Late cardiac effects of chemotherapy in breast cancer survivors treated with adjuvant doxorubicin: 10-year follow-up

Doxorubicin (Dox), a mainstay of adjuvant breast cancer treatment, is associated with cardiac toxicity in the form of left ventricular dysfunction (LVD), LV diastolic dysfunction, or LV systolic dysfunction. Study objectives were to evaluate the prevalence of LVD in long-term breast cancer survivors treated with Dox and determine if brain-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) may help identify patients at risk for LVD. Patients who participated in prospective clinical trials of adjuvant Dox-based chemotherapy for breast cancer with a baseline left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction evaluation from 1999 to 2006 were retrospectively identified from the St Vincent's University Hospital database. Patients were invited to undergo transthoracic echocardiography, BNP analysis, and cardiovascular (CV) risk factor assessment. LVDD was defined as left atrial volume index >34 mL/m(2) and/or lateral wall E prime <10 m/s, and LVSD as LVEF <50 %. Of 212 patients identified, 154 participated, 19 patients had died (no cardiac deaths), and 39 declined. Mean age was 60.7 [55:67] years. A majority of the patients (128, 83 %) had low CV risk (0/1 risk factors), 21 (13.6 %) had 2 RFs, and 5 (3.2 %) ≥3 RFs. BMI was 27.2 ± 4.9 kg/m(2). Median Dox dose was 240 mg/m(2) [225-298]; 92 patients (59.7 %) received ≤240 mg/m(2) and 62 (40.3 %) > 240 mg/m(2). Baseline LVEF was 68.2 ± 8 %. At follow-up of 10.8 ± 2.2 years, LVEF was 64.4 ± 6 %. Three (1.9 %) subjects had LVEF <50 % and one (0.7 %) had LVDD. Dox >240 mg/m2 was associated with any LVEF drop. BNP levels at follow-up were 20.3 pg/ml [9.9-36.5] and 21.1 pg/ml [9.8-37.7] in those without LVD and 61.5 pg/ml [50-68.4] in those with LVD (p = 0.04). Long-term prospective data describing the impact of Dox on cardiotoxicity are sparse. At over 10 years of follow-up, decreases in LVEF are common, and dose related, but LVD as defined is infrequent (2.6 %). Monitoring with BNP for subclinical LVD needs further evaluation.

Breast cancer outcomes following predictive BRCA testing in Northern Ireland

Objectives: Since 1995, BRCA testing has identified 445 women in Northern Ireland who carry a pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation, without breast cancer (bca) at testing. This study examined outcomes with reference to management, bca risk, and incidence following positive predictive testing. Methods: Patients were identified from the regional genetics database. Electronic clinical records were used to obtain management and outcome details. Median follow-up was to bca diagnosis, risk-reducing mastectomy (rrm), death, or last follow-up. Results: 169 women had a BRCA1 mutation, and 276 BRCA2. ■ BRCA1 cohort: Median follow-up post-testing was 3 years. 56 Women (33%) had rrm, and 12 are awaiting rrm (total 68, 40%) at a median age of 36 years. 12 Women (7%) developed bca, at a median of 2 years following testing. 4 Women were diagnosed with bcas incidentally at rrm. 7 Patients had bilateral mastectomies following a cancer diagnosis. 1 Woman developed bca following rrm (1.7%). Three deaths were reported: 1 breast cancer (1.7%), 1 ovarian cancer (1.7%), and 1 with no recorded breast/ovarian cancer diagnosis. ■ BRCA2 cohort: Median follow-up post-testing was 6 years. rrm was carried out in 75 women (27%), with 20 awaiting rrm (total 95, 35%); median age: 39 years. 16 Women developed bca (5.8%), at a median of 5 years from testing. 6 Women were diagnosed with cancer incidentally at rrm; 9 women had bilateral mastectomy following diagnosis, and 1 developed bca following rrm (1.3%). Five deaths were reported: 1 bca, 1 ovarian cancer, and 3 with no recorded breast/ovarian cancer diagnosis. Conclusions: The uptake of rrm following predictive BRCA testing in Northern Ireland is comparable with that reported elsewhere. The incidence of bca following rrm is low (<2%) in our cohort, with low breast and ovarian cancer–specific mortality following positive predictive testing.

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

Background

It is estimated that up to 75% of cancer survivors may experience cognitive impairment as a result of cancer treatment and given the increasing size of the cancer survivor population, the number of affected people is set to rise considerably in coming years. There is a need, therefore, to identify effective, non-pharmacological interventions for maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment among people with a previous cancer diagnosis.
Objectives

To evaluate the cognitive effects, non-cognitive effects, duration and safety 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).
Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Centre Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PUBMED, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO databases. We also searched registries of ongoing trials and grey literature including theses, dissertations and conference proceedings. Searches were conducted for articles published from 1980 to 29 September 2015.
Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions to improve cognitive impairment or to maintain cognitive functioning among survivors of adult-onset cancers who have completed systemic cancer therapy (in isolation or combination with other treatments) were eligible. Studies among individuals continuing to receive hormonal therapy were included. We excluded interventions targeted at cancer survivors with central nervous system (CNS) tumours or metastases, non-melanoma skin cancer or those who had received cranial radiation or, were from nursing or care home settings. Language restrictions were not applied.
Data collection and analysis

Author pairs independently screened, selected, extracted data and rated the risk of bias of studies. We were unable to conduct planned meta-analyses due to heterogeneity in the type of interventions and outcomes, with the exception of compensatory strategy training interventions for which we pooled data for mental and physical well-being outcomes. We report a narrative synthesis of intervention effectiveness for other outcomes.
Main results

Five RCTs describing six interventions (comprising a total of 235 participants) met the eligibility criteria for the review. Two trials of computer-assisted cognitive training interventions (n = 100), two of compensatory strategy training interventions (n = 95), one of meditation (n = 47) and one of physical activity intervention (n = 19) were identified. Each study focused on breast cancer survivors. All five studies were rated as having a high risk of bias. Data for our primary outcome of interest, cognitive function were not amenable to being pooled statistically. Cognitive training demonstrated beneficial effects on objectively assessed cognitive function (including processing speed, executive functions, cognitive flexibility, language, delayed- and immediate- memory), subjectively reported cognitive function and mental well-being. Compensatory strategy training demonstrated improvements on objectively assessed delayed-, immediate- and verbal-memory, self-reported cognitive function and spiritual quality of life (QoL). The meta-analyses of two RCTs (95 participants) did not show a beneficial effect from compensatory strategy training on physical well-being immediately (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to 0.83; I2= 67%) or two months post-intervention (SMD - 0.21, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.47; I2 = 63%) or on mental well-being two months post-intervention (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.34; I2 = 67%). Lower mental well-being immediately post-intervention appeared to be observed in patients who received compensatory strategy training compared to wait-list controls (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.16; I2 = 0%). We assessed the assembled studies using GRADE for physical and mental health outcomes and this evidence was rated to be low quality and, therefore findings should be interpreted with caution. Evidence for physical activity and meditation interventions on cognitive outcomes is unclear.
Authors' conclusions

Overall, the, albeit low-quality evidence may be interpreted to suggest that non-pharmacological interventions may have the potential to reduce the risk of, or ameliorate, cognitive impairment following systemic cancer treatment. Larger, multi-site studies including an appropriate, active attentional control group, as well as consideration of functional outcomes (e.g. activities of daily living) are required in order to come to firmer conclusions about the benefits or otherwise of this intervention approach. There is also a need to conduct research into cognitive impairment among cancer patient groups other than women with breast cancer.