BRCA1 - A good predictive marker of drug sensitivity in breast cancer treatment?

There are currently only two predictive markers of response to chemotherapy for breast cancer in routine clinical use, namely the Estrogen receptor-alpha and the HER2 receptor. The breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1 is an important genetic factor in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and there is increasing evidence of an important role for BRCA1 in the sporadic forms of both cancer types. Our group and numerous others have shown in both preclinical and clinical studies that BRCA1 is an important determinant of chemotherapy responses in breast cancer. In this review we will outline the current understanding of the role of BRCA1 as a determinant of response to DNA damaging and microtubule damaging chemotherapy. We will then discuss how the known functions of this multifaceted protein may provide mechanistic explanations for its role in chemotherapy responses. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Integrated care: utilisation of complementary and alternative medicine within a conventional cancer treatment centre

Objectives: To estimate the proportion of cancer outpatients who visit a Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) unit that is located within a conventional cancer treatment centre; to compare the characteristics of CAM unit visitors with those of all outpatients; to monitor the demand for 20 CAM therapies delivered by professionals, and the use of the CAM unit for waiting, gathering information and informal support from volunteer staff.

Design: Prospective, observational, over a six month period.

Setting: CAM unit within a NHS cancer treatment centre.

Main outcome measures: Utilisation of the CAM unit for 20 complementary therapies, and for waiting, gathering information, informal support; characteristics of CAM users compared with those of all cancer outpatients attending the cancer centre; predictors of CAM therapy use and frequent use.

Results: 761 (95% of those approached) people were recruited, 498 (65.4%) cancer patients, 202 (26.5%) relatives, 37 (4.8%) friends/carers, 24 (3.2%) staff. Women predominated (n = 560, 73.6%). Of all outpatients attending the cancer centre, 498 (15.8%) visited the CAM unit, 290 (9.2%) accessed therapies. Compared to all outpatients, those visiting the CAM unit were: younger (mean 63.7 vs. 58.4 years), more likely to be female (57.9% vs. 78.7%), have breast (14.8% vs. 51.9%), gynaecological (5.0% vs. 9.1%) cancer, live in local postal district (57.3% vs. 61.6%). Significant predictors of therapy use and frequent visits were being a patient, female, higher education, living closer to the cancer centre.

Conclusions: Despite easy access to CAM therapies, a relatively small number of people regularly used them, whilst a larger number selectively tried a few. The integrated CAM unit meets a demand for information and informal support. The findings inform emerging policy on integrating CAM and conventional cancer treatment to address psychosocial needs of people with cancer. More research is needed on why people do not use integrated CAM services and how charges affect demand. © 2008.

Availability of stage at diagnosis, cancer treatment delay and compliance with cancer guidelines as cancer registry indicators for cancer care in Europe:Results of EUROCHIP-3 survey

EUROCHIP (European Cancer Health Indicators Project) focuses on understanding inequalities in the cancer burden, care and survival by the indicators "stage at diagnosis," "cancer treatment delay" and "compliance with cancer guidelines" as the most important indicators. Our study aims at providing insight in whether cancer registries collect well-defined variables to determine these indicators in a comparative way. Eighty-six general European population-based cancer registries (PBCR) from 32 countries responded to the questionnaire, which was developed by EUROCHIP in collaboration with ENCR (European Network of Cancer Registries) and EUROCOURSE. Only 15% of all the PBCR in EU had all three indicators available. The indicator "stage at diagnosis" was gathered for at least one cancer site by 81% (using TNM in 39%). Variables for the indicator "cancer treatment delay" were collected by 37%. Availability of type of treatment (30%), surgery date (36%), starting date of radiotherapy (26%) and starting date of chemotherapy (23%) resulted in 15% of the PBCRs to be able to gather the indicator "compliance to guidelines". Lack of data source access and qualified staff were the major reasons for not collecting all the variables. In conclusion, based on self-reporting, a few of the participating PBCRs had data available which could be used for clinical audits, evaluation of cancer care projects, survival and for monitoring national cancer control strategies. Extra efforts should be made to improve this very efficient tool to compare cancer burden and the effects of the national cancer plans over Europe and to learn from each other. © 2012 UICC.

The late effects of cancer and cancer treatment:a rapid review

This paper aims to synthesize literature about the definition, prevalence, onset and treatments associated with late effects. A rapid review was conducted using Google Scholar to identify reviews related to the late effects of adult-onset cancers. Papers were included if they provided a definition of late effects and/or presented a review of late effects as a result of adult-onset cancers in patients aged 18 years or older. Reviews related to nonmelanoma skin cancer were excluded. Reviews focusing on late effects in survivors of childhood-onset cancers (younger than 18 years) were ineligible for inclusion in the review. A total of 16 reviews were identified. Between 0% and 100% of survivors experienced a range of physical, psychological and social late effects. The onset of physical late effects was defined broadly as 'months or years' after treatment, whereas psychological late effects were defined as occurring at the end of treatment or similarly to physical late effects as 'months or years' after treatment. Few reviews provided an operational definition of late effects, and the onset of late effects was not often reported. Thus, reviews may have included the acute and long-term effects of cancer treatment. Evidence regarding causes, prevalence, and onset was incomplete for many late effects. Understanding the cause and onset of late effects is important in order to provide timely interventions to reduce the risk of late effect development in cancer patients.

Non-pharmacological interventions for cognitive impairment due to systemic cancer treatment

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows:

The primary objective of this review is to evaluate the effects of non-pharmacological interventions among cancer patients targeted at maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment as a result of cancer or receipt of systemic cancer treatment (i.e. chemotherapy or hormonal therapies in isolation or combination with other treatments). Patients who have received treatments such as cranial radiation for central nervous system tumours or metastases are not the focus of this review and will be excluded.

A second objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for improving non-cognitive outcomes e.g. quality of life among this population.

Thirdly, we will extract and analyse data regarding the duration of intervention effects.

Fourthly, we will examine each study to identify safety as an outcome and incorporate information on intervention safety where possible. Evidence for the review will be based on data from randomised trials.

A population-based study of adverse physical effects following prostate cancer treatments: Results from the PiCTure (Prostate cancer treatment – your experience) study

Background:

Men and clinicians need reliable population based information when making decisions about investigation and treatment of prostate cancer. In the absence of clearly preferred treatments, differences in outcomes become more important.

Aim:

To investigate rates of adverse physical effects among prostate cancer survivors 2-15 years post diagnosis by treatment, and estimate population burden.

Methods:

A cross sectional, postal survey to 6,559 survivors (all ages) diagnosed with primary, invasive prostate cancer (ICD10-C61), identified in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland via cancer registries. Questions included symptoms at diagnosis, treatments received and adverse physical effects (impotence, urinary incontinence, bowel problems, breast changes, libido loss, hot flashes, fatigue) experienced ‘ever’ and ‘current’ i.e. at questionnaire completion. Physical effect levels were weighted by age, country and time since diagnosis for all prostate cancer survivors. Bonferroni corrections were applied to account for multiple comparisons.

Results:

Adjusted response rate 54%, (n=3,348). 75% reported at least one current physical effect (90% ever), with 29% reporting at least three. These varied by treatment. Current impotence was reported by 76% post-prostatectomy, 64% post-external beam radiotherapy with hormone therapy, with average for all survivors of 57%. Urinary incontinence (overall current level: 16%) was highest post-prostatectomy (current 28%, ever 70%). 42% of brachytherapy patients reported no current adverse physical effects; however 43% reported current impotence and 8% current incontinence. Current hot flashes (41%), breast changes (18%) and fatigue (28%) were reported more commonly by patients on hormone therapy.

Conclusions:

This study provides evidence that adverse physical effects following prostate cancer represent a significant public health burden; an estimated 1.6% of men over 45 is a prostate cancer survivor with a current adverse physical effect. This information should facilitate investigation and treatment decision-making and follow-up care of patients.

Long-term health-related quality of life of prostate cancer survivors varies by primary treatment. Results from the PiCTure (Prostate Cancer Treatment, your experience) study

PURPOSE: Men are living longer with prostate cancer. In a two-country study, we investigated the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of prostate cancer survivors up to 18 years post-diagnosis.

METHODS: Postal questionnaires were administered in 2012 to 6559 prostate cancer (ICD10 C61) survivors 2-18 years post-diagnosis, identified through population-based cancer registries in Ireland. HRQoL was measured using QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25. HRQoL, functional and symptom scores were compared by primary treatment(s) using multiple linear regression.

RESULTS: Fifty-four percent responded (n = 3348). After controlling for socio-demographic and clinical factors, global HRQoL varied significantly by primary treatment (p < 0.001); compared to radical prostatectomy (RP), survivors who received androgen deprivation therapy alone (ADT; p < 0.001) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) without concurrent ADT (p = 0.001) had significantly lower global HRQoL. The global HRQoL of men who received brachytherapy (p = 0.157), EBRT with concurrent ADT (p = 0.940) or active surveillance/watchful waiting (p = 0.388) was not significantly different from men treated with RP. There were statistically and clinically significant differences in general (fatigue, pain, dyspnoea, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhoea, financial difficulties) and disease-specific symptoms (sexual, urinary, bowel, ADT) by primary treatment. Fatigue and insomnia scores were high for survivors in all treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer survivors' long-term HRQoL varied with primary treatment.

IMPLICATIONS OF CANCER SURVIVORS: Population-based information regarding statistically and clinically significant treatment effects on long-term global HRQoL, symptom burden and functionality should be provided during treatment decision-making. Screening for symptoms and utilising interventions during long-term follow-up may improve survivors' HRQoL.

Repurposing medicinal compounds for blood cancer treatment

Drug development is being continuously scrutinised for its lack of productivity. Novel drug development is associated with high costs, high failure rates and lengthy development process. These downfalls combined with a huge demand in blood cancer for new therapeutic treatments have led many to consider the method of drug repurposing. Finding new therapeutic indications for already established drug substances is known as redirecting, repositioning, reprofiling, or repurposing of drugs. Off-patent and on-patent drugs can be screened for additional targets and new indications thus bringing them to clinical trials at a faster pace. This approach offers smaller research groups, such as those that are academic based, into the drug development industry. Drug repurposing can make use of previously published data concerning dosage, toxicology and mechanism of activity.

Late effects of cancer and cancer treatment-the perspective of the patient

PURPOSE: Understanding the experience of late effects from the perspective of cancer survivors is essential to inform patient-centred care. This study investigated the nature and onset of late effects experienced by survivors and the manner in which late effects have affected their lives.

METHODS: Sixteen purposively selected cancer survivors participated in a qualitative interview study. The data were analysed inductively using a narrative schema in order to derive the main themes that characterised patients' accounts of late effects.

RESULTS: Individual survivors tended to experience more than one late effect spanning a range of physical and psychological effects. Late effects impacted on relationships, working life, finances and the ability to undertake daily activities. Survivors reported experiencing psychological late effects from around the end of treatment whereas the onset of physical effects occurred later during the post-treatment period. Late effects were managed using formal health services, informal social support and use of 'wellbeing strategies'. Survivors engaged in a process of searching for reasons for experiencing late effects and struggled to make sense of their situation. In particular, a process of 'peer-patient comparison' was used by survivors to help them make sense of, or cope with, their late effects. There appeared to be an association between personal disposition and adaptation and adjustment to the impact of late effects.

CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survivors identified potential components for supported self-management or intervention programmes, as well as important considerations in terms of peer comparisons, personal disposition and making sense of experienced late effects.

Establishing a population-based patient-reported outcomes study (PROMs) using national cancer registries across two jurisdictions: The Prostate Cancer Treatment, your experience (PiCTure) study

Objective: To establish an international patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) study among prostate cancer survivors, up to 18 years postdiagnosis, in two countries with different healthcare systems and ethical frameworks. Design: A cross-sectional, postal survey of prostate cancer survivors sampled and recruited via two population-based cancer registries. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) evaluated patients for eligibility to participate. Questionnaires contained validated instruments to assess health-related quality of life and psychological well-being, including QLQ-C30, QLQPR-25, EQ-5D-5L, 21-question Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) and the Decisional Regret Scale. Setting: Republic of Ireland (RoI) and Northern Ireland (NI). Primary outcome measures: Registration completeness, predictors of eligibility and response, data missingness, unweighted and weighted PROMs. Results: Prostate cancer registration was 80% (95% CI 75% to 84%) and 91% (95% CI 89% to 93%) complete 2 years postdiagnosis in NI and RoI, respectively. Of 12 322 survivors sampled from registries, 53% (n=6559) were classified as eligible following HCP screening. In the multivariate analysis, significant predictors of eligibility were: being ≤59 years of age at diagnosis (p<0.001), short-term survivor (<5 years postdiagnosis; p<0.001) and from RoI (p<0.001). 3348 completed the questionnaire, yielding a 54% adjusted response rate. 13% of men or their families called the study freephone with queries for assistance with questionnaire completion or to talk about their experience. Significant predictors of response in multivariate analysis were: being ≤59 years at diagnosis (p<0.001) and from RoI (p=0.016). Mean number of missing questions in validated instruments ranged from 0.12 (SD 0.71; EQ-5D-5L) to 3.72 (SD 6.30; QLQ-PR25). Weighted and unweighted mean EQ-5D-5L, QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25 scores were similar, as were the weighted and unweighted prevalences of depression, anxiety and distress. Conclusions: It was feasible to perform PROMs studies across jurisdictions, using cancer registries as sampling frames; we amassed one of the largest, international, population-based data set of prostate cancer survivors. We highlight improvements which could inform future PROMs studies, including utilising general practitioners to assess eligibility and providing a freephone service.

A feasibility study of auricular therapy and self-administered acupressure for insomnia following cancer treatment

Introduction: Many cancer patients experience sleeping difficulties which can persist several years after the completion of cancer treatment. Previous research suggests that acupuncture, and variants of acupuncture (acupressure, auricular therapy) may be effective treatment options for sleep disturbance. However, current evidence is limited for cancer patients.

Methods: Feasibility study with 3 arms. Seven cancer patients with insomnia randomised to receive either auricular therapy (attaching semen vaccariae seeds to ear acupoints) (n=4), self-acupressure (n=1) or no treatment (n=2). Participants assigned to receive auricular therapy or self-acupressure stimulated the acupoints each night an hour before retiring to bed. The duration of participant involvement was 5 weeks. Subjective sleep quality was measured at baseline and post-treatment using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). The impact of treatment on concerns of importance to the participants themselves was measured using the Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCaW). Each participant also completed a treatment log book.

Results: All participants completed their treatment. All auricular therapy and self-acupressure participants recorded clinically significant improvements in global PSQI scores. In the auricular therapy arm mean global PSQI reduced from 12.5 at baseline to 8 following completion of treatment. In the self-acupressure arm PSQI reduced from 15 to 11. While in the no treatment arm the mean PSQI score was 14.5 at both baseline and follow up.

Conclusions: Despite the limited sample size, both auricular therapy and self-acupressure may represent potentially effective treatments for cancer patients with insomnia. The positive findings suggest further research is warranted into both treatment modalities.