Explore the vast range of titles available.

The results of the Phase III DESTINY-Breast04 trial of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) are leading to a shift in both the classification and treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer. In this trial, T-DXd was associated with a substantial survival benefit among patients with hormone receptor-positive and hormone receptor-negative disease and low expression of HER2, a biomarker previously considered unactionable in this treatment setting. Herein, we discuss the evolving therapeutic pathway for HER2-low disease, ongoing clinical trials, and the potential challenges and evidence gaps arising with treatment of this patient population.

Breast cancer (BC) care faces challenges in early detection, timely diagnosis and comprehensive management. Disparities persist, with underserved populations facing the greatest barriers. Addressing these requires policies that support consistent, evidence-based practices and enhance healthcare capacity and technology advancements. This document presents the development of the Breast Cancer Care Quality Index (BCCQI), supported by evidence to promote equitable care and improve BC outcomes globally, and discusses its adoption as a strategic tool within National Cancer Control Plans. A two-part methodology identified challenges in BC care and defined dimensions, targets and indicators for the BCCQI, aligned with the World Health Organization Global Breast Cancer Initiative. A literature review and analysis of existing United Nations (UN) frameworks informed the initial structure of the index, which was later refined through expert feedback from a multidisciplinary panel representing diverse backgrounds and geographies. The BCCQI is organised into four dimensions, comprising 10 targets and 23 indicators to guide the development of country-specific roadmaps. It should promote progress across key domains: health equity, patient centricity, universal access, care quality and treatment effectiveness. The Index is conceived as a dynamic tool, continuously refined through real-world application and emerging evidence. Despite the previous initiatives, progress has been slow, likely due to practical details and country-specific guidance remaining limited due to scarce real-world evidence. Promoting national ownership and empowering action aligned with local challenges and opportunities, a flexible, strategic framework may help address these gaps.

Background Patients with treated solid tumours (TSTs) are a highly heterogeneous population at an increased risk for malignancy compared with the general population. When treating psoriasis in patients with a history of TSTs, clinicians are concerned about the immunosuppressive nature of psoriasis therapies, the possibility of augmenting cancer recurrence/progression, and infectious complications. No direct, high-level evidence exists to address these concerns. Objectives We aim to provide a structured framework supporting healthcare professional and patient discussions on the risks and benefits of systemic psoriasis therapy in patients with previously TSTs. Our goal was to address the clinically important question, “In patients with TSTs, does therapy with systemic agents used for psoriasis increase the risk of malignancy or malignancy recurrence?” Methods We implemented an inference-based approach relying on indirect evidence when direct clinical trial and real-world data were absent. We reviewed indirect evidence supporting inferences on the status of immune function in patients with TSTs. Recommendations on systemic psoriasis therapies in patients with TSTs were derived using an inferential heuristic. Results We identified five indirect indicators of iatrogenic immunosuppression informed by largely independent bodies of evidence: (1) overall survival, (2) rate of malignancies with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (3) rate of infections with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (4) common disease biochemical pathways for solid tumours and systemic psoriasis therapies, and (5) solid organ transplant outcomes. On the basis of review of the totality of this data, we provided inference-based conclusions and ascribed level of support for each statement. Conclusions Prior to considering new therapies for psoriasis, an understanding of cancer prognosis should be addressed. Patients with TSTs and a good cancer prognosis will have similar outcomes to non-TST patients when treated with systemic psoriasis therapies. For patients with TSTs and a poor cancer prognosis, the quality-of-life benefits of treating psoriasis may outweigh the theoretical risks. Plain Language Summary Patients with previously treated cancer have a higher chance of cancer recurrence compared with the general population. With cancer incidence rising worldwide, doctors across medical specialities will need to treat other medical conditions, including inflammatory diseases such as psoriasis, in these patients. Effective systemic therapies for psoriasis reduce immune cell activity. Accordingly, there are concerns that treatments for psoriasis could worsen cancer recurrence/progression and infectious complications. There is not enough quality evidence to make broad recommendations for treating other inflammatory conditions in patients with a history of cancer. To guide patient and doctor discussions, we asked: what are effective and safe treatments when patients with treated solid tumours need systemic therapy (pills or injections) for their psoriasis? We focused on patients with solid tumours and excluded blood and skin cancers. Our panel of experts, including 12 dermatologists and 3 medical oncologists, reviewed direct and indirect evidence to answer this question. Considering the totality of evidence reviewed, the expert panel drafted and rated their level of support for opinion statements on important considerations in treating patients with psoriasis who have a history of solid tumours. By making inferences on systemic psoriasis therapies in this heterogeneous population, we take the onus off individual physicians to review the indirect data. This process may help answer questions in other disease populations where direct evidence is scarce or absent. To support treatment decisions, doctors should have a guided conversation with the patient and their family on a case-by-case basis about the risks and benefits of treatment.

Canadian nurses are familiar with biosimilars in general, but may have knowledge gaps in their specific understanding, resulting in a significant unmet need for education. To assist Canadian nurses in gaining a greater understanding of biosimilars within the oncology treatment landscape and to alleviate certain concerns regarding biosimilar agents, the objectives of this Supplement are to discuss:* biologic drugs in general with an overview of their production* biosimilarity and biosimilars relative to reference biologic drugs* mechanisms of action: biosimilars versus reference biologic drugs* steps to biosimilar development* extrapolation of indications for biosimilars\"”\"œtotality of evidence\" for biosimilars* interchangeability and substitution* Health Canada's approval process for biosimilars* the role of nurses in introducing biosimilars and monitoring patients

BackgroundOptimal use of bone-modifying agent (BMA) therapy in patients with bone metastases from breast and castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is evolving.MethodsPatients receiving BMA for bone metastases from breast or CRPC were surveyed. Information was collected on patient and disease characteristics, BMA treatments and perceptions regarding BMA benefits and side effects. Interest in participation in trials of de-escalated BMA therapy was also gauged.ResultsOf 220 patients contacted, 172 eligible patients responded (response rate 78%). Median age was 67 (range: 21–91); 137 (80%) had breast cancer and 35 (20%) CRPC. Symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) occurred prior to starting BMAs in 61% (84/137) of breast and 48% (17/35) of CRPC patients. Among breast cancer patients, 47, 33 and 13% received zoledronate, pamidronate and denosumab, respectively. Eighty-five percent (30/35) of CRPC patients received denosumab. De-escalation of therapy was more common among breast cancer patients. Although most patients correctly reported the goals of BMA therapy were to “help stop fractures” (62%) and “[improve] quality of life” (63%), 46.5% felt it prolonged survival and 54% felt it reduced bone progression. Most respondents (102/129, 79%) were comfortable with de-escalating to 6-monthly treatment after 2 years of BMA therapy. Patients considered the most important endpoints of de-escalation studies to be “stability of bone metastases” (45%), “quality of life” (22%) and “SSE rates” (14%).ConclusionTwelve weekly BMA was more common in breast than in prostate cancer. There remain misconceptions about the benefits of BMAs, highlighting potential gaps in patient education. Patients were interested in further BMA de-escalation after 2 years of prior BMA and provided study endpoints that were most important to them.

Abstract Background Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, are associated with bone pain, potentially impacting treatment adherence. This study hypothesized that a 5-day regimen of filgrastim would result in less bone pain than single-dose pegfilgrastim in patients receiving chemotherapy for early breast cancer. Methods In this multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial, patients requiring prophylactic G-CSF during chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either 5-day filgrastim or pegfilgrastim. The primary outcome was patient-reported bone pain, assessed as area under the curve of daily pain scores (0 = no pain to 10 = worst pain) over the first 5 days following G-CSF in cycle 1. Secondary outcomes included bone pain in cycles 2-4, febrile neutropenia, hospitalizations, chemotherapy delays, dose reductions, early discontinuations, chemotherapy-related deaths, health-related quality of life, and health-care resource utilization. Results From June 2021 to March 2023, a total of 233 patients were randomly assigned, with 219 analyzed (110 filgrastim and 109 pegfilgrastim) after excluding those who withdrew before receiving treatment. Adjusting for stratification factors and prespecified baseline covariates using repeated measures linear regression, the mean area under the curve (0-40) for cycle 1 bone pain was 10.2 (11.2) for 5-day filgrastim and 10.2 (9.81) for pegfilgrastim, with an adjusted mean difference of 0.70 (95% confidence interval = 1.62 to 3.02; P = .556). Although no clinically significant differences were observed in most secondary outcomes, the 5-day filgrastim group exhibited a numerically higher incidence of febrile neutropenia (6.4% vs 0.9%, P = .065) and hospitalization (10.0% vs 3.7%, P = .106). Conclusion There was no significant difference in bone pain between 5-day filgrastim and pegfilgrastim.

Les infirmières canadiennes connaissent les médicaments biosimilaires de manière générale, mais leur compréhension de certains aspects spécifiques peut être morcelée; un important besoin de formation existe donc à l'heure actuelle. Pour aider les infirmières canadiennes à mieux comprendre les médicaments biosimilaires dans le paysage du traitement oncologique et pour répondre à certaines préoccupations liées aux agents biosimilaires, ce Supplément vise à :* présenter les médicaments biologiques en général, avec leur mode de production;* décrire la biosimilarité et les médicaments biosimilaires en les comparant aux médicaments biologiques de référence;* expliquer les mécanismes d'action des médicaments biosimilaires comparativement aux médicaments biologiques de référence;* détailler les étapes conduisant au développement d'un médicament biosimilaire;* discuter de l'extrapolation des indications pour les médicaments biosimilaires (« totalité des preuves » pour les médicaments biosimilaires);* aborder l'interchangeabilité et la substitution des médicaments biosimilaires;* présenter le processus d'approbation des médicaments biosimilaires par Santé Canada;* parler du rôle des infirmières dans l'introduction des médicaments biosimilaires et la surveillance des patients.

Many factors contribute to a patchwork quilt of care nationally, and some refer to a \"postal code lottery\" with respect to access to costly new treatments. Canada does not really have \"a healthcare system,\" but rather 19 systems! While radiation and surgical techniques have been steadily advancing, the primary factors driving longer survivals (and costs) relate to costly new systemic treatments - drugs that fight cancer. Further, while historically these have involved chemotherapy, newer\"targeted treatments,\" which attackspecificsignalling mechanisms within tumour cells (and host arterial cells), are not typical chemotherapeutic agents but rather complex biologica Is and sometimes administered orally. While all cancer drugs are covered out of the B.C. provincial formulary, in most provinces oral therapies must be covered by patients or their private insurers.