Ruddy, Kathryn J

PURPOSE Patients with breast cancer requiring postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) often desire breast reconstruction. Reconstructions can be adversely affected by PMRT, and fear of reconstruction complications has discouraged adoption of short-course radiation therapy used after lumpectomy. To fill the evidence gap, we conducted a noninferiority trial of hypofractionated versus conventional PMRT in patients undergoing breast reconstruction. The primary outcome was reconstruction complication rate, a composite of wound healing, readmission, capsular contracture, unplanned reoperation, and reconstruction failure. METHODS Women with unilateral invasive breast cancer with planned immediate or delayed reconstruction and PMRT were randomly assigned (1:1) to 50 Gy (25 fractions/5 weeks) or 42.56 Gy (16 fractions/3 weeks). This study was designed with a noninferiority margin of 10%, assuming a 2-year reconstruction complication rate of 25% with conventional PMRT. Randomization was stratified by immediate versus delayed and autologous versus implant-only reconstruction. RESULTS Between 2018 and 2021, 898 patients enrolled with a median follow-up of 3.9 years; 825 patients were evaluable for the primary end point. The 24-month reconstruction complication rates were 12.3% (52/422) with hypofractionated PMRT and 10.2% (41/403) with conventional PMRT, corresponding to an estimated difference of -2.1% (95% CI, -6.5 to 2.2). The complication rate was higher (regardless of arm) with implant-only versus autologous reconstruction (odds ratio = 1.65). There was no statistically significant difference in 36-month locoregional recurrence rates: 1.5% (95% CI, 0.7 to 3.2) with hypofractionated and 2.2% (95% CI, 1.1 to 4.3) with conventional PMRT. Acute and late toxicity rates were not statistically different. CONCLUSION A 16-fraction course of hypofractionated PMRT is safe and noninferior to conventional PMRT in women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy.

Abstract Background Whether outcomes of germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-associated breast cancer differ compared with sporadic tumors is controversial. We explored the impact of gBRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) status beyond established prognostic features. Methods We conducted 2 retrospective, matched cohort studies comparing gBRCA1/2 PV carriers and noncarriers with HER2-negative, stage I-III breast cancer (Clinical Outcomes Quality Database [COQD] cohort: 185 carriers, 555 noncarriers; Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study [YWS] cohort: 113 carriers, 226 noncarriers). Matching factors were age, stage, hormone receptor status, and year of diagnosis. Clinicopathological features, treatments, and survival outcomes were compared between carriers and noncarriers. Results Most patients in COQD had stage I-II disease (87.2%), and more carriers than noncarriers had genetic testing before diagnosis (33% vs 5.6%, P < .001). In YWS, 22.7% of patients had stage III tumors, and few were tested before diagnosis (14.8% of carriers vs 1.7% of noncarriers; P < .001). Carriers in COQD received chemotherapy more often than noncarriers (81.1 vs 67.0%, P < .001), including platinum (P = .010); the proportion was similar for carriers and noncarriers in YWS. After adjusting for chemotherapy, relapse-free survival was longer in carriers than noncarriers in COQD (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.48 [95% CI = 0.26 to 0.87], P = .016), and a favorable trend was observed for other survival outcomes in both cohorts. Triple-negative tumors appeared to drive the differences. Conclusions We observed a trend toward improved outcomes in gBRCA1/2 PV carriers compared with noncarriers. These findings suggest that carriers should not receive more aggressive treatment solely based on their germline mutation status. Prospective clinical trials in this population are warranted.

Background/Objectives. Decades of research have failed to uncover effective approaches to prevent chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), a common side effect of neurotoxic chemotherapy. Increased interest in placebo response as a potentially under-recognized confounder in CIPN trials was recently sparked by the results of a multisite NCI-funded phase II-III CIPN prevention study of duloxetine, a promising serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that enhances pain-inhibitory mechanisms within the central nervous system. Study findings revealed high and nearly equivalent response rates in three randomized treatment groups—little to no CIPN was reported by 65.2%, 66.0%, and 68.0% of study participants who received duloxetine 30 mg, 60 mg, or placebo treatment, respectively. Methods. We performed a meta-analysis of placebo response rates from seven randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials conducted over the past 20 years and comprising 191 placebo participants that were specifically testing interventions for oxaliplatin- and paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy and that serially collected patient responses on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathy questionnaire. Additionally, we sought to identify trial- and patient-specific factors that predicted higher placebo response rates from a participant-level pooled analysis. Results. The placebo response rate was 10.0% [95% CI: 5.8%, 16.6%] when response was defined more conservatively as patients reporting no neuropathy at all. When the placebo response was defined more broadly based on patients reporting no or a little neuropathy, the placebo response rate was higher (39.6% [95% CI: 27.4%, 53.2%]). Male participants, receipt of oxaliplatin, and a 2:1 randomization ratio favoring the intervention arm were individually associated with a higher placebo response. Conclusions. High placebo response rates can threaten scientific progress toward identifying effective treatments for cancer treatment-associated side effects, like CIPN. Careful attention to study design factors, participant eligibility, and patient and research staff expectations may help to minimize placebo response rates in future CIPN intervention studies.

Abstract Background Anxiety is a common symptom experienced by patients with cancer, who are increasingly interested in non-pharmacologic symptom management. Acupressure, a noninvasive intervention thought to impact the neurohormonal axis, has shown promise in reducing anxiety. However, research on acupressure for anxiety in patients with cancer has been limited. Methods Individuals receiving chemotherapy, who reported baseline anxiety, were eligible for this study. Consenting participants received one 15-minute nurse-led acupressure session and completed pre- and post-intervention surveys. The primary endpoint was a change in anxiety. Participants were also asked about symptoms of nausea, pain, well-being, relaxation, worry, and distress. Participants were invited to learn self-acupressure techniques. These participants were asked to complete a final survey 1-week post-intervention. Results Thirty adult patients participated in this study. Mean baseline anxiety was 5 on a 0 to 10 Likert scale. Immediate post-intervention anxiety scores significantly improved for all thirty patients to an average of 2.0 (P < .001). Mean nausea scores improved from 1.5 at baseline to 0 post-intervention (P < .001), and pain scores improved from 2.0 at baseline to 1.0 post-intervention (P = .001). Participants reported significant improvement in sense of wellbeing (P = .0004), distress (P < .001), ability to achieve relaxation (P < .001), and ability to control their worries (P < .001). The improvement in anxiety, well-being, and relaxation was sustained at one week. 100% of participants stated that they would recommend acupressure for symptom management. Conclusion Acupressure is a promising non-pharmacologic intervention for the management of cancer-associated anxiety.

PURPOSE The primary objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase II study (Alliance A221805) was to screen two doses of duloxetine for preventing sensory oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (OIPN). METHODS Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive once daily 30 mg duloxetine, 60 mg duloxetine, or placebo. Eligible participants had stage II to III colorectal cancer and no baseline neuropathy, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, were age 25 years and older, and received oxaliplatin via one of the following doses and schedules: 85 mg/m 2 every 2 weeks (6 or 12 doses) or 130 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks (4 doses). Duloxetine/placebo was taken once daily beginning day 1 of cycle 1 and continued for 17 weeks. The primary end point, a composite response reflecting sensory OIPN symptom severity and onset, was measured in weeks 19-21 using a validated participant-reported outcome survey assessing extremity numbness, tingling, and pain. Response was defined as a participant-reported highest score of ≤2 (ie, 1 = not at all; 2 = a little) on survey items. To be evaluable for the response end point, eligible participants must have initiated oxaliplatin and submitted ≥1 postbaseline OIPN survey. RESULTS Of the 199 participants (n = 66, 30 mg duloxetine; n = 66, 60 mg duloxetine; n = 67, placebo), 46, 47, and 50 (N = 143, 71.8%), respectively, were evaluable for primary end point analysis based on modified intention-to-treat criteria. Participant mean age was 55.1 years (standard deviation = 10.4). Most were White (n = 113, 80.7%) and male (n = 82, 58.6%). The proportion of responders among those receiving placebo (68.0%) was similar to those receiving duloxetine 30 mg (65.2%) or 60 mg (66.0%). Duloxetine adherence rates, measured via pill counts—30 mg (54%), 60 mg (57%), and placebo (59%) groups—were low (<75%). CONCLUSION Duloxetine is not more promising than placebo for preventing sensory OIPN.

PURPOSE This national study was undertaken to determine screening mammography rates among transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals. METHODS TGD individuals and cisgender women who qualified to receive screening mammography based on American College of Radiology guidelines were identified in the longitudinal OptumLabs Data Warehouse. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who had high rates of screening (>75% recommended screenings). Multivariable analyses were conducted in a matched population of transgender men to cisgender women to identify and adjust for factors associated with high adherence. Individuals were matched at a 1:4 ratio (transgender men: cisgender women) on age, race/ethnicity, year of enrollment in their health care plan, and duration of follow-up. RESULTS This study focused on 10,478 TGD individuals (3,778 transgender men; 1,294 transgender women; 5,406 with gender dysphoria not meeting other TGD criteria, NMOT) and 6,218,369 cisgender women. For transgender men, transgender women, individuals with gender dysphoria NMOT, and cisgender women, high mammography rates were observed in 41.1% (95% CI, 39.5 to 42.6), 7.4% (95% CI, 6.0 to 8.8), 11.9% (95% CI, 11.0 to 12.7), and 38.3% (95% CI, 38.3 to 38.4), respectively ( P < .0001). When transgender men were compared with 15,112 matched cisgender women, an age-based differential association was observed between sex and high mammography rates (interaction P = .0003); compared with cisgender women, transgender men appeared more likely to manifest high rates of screening at age 40-49 years (odds ratios [ORs], 1.38 [95% CI, 1.28 to 1.50]; P < .0001) and 50-59 years (OR, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.81]; P < .0001) but not in the older age groups. CONCLUSION The relatively high rates of screening mammography in cisgender women and transgender men suggest clinicians are offering mammography to individuals who are at average or high breast cancer risk, as compared with cisgender women, and not to transgender women at low risk.

PURPOSE Hot flashes are a common side effect reported by men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for the treatment of prostate cancer. We sought to determine whether oxybutynin could improve hot flash symptoms in men with prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with prostate cancer receiving a stable regimen of ADT with at least 28 hot flashes per week were randomly assigned to receive either oxybutynin 2.5 mg twice daily, oxybutynin 5 mg twice daily, or matching placebo for 6 weeks. The primary end point was the change in patient-reported hot flash scores since baseline at 6 weeks. Additional outcomes included incidence of adverse events (AEs), changes since baseline in Hot Flash–Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDIS) scores, and patient-reported symptoms. RESULTS Eighty-eight patients were enrolled, with the 81 participants eligible for final analysis reporting an average of 10.1 (standard deviation [SD], 5.55) hot flashes per day and an average daily hot flash score of 18.2 (SD, 13.5) included in final analysis. On average, patients on the placebo arm, 2.5 mg oxybutynin arm, and 5 mg oxybutynin arm had reductions in hot flashes/day of 2.15, 4.77 ( P = .02), and 6.89 ( P < .001), respectively. Daily hot flash scores for placebo, 2.5 mg oxybutynin, and 5 mg oxybutynin reduced by an average of 4.85, 9.94 ( P = .07), and 13.95 ( P = .002) points, respectively. No treatment-related grade 3+ AEs occurred. HFRDIS total scores improved by 14.2 and 20.7 points in the 2.5 mg ( P = .042) and 5 mg ( P < .01) oxybutynin arms, respectively, compared with a 3.1-point improvement with placebo. CONCLUSION Oxybutynin is superior to a placebo for the management of ADT-associated hot flashes in men with prostate cancer.

Background: Mu opioid receptors (MORs) in peripheral tissues mediate adverse effects of opioids that impair health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and may stimulate cancer progression via mitogenic signaling. Naloxegol, a peripherally acting MOR antagonist (PAMORA), is approved for opioid-induced constipation. Safety and efficacy of naloxegol have not been evaluated concurrently with systemic cancer therapy. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of naloxegol in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma starting first-line systemic therapy. Results: Only 50 patients were enrolled; the trial was terminated early due to slow accrual. Two of the three components of the feasibility primary endpoint were not met (accrual and PRO completion). At 6 months, FACT-L emotional well-being was better with naloxegol (p = 0.0113). There were trends towards better Trial Outcome Index (p = 0.0505) and physical well-being (p = 0.0628) with naloxegol. Bowel function favored naloxegol for constipation (p = 0.0223), rectal pain during defecation (p = 0.0075), and abdominal pain from constipation (p = 0.0113). Adverse event frequency and severity, PRO-CTCAE, urinary hesitancy, pain scores, and progression-free and overall survival were comparable between naloxegol and placebo. Conclusions: Naloxegol appears to be safe and tolerable, with a signal of improved HRQoL and previously unappreciated benefit for emotional well-being, without adverse clinical outcomes. Our findings should be confirmed in larger studies. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03087708.

Treatment-induced ovarian function loss is a significant concern for many young patients with breast cancer. Accurately predicting this risk is crucial for counselling young patients and informing their fertility-related decision-making. However, current risk prediction models for treatment-related ovarian function loss have limitations. To provide a broader representation of patient cohorts and improve feature selection, we combined retrospective data from six datasets within the FoRECAsT (Infertility after Cancer Predictor) databank, including 2679 pre-menopausal women diagnosed with breast cancer. This combined dataset presented notable missingness, prompting us to employ cross imputation using the k-nearest neighbours (KNN) machine learning (ML) algorithm. Employing Lasso regression, we developed an ML model to forecast the risk of treatment-related amenorrhea as a surrogate marker of ovarian function loss at 12 months after starting chemotherapy. Our model identified 20 variables significantly associated with risk of developing amenorrhea. Internal validation resulted in an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.820 (95% CI: 0.817–0.823), while external validation with another dataset demonstrated an AUC of 0.743 (95% CI: 0.666–0.818). A cutoff of 0.20 was chosen to achieve higher sensitivity in validation, as false negatives—patients incorrectly classified as likely to regain menses—could miss timely opportunities for fertility preservation if desired. At this threshold, internal validation yielded sensitivity and precision rates of 91.3% and 61.7%, respectively, while external validation showed 92.9% and 60.0%. Leveraging ML methodologies, we not only devised a model for personalised risk prediction of amenorrhea, demonstrating substantial enhancements over existing models but also showcased a robust framework for maximally harnessing available data sources.

Abstract Background Opioid stewardship policies could adversely affect pain management for patients with cancer. Yet patients with cancer are also at risk for opioid‐related harms. This study sought to determine trends in opioid prescribing by clinical stratum and pain for patients with cancer from 2016 to 2020. Methods A retrospective study was conducted of opioid‐naive adults with newly diagnosed cancer from 2016 to 2020 ( N = 10,232) in a large Connecticut health system. Logistic regression was used to calculate changes in the predicted probability of opioid prescribing from 2016 to 2020. Two subpopulations were examined: patients treated surgically ( n = 4405) and patients with metastatic cancer ( n = 2158). Flowsheet pain scores for patients with metastatic cancer were used to stratify by no pain (all scores, 0) versus any pain. The main outcomes were new (≥1 prescription in the 0–6 months after diagnosis) and additional (0–6 and 7–9 months) opioid prescriptions. Results A decline was observed in the predicted probability of new (71.1% to 64.6%; p < .001) and additional prescribing (27.2% to 24.2%; p = .07 [not significant]) declined. Among surgical patients, the predicted probability of new opioid prescribing fell (96.0% to 88.6%; p < .001), whereas additional prescribing was stable (13%). For patients with metastatic cancer with pain, new opioid prescribing was stable (56%). For those reporting no pain, the predicted probability of new opioid prescribing declined from 61.6% to 36.1% ( p < .001). Conclusions In the context of widespread policy changes, this study showed a modest decline in new and additional opioid prescribing for patients with cancer. In metastatic cancer, prescribing remained stable for patients reporting pain and declined steeply for those reporting no pain.