals, and 607 eligible participants. Results indicated statistically significant differences in various QoL aspects for patients experiencing heart failure, including physical functioning, pain, insomnia, global health status, and overall summary score. Kidney failure exhibited significance in physical functioning for QLQ-C30 and body image, sexual functioning, and endocrine sexual symptoms for QLQ-BR45. Respiratory failure demonstrated significant differences across multiple QoL domains. Patients with bone metastases reported lower physical functioning (p = 0.006) and increased pain (p = 0.002). This study has revealed an overall 5-year life expectancy of 68.8%, with survival rates of 93.8% for Stage I, 86.3% for Stage II, and 77.2% for Stage III breast cancer. Metastatic cancer patients have shown a 35.6% survival rate over 45 months, with a median survival duration of 36 months. A significant limitation of our study was the administration of the questionnaire only once, preventing us from quantifying the impact of specific treatment types on quality of life. This study emphasizes the necessity of using standardized QoL assessments in clinical practice from the initial presentation to ongoing follow-up.

SMART-ESAS: Smartphone Monitoring and Assessment in Real Time of Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Scores for Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE

Serial patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements in clinical practice are associated with a better quality of life and survival. Recording electronic PROs using smartphones is an efficient way to implement this. We aimed to assess the feasibility of the electronically filled Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (e-ESAS) scale in the lower-middle-income country (LMIC) setting.

METHODS

Baseline clinical features and conventional paper-based ESAS (p-ESAS) were collected in newly diagnosed patients with solid organ tumors. Text message link was sent to these patients for filling e-ESAS. ESAS was categorized into physical, psychological, and total symptom domains. Scores were divided into none to mild (0-3) and moderate to severe (4-10). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to determine the correlation between p-ESAS and e-ESAS. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent factors affecting symptom burden.

RESULTS

Of 1,160 participants who filled out p-ESAS, 595 completed both e-ESAS and p-ESAS questionnaires and were included in the final analysis. Moderate to severe physical, psychological, and total symptom scores were seen in 39.8%, 40%, and 39% of participants. Tiredness and anxiety were the most common physical and psychological symptoms, respectively. ICCs between the p-ESAS and e-ESAS varied between 0.75 and 0.9. Total symptom scores were independently predicted by metastatic disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.26 to 2.67; P = .001) and a higher level of education (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.72; P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Paper-based and electronically filled ESASs have good intraobserver reliability across individual symptoms and domain scores in a representative cohort at a tertiary care institute in the LMIC. This may help us incorporate e-ESAS in routine clinical care in the real-world setting with financial, infrastructural, and manpower limitations.

Prediction of Subclinical and Clinical Multiple Organ Failure Dysfunction in Breast Cancer Patients-A Review Using AI Tools

This review explores the interconnection between precursor lesions of breast cancer (typical ductal hyperplasia, atypical ductal/lobular hyperplasia) and the subclinical of multiple organ failure syndrome, both representing early stages marked by alterations preceding clinical symptoms, undetectable through conventional diagnostic methods. Addressing the question "Why patients with breast cancer exhibit a tendency to deteriorate", this study investigates the biological progression from a subclinical multiple organ failure syndrome, characterized by insidious but indisputable lesions, to an acute (clinical) state resembling a cascade akin to a waterfall or domino effect, often culminating in the patient's demise. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases in October 2023, employing keywords such as "MODS", "SIRS", "sepsis", "pathophysiology of MODS", "MODS in cancer patients", "multiple organ failure", "risk factors", "cancer", "ICU", "quality of life", and "breast cancer". Supplementary references were extracted from the retrieved articles. This study emphasizes the importance of early identification and prevention of the multiple organ failure cascade at the inception of the malignant state, aiming to enhance the quality of life and extend survival. This pursuit contributes to a deeper understanding of risk factors and viable therapeutic options. Despite the existence of the subclinical multiple organ failure syndrome, current diagnostic methodologies remain inadequate, prompting consideration of AI as an increasingly crucial tool for early identification in the diagnostic process.

A bibliometric analysis of metastatic breast cancer: two-decade report (2002-2022)

Background

MBC is a lethal form of breast cancer that arises when cancer cells invade other organs or tissues. The treatment of MBC needs personalized approaches based on the tumor and patient characteristics. The purpose of this paper is to analyze MBC studies from 2002 to 2022 using bibliometrics and to investigate its current situation, main contributors, core journals, highly cited papers, and topic evolution.

Materials and methods

We retrieved data from Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC). Bibliometric analysis of the included literatures mainly used the following tools: the function of "analyze results" and "citation report" in WoS, Microsoft excel 2021, CiteSpace v.6.1. R6, VOSviewer v.1.6.18, BICOMB v.2.04 and gCLUTO v.1.0.

Results

We found 12,653 articles on MBC research published in 1, 802 journals by 69, 753 authors from 118 countries. The annual output and citation of MBC articles showed a rising trend over time. The United States was the most influential country in MBC research. The most cited journal in this field was The Journal of Clinical Oncology. And the most cited article was by Slamon DJ. The co-word analysis of keywords divides MBC into six research clusters. The hormone receptor-positive MBC and liquid biopsy of MBC are the frontiers research trends. "CDK4/6 inhibitor" had the highest burst strength.

Conclusion

Our bibliometric analysis offers a comprehensive overview of MBC research in the past two decades. It shows the current situation, main contributors, core journals, highly cited papers, and topic evolution of this field. Our study can assist researchers and practitioners to comprehend the development and trends of MBC research and to discover potential directions for future research.

International development of a patient-centered core outcome set for assessing health-related quality of life in metastatic breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

For patients living with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), achieving best possible health-related quality of life, along with maximizing survival, is vital. Yet, we have no systemic way to determine if we achieve these goals. A Core Outcome Set (COS) that allows standardized measurement of outcomes important to patients, but also promotes discussing these outcomes during clinical encounters, is long overdue.

METHODS

An international expert group (EG) of patient advocates, researchers, medical specialists, nurse specialists, and pharmaceutical industry representatives (n = 17) reviewed a list of relevant outcomes retrieved from the literature. A broader group (n = 141: patients/patient advocates (n = 45), health care professionals/researchers (n = 64), pharmaceutical industry representatives (n = 28), and health authority representatives (n = 4)) participated in a modified Delphi procedure, scoring the relevance of outcomes in two survey rounds. The EG finalized the COS in a consensus meeting.

RESULTS

The final MBC COS includes 101 variables about: (1) health-related quality of life (HRQoL, n = 26) and adverse events (n = 24); (2) baseline patient characteristics (n = 9); and (3) clinical variables (n = 42). Many outcome that cover aspects of HRQoL relevant to MBC patients are included, e.g. daily functioning (including ability to work), psychosocial/emotional functioning, sexual functioning, and relationship with the medical team.

CONCLUSION

The COS developed in this study contains important administrative data, clinical records, and clinician-reported measures that captures the impact of cancer. The COS is important for standardization of clinical research and implementation in daily practice and has received accreditation by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM).

Patient-centered Outcomes in Breast Cancer: Description of EQ-5D-5L and EORTC-QLQ-BR23 Measurements in Real-world Data and Their Association With Survival

AIMS

In recent years, major improvements in breast cancer treatments have led to a significant increase in survival. Despite that, this population's quality of life (QoL) information is lacking, especially real-world data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, multicentre, observational study of female breast cancer patients, without prior systemic treatment, treated between 2012 and 2019 in private health care in Brazil. QoL was assessed by two questionnaires, the EQ-5D-5L and the EORTC-QLQ-BR23. Additional data were retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

The study comprised 1372 patients, most with early-stage disease (80.2% stages 0-II). At a median follow-up of 25.6 months, the estimated 3-year overall survival was 93.6%. Patients with locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer had the lowest visual analogue scale scores and the highest symptom burden in all dimensions of EQ-5D-5L, but with the most significant improvement after treatment. With the EORTC-QLQ-BR23 questionnaire, patients undergoing lumpectomy had a better perception of body image. Axillary dissection led to greater arm symptoms after 12 months, radiotherapy enhanced breast symptoms and patients treated with chemotherapy had significant worsening in the effects of systemic therapy compared with endocrine or HER2 therapy. Staging and immunohistochemical subtype correlated with survival and with several QoL parameters, but overall survival was not independently affected by patient-reported outcomes in this cohort.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that early diagnosis and access to treatments with fewer side-effects, such as endocrine or targeted therapy, and less aggressive surgeries are the best strategies to achieve a better QoL for breast cancer patients.

Patient reported outcomes in oncology: changing perspectives-a systematic review

In public health context, oncology is associated with severe negative impact on patients and on their relatives’ quality of life. Over the last decades, survival has remained at 50% worldwide for some tumor locations. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) assessment and, the corresponding use in clinical practice, help establishing patient individualized profiling involving caregivers. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine critical success factors for PROs assessment in daily clinical oncology practice. Additionally, we investigated how PROs collection can change oncology perspectives for patients and caregivers. According to PRISMA guidelines, 83 studies were included in this systematic review, whether related with implementation in daily clinical practice or associated with its use in oncology. PROs assessment gathers multi-professional teams, biomedical and clinical expertise, patients, families and caregivers. Institutional involvement, first line for caregiver’s adherence, team continuous formation, encompassing training and support, design of clear workflows, continuous monitoring, and data analysis are crucial for implementation. PROs measures are decisive in oncology. Several items were improved, including caregiver–patient–physician communication, patient risk groups identification, unmet problems and needs detection, disease course and treatment tracking, prognostic markers, cost-effectiveness measurement and comfort/support provision for both patients and caregivers. Routine assessment and implementation of PROs in clinical practice are a major challenge and a paradigm transformation for future.