Geographical Variation in Underlying Social Deprivation, Cardiovascular and Other Comorbidities in Patients with Potentially Curable Cancers in England: Results from a National Registry Dataset Analysis

AIMS

To describe the prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD), multiple comorbidities and social deprivation in patients with a potentially curable cancer in 20 English Cancer Alliances.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This National Registry Dataset Analysis used national cancer registry data and CVD databases to describe rates of CVD, comorbidities and social deprivation in patients diagnosed with a potentially curable malignancy (stage I-III breast cancer, stage I-III colon cancer, stage I-III rectal cancer, stage I-III prostate cancer, stage I-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer, stage I-IV diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, stage I-IV Hodgkin lymphoma) between 2013 and 2018. Outcome measures included observation of CVD prevalence, other comorbidities (evaluated by the Charlson Comorbidity Index) and deprivation (using the Index of Multiple Deprivation) according to tumour site and allocation to Cancer Alliance. Patients were allocated to CVD prevalence tertiles (minimum: <33.3rd percentile; middle: 33.3rd to 66.6th percentile; maximum: >66.6th percentile).

RESULTS

In total, 634 240 patients with a potentially curable malignancy were eligible. The total CVD prevalence for all cancer sites varied between 13.4% (CVD n = 2058; 95% confidence interval 12.8, 13.9) and 19.6% (CVD n = 7818; 95% confidence interval 19.2, 20.0) between Cancer Alliances. CVD prevalence showed regional variation both for male (16-26%) and female patients (8-16%) towards higher CVD prevalence in northern Cancer Alliances. Similar variation was observed for social deprivation, with the proportion of cancer patients being identified as most deprived varying between 3.3% and 32.2%, depending on Cancer Alliance. The variation between Cancer Alliance for total comorbidities was much smaller.

CONCLUSION

Social deprivation, CVD and other comorbidities in patients with a potentially curable malignancy in England show significant regional variations, which may partly contribute to differences observed in treatments and outcomes.

The Predictive Value of the G8 Questionnaire in Older Patients with Lung Cancer or Mesothelioma before Systemic Treatment

AIMS

The standard evaluation of older lung cancer or mesothelioma patients for systemic anti-cancer treatment, based on performance status, is inaccurate. We used the G8 questionnaire to assess a patient's fitness for chemotherapy and explored the correlations between G8 scores, treatment decisions and clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 201 older patients (≥70 years) with advanced lung cancer or mesothelioma were prospectively assessed by standard clinical methods and a G8 questionnaire. Treatment decisions before and after reviewing the G8 score were documented. Patients were divided into low (<11), intermediate (11-14) and high (>14) G8 score groups. Patients' characteristics, treatment plans and clinical outcomes among each G8 score group were compared. Similar analyses were compared between good (<2) and poor (≥2) performance status.

RESULTS

10.1% of patients' treatment plans changed after oncologists reviewed G8 scores. The G8 score correlated inversely with performance status. More patients with low G8 scores (22.5%) were offered the best supportive care compared with 4.5% in intermediate and 1.9% in high G8 score groups. More patients (30.1%) with low G8 scores had treatment changed from chemotherapy to best supportive care on the planned day of their treatment, compared with intermediate (7.5%) and high (6.1%) G8 score groups. High G8 score patients received higher chemotherapy intensity and survived longer than patients with intermediate or low G8 scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The G8 score with two cut-off values can predict functional status, chemotherapy tolerability and prognosis in older patients with lung cancer or mesothelioma, thus supporting oncologists on treatment decisions for this population.

Oncology-Led Early Identification of Nutritional Risk: A Pragmatic, Evidence-Based Protocol (PRONTO)

Nutritional issues, including malnutrition, low muscle mass, sarcopenia (i.e., low muscle mass and strength), and cachexia (i.e., weight loss characterized by a continuous decline in skeletal muscle mass, with or without fat loss), are commonly experienced by patients with cancer at all stages of disease. Cancer cachexia may be associated with poor nutritional status and can compromise a patient's ability to tolerate antineoplastic therapy, increase the likelihood of post-surgical complications, and impact long-term outcomes including survival, quality of life, and function. One of the primary nutritional problems these patients experience is malnutrition, of which muscle depletion represents a clinically relevant feature. There have been recent calls for nutritional screening, assessment, treatment, and monitoring as a consistent component of care for all patients diagnosed with cancer. To achieve this, there is a need for a standardized approach to enable oncologists to identify patients commencing and undergoing antineoplastic therapy who are or who may be at risk of malnutrition and/or muscle depletion. This approach should not replace existing tools used in the dietitian's role, but rather give the oncologist a simple nutritional protocol for optimization of the patient care pathway where this is needed. Given the considerable time constraints in day-to-day oncology practice, any such approach must be simple and quick to implement so that oncologists can flag individual patients for further evaluation and follow-up with appropriate members of the multidisciplinary care team. To enable the rapid and routine identification of patients with or at risk of malnutrition and/or muscle depletion, an expert panel of nutrition specialists and practicing oncologists developed the PROtocol for NuTritional risk in Oncology (PRONTO). The protocol enables the rapid identification of patients with or at risk of malnutrition and/or muscle depletion and provides guidance on next steps. The protocol is adaptable to multiple settings and countries, which makes implementation feasible by oncologists and may optimize patient outcomes. We advise the use of this protocol in countries/clinical scenarios where a specialized approach to nutrition assessment and care is not available.

Characteristics and information needs of patients with cancer contacting My Cancer Navigator (MCN): A personalized information service of the Anticancer Fund (ACF)

e13521

Background: The ACF is an independent private research foundation, based in Belgium and active internationally. Since its inception in 2013, patients and their relatives spontaneously contact the Fund to request information on treatment options including clinical trials. MCN consists of a dedicated team of physicians and scientists, which provides patients and healthcare professionals with free, evidence-based, unbiased, and personalised information to support shared decision-making. All patients receive a summary report, which is discussed in a (video)call with one of our physicians. The objective of the current study was to analyse the characteristics and information requests of people contacting us in 2020-2021 in order to better understand their needs. Methods: For every information request through MCN, the patient agreed to the collection of anonymised data such as sex, age, geographic location and tumor type. We tracked questions asked in 8 categories, tracking a category only once per patient and including only those requiring a literature search. Only descriptive statistics were applied. Results: In 2020-2021, we received information requests for 511 unique patients: 483 adults (95%) and 28 children (5%). In 46% of the cases the patient established contact; for 51% it was a relative or friend, and in 3% the physician. 377 patients (73%) were from Europe, of whom 222 (43%) from Belgium, 56 (11%) from the UK and 23 (5%) from the Netherlands. 109 patients (21%) came from all other continents – of those, 60 (12%) were from the USA. Tumor diagnoses included: gastro-intestinal (114, 22%), breast (110, 22%), central nervous system (77, 15%), gynecological (36, 7%), hematologic (35, 7%), genito-urinary (29, 6%), with sarcomas, lung, head and neck, skin and unknown cancers making up the remainder. Most patients had more than 1 question requiring research, resulting in a total of 880 questions. The Table shows the number and percentage for each category. Conclusions: Within this population, evidence-based information on treatment options, clinical trials, complementary treatments and repurposed drugs were key information needs. Healthcare institutions may lack resources to address all information needs, and My Cancer Navigator may contribute to closing that gap and support patients and healthcare providers. Although the service seems to be well perceived, we are now developing a method to formally assess satisfaction with and impact of our service.[Table: see text]

Improving outcomes for women aged 70 years or above with early breast cancer: research programme including a cluster RCT

Background

In breast cancer management, age-related practice variation is widespread, with older women having lower rates of surgery and chemotherapy than younger women, based on the premise of reduced treatment tolerance and benefit. This may contribute to inferior outcomes. There are currently no age- and fitness-stratified guidelines on which to base treatment recommendations.

Aim

We aimed to optimise treatment choice and outcomes for older women (aged ≥ 70 years) with operable breast cancer.

Objectives

Our objectives were to (1) determine the age, comorbidity, frailty, disease stage and biology thresholds for endocrine therapy alone versus surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy, or adjuvant chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy, for older women with breast cancer; (2) optimise survival outcomes for older women by improving the quality of treatment decision-making; (3) develop and evaluate a decision support intervention to enhance shared decision-making; and (4) determine the degree and causes of treatment variation between UK breast units.

Design

A prospective cohort study was used to determine age and fitness thresholds for treatment allocation. Mixed-methods research was used to determine the information needs of older women to develop a decision support intervention. A cluster-randomised trial was used to evaluate the impact of this decision support intervention on treatment choices and outcomes. Health economic analysis was used to evaluate the cost–benefit ratio of different treatment strategies according to age and fitness criteria. A mixed-methods study was used to determine the degree and causes of variation in treatment allocation.

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures were enhanced age- and fitness-specific decision support leading to improved quality-of-life outcomes in older women (aged ≥ 70 years) with early breast cancer.

Results

(1) Cohort study: the study recruited 3416 UK women aged ≥ 70 years (median age 77 years). Follow-up was 52 months. (a) The surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone comparison: 2854 out of 3416 (88%) women had oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer, 2354 of whom received surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy and 500 received endocrine therapy alone. Patients treated with endocrine therapy alone were older and frailer than patients treated with surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy. Unmatched overall survival and breast-cancer-specific survival were higher in the surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy group (overall survival: hazard ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.33; p < 0.001; breast-cancer-specific survival: hazard ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.58; p < 0.001) than in the endocrine therapy alone group. In matched analysis, surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy was still associated with better overall survival (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.98; p = 0.04) than endocrine therapy alone, but not with better breast-cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 1.37; p = 0.34) or progression-free-survival (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 2.26; p = 0.78). (b) The adjuvant chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy comparison: 2811 out of 3416 (82%) women received surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy, of whom 1520 (54%) had high-recurrence-risk breast cancer [grade 3, node positive, oestrogen receptor negative or human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 positive, or a high Oncotype DX® (Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA) score of > 25]. In this high-risk population, there were no differences according to adjuvant chemotherapy use in overall survival or breast-cancer-specific survival after propensity matching. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of metastatic recurrence than no chemotherapy in the unmatched (adjusted hazard ratio 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 0.68; p = 0.002) and propensity-matched patients (adjusted hazard ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.92; p = 0.03). Adjuvant chemotherapy improved the overall survival and breast-cancer-specific survival of patients with oestrogen-receptor-negative disease. (2) Mixed-methods research to develop a decision support intervention: an iterative process was used to develop two decision support interventions (each comprising a brief decision aid, a booklet and an online tool) specifically for older women facing treatment choices (endocrine therapy alone or surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy or no chemotherapy) using several evidence sources (expert opinion, literature and patient interviews). The online tool was based on models developed using registry data from 23,842 patients and validated on an external data set of 14,526 patients. Mortality rates at 2 and 5 years differed by < 1% between predicted and observed values. (3) Cluster-randomised clinical trial of decision support tools: 46 UK breast units were randomised (intervention, n = 21; usual care, n = 25), recruiting 1339 women (intervention, n = 670; usual care, n = 669). There was no significant difference in global quality of life at 6 months post baseline (difference –0.20, 95% confidence interval –2.7 to 2.3; p = 0.90). In women offered a choice of endocrine therapy alone or surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy, knowledge about treatments was greater in the intervention arm than the usual care arm (94% vs. 74%; p = 0.003). Treatment choice was altered, with higher rates of endocrine therapy alone than of surgery in the intervention arm. Similarly, chemotherapy rates were lower in the intervention arm (endocrine therapy alone rate: intervention sites 21% vs. usual-care sites 15%, difference 5.5%, 95% confidence interval 1.1% to 10.0%; p = 0.02; adjuvant chemotherapy rate: intervention sites 10% vs. usual-care site 15%, difference 4.5%, 95% confidence interval 0.0% to 8.0%; p = 0.013). Survival was similar in both arms. (4) Health economic analysis: a probabilistic economic model was developed using registry and cohort study data. For most health and fitness strata, surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy had lower costs and returned more quality-adjusted life-years than endocrine therapy alone. However, for some women aged > 90 years, surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy was no longer cost-effective and generated fewer quality-adjusted life-years than endocrine therapy alone. The incremental benefit of surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy reduced with age and comorbidities. (5) Variation in practice: analysis of rates of surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone between the 56 breast units in the cohort study demonstrated significant variation in rates of endocrine therapy alone that persisted after adjustment for age, fitness and stage. Clinician preference was an important determinant of treatment choice.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that, for older women with oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer, there is a cohort of women with a life expectancy of < 4 years for whom surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy may offer little benefit and simply have a negative impact on quality of life. The Age Gap decision tool may help make this shared decision. Similarly, although adjuvant chemotherapy offers little benefit and has a negative impact on quality of life for the majority of older women with oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer, for women with oestrogen-receptor-negative breast cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy is beneficial. The negative impacts of adjuvant chemotherapy on quality of life, although significant, are transient. This implies that, for the majority of fitter women aged ≥ 70 years, standard care should be offered.

Limitations

As with any observational study, despite detailed propensity score matching, residual bias cannot be excluded. Follow-up was at median 52 months for the cohort analysis. Longer-term follow-up will be required to validate these findings owing to the slow time course of oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer.

Future work

The online algorithm is now available (URL: https://agegap.shef.ac.uk/; accessed May 2022). There are plans to validate the tool and incorprate quality-of-life and 10-year survival outcomes.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN46099296.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Abstract P1-15-08: Pathologic complete response rates following neoadjuvant systemic therapy in 794 patients with early breast cancer: The Royal Marsden experience

Background

The presence and extent of residual invasive cancer after neoadjuvant treatment (NACT) is a strong prognostic factor for risk of recurrence, especially in triple-negative (TN) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC). Recent advances in the standard-of-care NACT improved pathological complete response (pCR) rates in published clinical trials.

We evaluated the pCR rates, defined as ypT0-is ypN0, in our real-world BC population and in estrogen receptor-positive [ER+] HER2-, HER2+ and TN subgroups and their association with tumour, patients' characteristics and disease-free survival (DFS).

Methods

We retrospectively identified early BC patients receiving NACT between January 2013 and December 2017. Demographics, patient and disease characteristics, pathological responses, toxicities, dose delays and reductions were recorded. Simple statistics, Fisher's exact test, chi-squared method and Cox regression were used as appropriate.

Results

794 patients identified had median age of 50 years (range 24-87) and 93.9% (745 patients) ECOG performance status (PS) 0. 3.0% (24) had clinical stage I disease, 68.0% (540) stage II and 29.0% (230) stage III. 71.0% (564) had grade 3 disease and 91.8% (729) ductal histology. 33.7% (257) had ER+/HER2-, 25.8% (205) had TN and 38.0% (301) HER2+ disease. Overall, 6.8% (54) patients received platinum. 36.6% (291) patients had dose reductions and 24.3% (193) dose delays. Along with NACT, 51.6% (147) of the HER2+ patients received Trastuzumab and Pertuzumab and 48.4% (138) Trastuzumab alone.

pCR rate was 33.1% in the overall population and significantly different in ER+/HER2-, HER2+ and TN subgroups (12.84% versus 52.0% versus 28.43% respectively, p&lt;0.001). pCR was influenced by grade (1: 0%; 2: 24.3%; 3: 36.1%, p 0.005) and histology (ductal: 34.2%; lobular: 10.0%; mixed 25.0%; p 0.01). In the HER2+ subgroup, there was a trend for improved pCR rates for patients receiving Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab (57.0%) versus Trastuzumab alone (51.0%). No statistically significant differences were seen based on patients' characteristics including age and PS or in case of treatment dose reductions and delays. Early discontinuation of NACT was associated with lower pCR rates (20.5% vs 36.29%, p &lt;0.001).

Of interest, pCR rates remained consistent across the period 2013-2017 in the overall population. We observed a trend for improved pCR in the HER2+ (2013: 47.5%; 2014: 44.4%; 2015: 66.7%; 2016: 51.0%; 2017: 51.4%) and TN cohorts (2013: 23.5%; 2014: 25.0%; 2015: 25.0%; 2016: 33.3%; 2017: 34.1%) but not in the ER+/HER2- group.

Median DFS was 83.8 months (95% CI 62.0-NR) in the overall population. Although not reached in the TN cohort, median DFS was different according to disease subgroups (HER2+: 83.78 months; TN: NR; ER+/HER2-: 62.0 months, p &lt;0.0001).

Conclusions

In our analysis pCR rates are consistent with data published in literature and higher in HER2+ and TN disease. The impact of new agents had a relatively low impact on pCR rates in our overall population over the last 5 years, although they produced gradual improvements in the HER2+ and TN subgroups.

Citation Format: Battisti NML, True V, Chaabouni N, Chopra N, Lee K, Shepherd S, Shapira-Rotenberg T, Joshi R, Mohammed K, Allen M, Ring A. Pathologic complete response rates following neoadjuvant systemic therapy in 794 patients with early breast cancer: The Royal Marsden experience [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-15-08.

Ongoing needs in 625 women living beyond early breast cancer

139

Background: In some healthcare systems people with a diagnosis of early invasive breast cancer (BC) are discharged from hospital-based follow-up after completion of initial treatment. However there are limited data on the prevalence of specific ongoing physical and psychological needs in such people. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study involving survivors of BC who entered into the Open Access Follow-Up (OAFU) program at The Royal Marsden Hospital (UK) from January to December 2015. The ongoing needs were assessed using the Holistic Needs Assessment (HNA) (a checklist questionnaire regarding physical, emotional, family, practical and spiritual needs) or extracted directly from the Electronic Patient Record (EPR). Results: Six hundred and twenty-five invasive survivors of BC were seen for the first time in the OAFU program after completing their initial treatment. Ongoing needs were identified in 214 (34%) from their returned HNA and in 411 (66%) direct from EPR. Demographic and treatment characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. The median age was 59 year-old. Median time from diagnosis to assessment was 8.9 months. Ongoing needs were categorized in 3 different groups: 0, 1-4 and ≥ 5 needs. 513 (82%) survivors of BC had 0-4 ongoing needs and 18% had ≥ 5 needs. Physical and emotional needs were the most frequently reported (55% and 24% respectively). Rates of ongoing needs were more frequently identified using formal HNA assessment than extraction from EPR: overall physical needs: 79% vs. 43% (p < 0.001) and emotional needs 50% vs. 10% (p < 0.001). The most frequent specific ongoing needs were: hot flushes (23%), fatigue (21%), pain (19%), worry, fear and anxiety (16%), sleep problems (14%), tingling in hands/feet (11%), dry, itchy or sore skin (11%) sadness and depression (10%), changes in weight (10%) and memory or concentration problems (10%). Conclusions: Fifty-five percent survivors of BC reported at least one physical need and 24% an emotional need. Consistently higher levels of ongoing needs were identified using the HNA formalized checklist. The HNA enables people self-reflection and promotes discussion with the health professional in order to identify ongoing needs and provide on-going supportive care.