Explore the vast range of titles available.

30-day mortality might be a useful indicator of avoidable harm to patients from systemic anticancer treatments, but data for this indicator are limited. The Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy (SACT) dataset collated by Public Health England allows the assessment of factors affecting 30-day mortality in a national patient population. The aim of this first study based on the SACT dataset was to establish national 30-day mortality benchmarks for breast and lung cancer patients receiving SACT in England, and to start to identify where patient care could be improved. In this population-based study, we included all women with breast cancer and all men and women with lung cancer residing in England, who were 24 years or older and who started a cycle of SACT in 2014 irrespective of the number of previous treatment cycles or programmes, and irrespective of their position within the disease trajectory. We calculated 30-day mortality after the most recent cycle of SACT for those patients. We did logistic regression analyses, adjusting for relevant factors, to examine whether patient, tumour, or treatment-related factors were associated with the risk of 30-day mortality. For each cancer type and intent, we calculated 30-day mortality rates and patient volume at the hospital trust level, and contrasted these in a funnel plot. Between Jan 1, and Dec, 31, 2014, we included 23 228 patients with breast cancer and 9634 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in our regression and trust-level analyses. 30-day mortality increased with age for both patients with breast cancer and patients with NSCLC treated with curative intent, and decreased with age for patients receiving palliative SACT (breast curative: odds ratio [OR] 1·085, 99% CI 1·040–1·132; p<0·0001; NSCLC curative: 1·045, 1·013–1·079; p=0·00033; breast palliative: 0·987, 0·977–0·996; p=0·00034; NSCLC palliative: 0·987, 0·976–0·998; p=0·0015). 30-day mortality was also significantly higher for patients receiving their first reported curative or palliative SACT versus those who received SACT previously (breast palliative: OR 2·326 99% CI 1·634–3·312; p<0·0001; NSCLC curative: 3·371, 1·554–7·316; p<0·0001; NSCLC palliative: 2·667, 2·109–3·373; p<0·0001), and for patients with worse general wellbeing (performance status 2–4) versus those who were generally well (breast curative: 6·057, 1·333–27·513; p=0·0021; breast palliative: 6·241, 4·180–9·319; p<0·0001; NSCLC palliative: 3·384, 2·276–5·032; p<0·0001). We identified trusts with mortality rates in excess of the 95% control limits; this included seven for curative breast cancer, four for palliative breast cancer, five for curative NSCLC, and seven for palliative NSCLC. Our findings show that several factors affect the risk of early mortality of breast and lung cancer patients in England and that some groups are at a substantially increased risk of 30-day mortality. The identification of hospitals with significantly higher 30-day mortality rates should promote review of clinical decision making in these hospitals. Furthermore, our results highlight the importance of collecting routine data beyond clinical trials to better understand the factors placing patients at higher risk of 30-day mortality, and ultimately improve clinical decision making. Our insights into the factors affecting risk of 30-day mortality will help treating clinicians and their patients predict the balance of harms and benefits associated with SACT. Public Health England.

The role of adjuvant bisphosphonates in early breast cancer is uncertain. We therefore did a large randomised trial to investigate the effect of the adjuvant use of zoledronic acid on disease-free survival (DFS) in high-risk patients with early breast cancer. In the AZURE trial, an open-label, international, multicentre, randomised, controlled, parallel-group phase 3 trial, women (age ≥18 years) with stage II or III breast cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) by a central automated 24-h computer-generated telephone minimisation system (balanced for number of involved axillary lymph nodes, tumour stage, oestrogen receptor status, type and timing of systemic therapy, menopausal status, statin use, and treatment centre) to receive standard adjuvant systemic treatment alone (control group) or with 4 mg intravenous zoledronic acid every 3–4 weeks for six doses, then every 3 months for eight doses, followed by every 6 months for five doses, for a total of 5 years of treatment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints were invasive DFS (IDFS), overall survival, time to bone metastases, time to distant recurrence, and subgroup analyses of variables included in the randomisation. All patients have completed study treatment. Results from the intention-to-treat final analysis of this fully recruited study are presented after a median follow-up of 84 months (IQR 66–93). This final efficacy analysis was planned to take place after 940 DFS events. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00072020. 3360 women were recruited from 174 centres in seven countries between Sept 4, 2003, and Feb 16, 2006. The number of DFS events did not differ between groups: 493 in the control group and 473 in the zoledronic acid group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·82–1·06; p=0·30). IDFS (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·82–1·05; p=0·22), overall survival (0·93, 0·81–1·08; p=0·37), and distant recurrences (0·93, 0·81–1·07; p=0·29) were much the same in both groups. Zoledronic acid reduced the development of bone metastases, both as a first event (HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·63–0·96; p=0·020) and at any time during follow-up (0·81, 0·68–0·97; p=0·022). The effects of zoledronic acid on DFS were not affected by oestrogen-receptor status. However, zoledronic acid improved IDFS in those who were over 5 years since menopause at trial entry (n=1041; HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·63–0·96) but not in all other (premenopause, perimenopause, and unknown status) menopausal groups (n=2318; HR 1·03, 95% CI 0·89–1·20). 33 cases of suspected osteonecrosis of the jaw have been reported, with 26 confirmed on central review, all in the zoledronic acid group (1·7%, 95% CI 1·0–2·4). These results suggest no overall benefit from the addition of zoledronic acid to standard adjuvant treatments for early breast cancer. However, zoledronic acid does reduce the development of bone metastases and, for women with established menopause, improved disease outcomes. Novartis Global and NIHR Cancer Research Network.

The optimum endocrine treatment for postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer that has progressed on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAIs) is unclear. The aim of the SoFEA trial was to assess a maximum double endocrine targeting approach with the steroidal anti-oestrogen fulvestrant in combination with continued oestrogen deprivation. In a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial done in the UK and South Korea, postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer (oestrogen receptor [ER] positive, progesterone receptor [PR] positive, or both) were eligible if they had relapsed or progressed with locally advanced or metastatic disease on an NSAI (given as adjuvant for at least 12 months or as first-line treatment for at least 6 months). Additionally, patients had to have adequate organ function and a WHO performance status of 0–2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular injection on day 1, followed by 250 mg doses on days 15 and 29, and then every 28 days) plus daily oral anastrozole (1 mg); fulvestrant plus anastrozole-matched placebo; or daily oral exemestane (25 mg). Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted blocks, and stratification was by centre and previous use of an NSAI as adjuvant treatment or for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Participants and investigators were aware of assignment to fulvestrant or exemestane, but not of assignment to anastrozole or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00253422 (UK) and NCT00944918 (South Korea). Between March 26, 2004, and Aug 6, 2010, 723 patients underwent randomisation: 243 were assigned to receive fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 231 to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 249 to exemestane. Median PFS was 4·4 months (95% CI 3·4–5·4) in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 4·8 months (3·6–5·5) in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 3·4 months (3·0–4·6) in those assigned to exemestane. No difference was recorded between the patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole and fulvestrant plus placebo (hazard ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·83–1·21; log-rank p=0·98), or between those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo and exemestane (0·95, 0·79–1·14; log-rank p=0·56). 87 serious adverse events were reported: 36 in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 22 in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 29 in those assigned to exemestane. Grade 3–4 adverse events were rare; the most frequent were arthralgia (three in the group assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole; seven in that assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo; eight in that assigned to exemestane), lethargy (three; 11; 11), and nausea or vomiting (five; two; eight). After loss of response to NSAIs in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, maximum double endocrine treatment with 250 mg fulvestrant combined with oestrogen deprivation is no better than either fulvestrant alone or exemestane. Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca.

IntroductionACOSOG-Z0011(Z11) trial showed that axillary node clearance (ANC) may be omitted in women with ≤2 positive nodes undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS) and whole breast radiotherapy (RT). A confirmatory study is needed to clarify the role of axillary treatment in women with ≤2 macrometastases undergoing BCS and groups that were not included in Z11 for example, mastectomy and those with microscopic extranodal invasion. The primary objective of POsitive Sentinel NOde: adjuvant therapy alone versus adjuvant therapy plus Clearance or axillary radiotherapy (POSNOC) is to evaluate whether for women with breast cancer and 1 or 2 macrometastases, adjuvant therapy alone is non-inferior to adjuvant therapy plus axillary treatment, in terms of 5-year axillary recurrence.Methods and analysisPOSNOC is a pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority, international trial with participants randomised in a 1:1 ratio. Women are eligible if they have T1/T2, unifocal or multifocal invasive breast cancer, and 1 or 2 macrometastases at sentinel node biopsy, with or without extranodal extension. In the intervention group women receive adjuvant therapy alone, in the standard care group they receive ANC or axillary RT. In both groups women receive adjuvant therapy, according to local guidelines. This includes systemic therapy and, if indicated, RT to breast or chest wall. The UK Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group manages the in-built radiotherapy quality assurance programme. Primary endpoint is 5-year axillary recurrence. Secondary outcomes are arm morbidity assessed by Lymphoedema and Breast Cancer Questionnaire and QuickDASH questionnaires; quality of life and anxiety as assessed with FACT B+4 and State/Trait Anxiety Inventory questionnaires, respectively; other oncological outcomes; economic evaluation using EQ-5D-5L. Target sample size is 1900. Primary analysis is per protocol. Recruitment started on 1 August 2014 and as of 9 June 2021, 1866 participants have been randomised.Ethics and disseminationProtocol was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee East Midlands—Nottingham 2 (REC reference: 13/EM/0459). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN54765244; NCT0240168Cite Now

Several randomised trials have confirmed the benefit of adjuvant trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. However, concern has been expressed that adjuvant trastuzumab might be associated with an increased frequency of CNS relapses. We assessed the frequency and course of CNS relapses, either as first event or at any time, using data from the HERA trial. We estimated the cumulative incidence of first disease-free survival (DFS) events in the CNS versus other sites by competing risks analysis in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who had been randomly assigned to receive 1 year of trastuzumab or to observation in the HERA trial after a median follow-up of 4 years (IQR 3·5–4·8). To obtain further information about CNS relapse at any time before death, we circulated a data collection form to investigators to obtain standardised information about CNS events that occurred in all patients who had died before July, 2009. We estimated the cumulative incidence of CNS relapse at any time with a competing risks analysis. Of 3401 patients who had been assigned to receive 1 year of trastuzumab or to observation, 69 (2%) had a CNS relapse as first DFS event and 747 (22%) had a first DFS event not in the CNS. The frequency of CNS relapses as first DFS event did not differ between the group given 1 year of trastuzumab (37 [2%] of 1703 patients) and the observation group (32 [2%] of 1698; p=0·55 [Gray's test]). 481 data collection forms were distributed, of which 413 (86%) were returned. The proportion of patients who had died and experienced a CNS relapse was numerically higher in the observation group (129 [57%] of 227) than in the group given trastuzumab for 1 year (88 [47%] of 186; p=0·06 [Gray's test]). Most CNS relapses were symptomatic (189 [87%] of 217). Adjuvant trastuzumab does not increase the risk of CNS relapse in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. None.

Introduction Obesity is a risk factor for the development of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), however observational studies have suggested patients with RCC receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) and BMI ≥25 kg/m2 may have a better prognosis than patients with a normal or low BMI, a phenomenon often referred to as the obesity paradox. Methods The impact of BMI on survival outcomes in patients with advanced clear cell RCC receiving SACT within the National Health Service (NHS) in England between 2010 and 2018 was investigated. A retrospective analysis was performed using the SACT dataset from NHS-England. Results A total of 1034 patients were included. The majority of patients commenced treatment with oral SACT, pazopanib (53.3%) and sunitinib (43.7%). Median overall survival for patients with BMI ≤25 kg/m2 was 12.6 months (95% CI; 10.1-14.4) and 17.9 months (15.4-20.0) for patients with BMI ≥25 kg/m2 (P < .001). The association between BMI and improved survival was greatest in the first year of commencing SACT with the adjusted mortality rate of 68.9% for patients with BMI less than 25 kg/m2 compared to 48.6% for patients with BMI greater than 25 kg/m2 (rate ratio .77, .63 to .93). Conclusion A high BMI compared to a normal or low BMI was associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic RCC who were predominantly treated with oral SACT. Improved survival in obese patients with advanced RCC may be associated with improved response to systemic targeted therapies. Plain Language Summary This project reviewed the impact of an individual’s weight on the treatment they received for advanced kidney cancer.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1532022.].

IntroductionNeoadjuvant systemic anticancer therapy (neoSACT) is increasingly used in the treatment of early breast cancer. Response to therapy is prognostic and allows locoregional and adjuvant systemic treatments to be tailored to minimise morbidity and optimise oncological outcomes and quality of life. Accurate information about locoregional treatments following neoSACT is vital to allow the translation of downstaging benefits into practice and facilitate meaningful interpretation of oncological outcomes, particularly locoregional recurrence. Reporting of locoregional treatments in neoSACT studies, however, is currently poor. The development of a core outcome set (COS) and reporting guidelines is one strategy by which this may be improved.Methods and analysisA COS for reporting locoregional treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) in neoSACT trials will be developed in accordance with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development guidelines. Reporting guidance will be developed concurrently.The project will have three phases: (1) generation of a long list of relevant outcome domains and reporting items from a systematic review of published neoSACT studies and interviews with key stakeholders. Identified items and domains will be categorised and formatted into Delphi consensus questionnaire items. (2) At least two rounds of an international online Delphi survey in which at least 250 key stakeholders (surgeons/oncologists/radiologists/pathologists/trialists/methodologists) will score the importance of reporting each outcome. (3) A consensus meeting with key stakeholders to discuss and agree the final COS and reporting guidance.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the consensus process will be obtained from the Queen’s University Belfast Faculty Ethics Committee. The COS/reporting guidelines will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. Dissemination materials will be produced in collaboration with our steering group and patient advocates so the results can be shared widely.RegistrationThe study has been prospectively registered on the COMET website (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2854).

IntroductionBreast cancer is the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related death in women worldwide. Risk prediction models may be useful to guide risk-reducing interventions (such as pharmacological agents) in women at increased risk or inform screening strategies for early detection methods such as screening.Methods and analysisThe study will use data for women aged 20–90 years between 2000 and 2020 from QResearch linked at the individual level to hospital episodes, cancer registry and death registry data. It will evaluate a set of modelling approaches to predict the risk of developing breast cancer within the next 10 years, the ‘combined’ risk of developing a breast cancer and then dying from it within 10 years, and the risk of breast cancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards, competing risks, random survival forest, deep learning and XGBoost models will be explored. Models will be developed on the entire dataset, with ‘apparent’ performance reported, and internal-external cross-validation used to assess performance and geographical and temporal transportability (two 10-year time periods). Random effects meta-analysis will pool discrimination and calibration metric estimates from individual geographical units obtained from internal-external cross-validation. We will then externally validate the models in an independent dataset. Evaluation of performance heterogeneity will be conducted throughout, such as exploring performance across ethnic groups.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was granted by the QResearch scientific committee (reference number REC 18/EM/0400: OX129). The results will be written up for submission to peer-reviewed journals.

While progress has been made in oncology treatments, including the introduction of combination therapies, barriers affect patient access. There are approaches that could improve access including combination-specific pricing that allow the price to reflect whether a product is used in monotherapy or in combination. The feasibility of this solution requires data on the utilization of combination therapies. To investigate the ability of data systems across Belgium, England, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Australia to track drug utilization of combination therapies, particularly in oncology. A targeted literature review was conducted to investigate the attributes of the key data systems. One-on-one semi-structured interviews were subsequently conducted with country experts to validate the research, who were screened based on their expertise and knowledge of the respective data and reimbursement systems in their countries, followed by an advisory board to align on policy recommendations. Country-specific and cross-border insights were gathered from nine experts across these countries. There are data systems that routinely collect medicine utilization data across seven European countries and Australia. These datasets can potentially be leveraged to track the utilization of combination therapies. Where available, administrative data systems, such as reimbursement claims data, can be leveraged, though other types of systems, such as product registries, may be more suitable in some countries, emphasizing the need to consider country-specific nuances. Using existing data systems is likely to be less resource-intensive than setting up a novel system for this application. While viable sources of data exist in most countries, many need improving to fully harness their tracking potential. There are several common areas where improvement is needed to track combination therapies effectively. These include data quality, access for different stakeholders, minimizing the burden of data entry and management, and increasing support from national authorities to foster multi-stakeholder engagement. While most countries possess data systems that could serve as a foundation for tracking combination oncology therapies, these systems require optimization and proper implementation. Our core recommendation is for policymakers to explore the expansion and enhancement of data infrastructures.