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.

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.

BRAF mutation testing algorithm for vemurafenib treatment in melanoma: recommendations from an expert panel.

The incidence of melanoma has increased rapidly over the past 30 years, and the disease is now the sixth most common cancer among men and women in the U.K. Many patients are diagnosed with or develop metastatic disease, and survival is substantially reduced in these patients. Mutations in the BRAF gene have been identified as key drivers of melanoma cells and are found in around 50% of cutaneous melanomas. Vemurafenib (Zelboraf(®) ; Roche Molecular Systems Inc., Pleasanton, CA, U.S.A.) is the first licensed inhibitor of mutated BRAF, and offers a new first-line option for patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who harbour BRAF mutations. Vemurafenib was developed in conjunction with a companion diagnostic, the cobas(®) 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test. The purpose of this paper is to make evidence-based recommendations to facilitate the implementation of BRAF mutation testing and targeted therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma in the U.K. The recommendations are the result of a meeting of an expert panel and have been reviewed by melanoma specialists and representatives of the National Cancer Research Network Clinical Study Group on behalf of the wider melanoma community. This article is intended to be a starting point for practical advice and recommendations, which will no doubt be updated as we gain further experience in personalizing therapy for patients with melanoma.

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up.

METHODS: CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b-T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923.

FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9-77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0-90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5-92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4-88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68-1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99-1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported.

INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer.

FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Targeting treatment resistant cancer stem cells with FKBPL and its peptide therapeutics

FKBPL and its peptide derivatives have already demonstrated well-established inhibitory effects on cancer growth and CD44-dependent anti-angiogenic activity. Since cancer stem cells (CSCs) are CD44 positive, we wanted to explore if these therapeutics could specifically target CSCs in breast and ovarian cancer. In a tumoursphere assay, FKBPL stable overexpression or FKBPL-based peptide (AD-01, preclinical peptide or ALM201, clinical peptide candidate) treatment were highly effective at reducing the CSC population measured by inhibiting tumoursphere forming efficiency in breast and ovarian cancer cell lines and primary breast cancer samples from both solid breast tumours and pleural effusions. Flow cytometry, to assess the ESA+/CD44+/CD24- and ALDH+ cell subpopulations representative of CSCs, validated these results. The ability of AD-01 and ALM201 to inhibit the self-renewal capacity of CSCs was confirmed across three generations, eradicating CSC completely by the third generation (p<0.001). Furthermore, clonogenic assay demonstrated that FKBPL-based peptides mediated CSC differentiation, with a significant decrease in the number of CSCs or holoclones and an associated increase in differentiated cancer cells or meroclones/paraclones. In addition, AD-01 treatment in vitro and in vivo led to a significant reduction in the stem cell markers, Nanog, Sox2 and Oct4 protein and mRNA levels; whilst transfection of FKBPL-targeted siRNAs led to an increase in these markers and in tumoursphere forming potential, highlighting the endogenous role of FKBPL in stem cell signalling. The clinical relevance of this was confirmed using a publically available microarray data set (GSE7390), where, high FKBPL and low Nanog expression were independently associated with improved overall survival in breast cancer patients (log rank test p=0.03; hazard ratio=3.01). Additionally, when AD-01 was combined with other agents, we observed additive activity with the Notch inhibitor, DAPT and AD-01 was also able to abrogate a chemo- and radiotherapy induced enrichment in CSCs. Importantly, using gold standard in vivo limiting dilution assays we demonstrated a delay in tumour initiation and reoccurrence in AD-01 treated xenografts. In summary, FKBPL-based peptides appear to have dual anti-angiogenic and anti-CSC activity which will be advantageous as this agent enters clinical trial.