Prevalence and prognostic significance of secondary lymphedema following breast cancer

Background The adverse consequences of lymphedema following breast cancer in relation to physical function and quality of life are clear; however, its potential relationship with survival has not been investigated. Our purpose was to determine the prevalence of lymphedema and associated upper-body symptoms at 6 years following breast cancer and to examine the prognostic significance of lymphedema with respect to overall 6-year survival (OS). Methods and Results A population-based sample of Australian women (n=287) diagnosed with invasive, unilateral breast cancer was followed for a median of 6.6 years and prospectively assessed for lymphedema (using bioimpedance spectroscopy [BIS], sum of arm circumferences [SOAC], and self-reported arm swelling), a range of upper-body symptoms, and vital status. OS was measured from date of diagnosis to date of death or last follow-up. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate OS and Cox proportional hazards models quantified the risk associated with lymphedema. Approximately 45% of women had reported at least one moderate to extreme symptom at 6.6 years postdiagnosis, while 34% had shown clinical evidence of lymphedema, and 48% reported arm swelling at least once since baseline assessment. A total of 27 (9.4%) women died during the follow-up period, and lymphedema, diagnosed by BIS or SOAC between 6–18 months postdiagnosis, predicted mortality (BIS: HR=2.5; 95% CI: 0.9, 6.8, p=0.08; SOAC: 3.0; 95% CI: 1.1, 8.7, p=0.04). There was no association (HR=1.2; 95% CI: 0.5, 2.6, p=0.68) between self-reported arm swelling and OS. Conclusions These findings suggest that lymphedema may influence survival following breast cancer treatment and warrant further investigation in other cancer cohorts and explication of a potential underlying biology.

Insulin increases De Novo Steroidogenesis in prostate cancer cells

Androgen-dependent pathways regulate maintenance and growth of normal and malignant prostate tissues. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) exploits this dependence and is used to treat metastatic prostate cancer; however, regression initially seen with ADT gives way to development of incurable castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Although ADT generates a therapeutic response, it is also associated with a pattern of metabolic alterations consistent with metabolic syndrome including elevated circulating insulin. Because CRPC cells are capable of synthesizing androgens de novo, we hypothesized that insulin may also influence steroidogenesis in CRPC. In this study, we examined this hypothesis by evaluating the effect of insulin on steroid synthesis in prostate cancer cell lines. Treatment with 10 nmol/L insulin increased mRNA and protein expression of steroidogenesis enzymes and upregulated the insulin receptor substrate insulin receptor substrate 2 (IRS-2). Similarly, insulin treatment upregulated intracellular testosterone levels and secreted androgens, with the concentrations of steroids observed similar to the levels reported in prostate cancer patients. With similar potency to dihydrotestosterone, insulin treatment resulted in increased mRNA expression of prostate-specific antigen. CRPC progression also correlated with increased expression of IRS-2 and insulin receptor in vivo. Taken together, our findings support the hypothesis that the elevated insulin levels associated with therapeutic castration may exacerbate progression of prostate cancer to incurable CRPC in part by enhancing steroidogenesis.

A randomised trial of a psychosocial intervention for cancer patients integrated into routine care: The PROMPT study (promoting optimal outcomes in mood through tailored psychosocial therapies)

Background Despite evidence that up to 35% of patients with cancer experience significant distress, access to effective psychosocial care is limited by lack of systematic approaches to assessment, a paucity of psychosocial services, and patient reluctance to accept treatment either because of perceived stigma or difficulties with access to specialist psycho-oncology services due to isolation or disease burden. This paper presents an overview of a randomised study to evaluate the effectiveness of a brief tailored psychosocial Intervention delivered by health professionals in cancer care who undergo focused training and participate in clinical supervision. Methods/design Health professionals from the disciplines of nursing, occupational therapy, speech pathology, dietetics, physiotherapy or radiation therapy will participate in training to deliver the psychosocial Intervention focusing on core concepts of supportive-expressive, cognitive and dignity-conserving care. Health professional training will consist of completion of a self-directed manual and participation in a skills development session. Participating health professionals will be supported through structured clinical supervision whilst delivering the Intervention. In the stepped wedge design each of the 5 participating clinical sites will be allocated in random order from Control condition to Training then delivery of the Intervention. A total of 600 patients will be recruited across all sites. Based on level of distress or risk factors eligible patients will receive up to 4 sessions, each of up to 30 minutes in length, delivered face-to-face or by telephone. Participants will be assessed at baseline and 10-week follow-up. Patient outcome measures include anxiety and depression, quality of life, unmet psychological and supportive care needs. Health professional measures include psychological morbidity, stress and burnout. Process evaluation will be conducted to assess perceptions of participation in the study and the factors that may promote translation of learning into practice. Discussion This study will provide important information about the effectiveness of a brief tailored psychological Intervention for patients with cancer and the potential to prevent development of significant distress in patients considered at risk. It will yield data about the feasibility of this model of care in routine clinical practice and identify enablers and barriers to its systematic implementation in cancer settings.