Abstract PD10-01: Patient-reported outcomes in patients with HER2- advanced breast cancer and a germlineBRCA1/2mutation receiving talazoparib vs physician’s choice of chemotherapy: A focus on EMBRACA ECOG performance status subgroups

1102 Background: To assess the efficacy of capecitabine monotherapy for patients with chemotherapy-pretreated advanced breast cancer with brain metastases. Methods: Patients with brain metastases from breast cancer whose disease had progressed on prior chemotherapy for advanced disease received oral capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 bid on days 1–14 every 3 weeks until disease progression. Results: Between July 2007 and August 2008, 10 women were treated. Median age was 50 years (range 36–66 years). ECOG performance status was 1 in 7 patients and 2 in 3 patients. All had received prior chemotherapy: one line in five patients; two lines in four patients; three lines in one patient. Six patients had received prior endocrine therapy and three had received prior salvage radiotherapy to the brain. Two patients had metastases limited to the brain and the remaining eight also had extracranial metastases. All patients were assessable for response. Six achieved a partial response in the brain (CT/enhanced-contrast MRI), three showed disease stabilization, and one had disease progression as best response. Median duration of response was 4 months and median time to progression was 6 months. Seven patients are still alive and therefore median overall survival has not been reached. A total of 58 cycles of capecitabine were delivered. The most common toxicities (% of cycles) were neutropenia (G1/2 43.1%, G3/G4 8.6%), hand-foot syndrome (G1/2 25.9%, G3 8.6%), anemia (G1/2 29.3%, G3 1.7%), diarrhea (G1/2 20.6%, G3 5.2%), nausea/vomiting (G1/2 24.1%), stomatitis (G1/2 12%), thrombocytopenia (G1 8.6%), and fatigue (G1/2 6.9%). Conclusions: Our small study suggests that capecitabine has pronounced anticancer activity in patients with brain metastases from breast cancer with reasonable tolerability and easy administration as outpatient treatment. Further investigation is warranted. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Download Full-text

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from MARIANNE: A phase III study of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) +/- pertuzumab (P) vs trastuzumab + taxane (HT) for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2016.34.15_suppl.593 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 34 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 593-593

Author(s):

Carlos H. Barrios ◽

David Cella ◽

Miguel Martin ◽

Wolfgang Eiermann ◽

Howard A. Burris ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Advanced Breast Cancer ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Advanced Breast ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Trastuzumab Emtansine ◽

Her2 Positive ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Phase Iii Study

Download Full-text

Next steps: Incorporating patient-reported outcomes into palliative care referral for people with advanced breast cancer.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2018.36.34_suppl.133 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 36 (34_suppl) ◽

pp. 133-133

Author(s):

Yun Rose Li ◽

Celine Denise Marquez ◽

Hope S. Rugo ◽

Michael W. Rabow ◽

Laura Esserman

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Palliative Care ◽

Advanced Breast Cancer ◽

Severity Score ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Metastatic Cancer ◽

Advanced Breast ◽

Patient Specific ◽

Patient Reported

133 Background: Specialty palliative care (SPC) has been shown to improve quality of life, reduce unnecessary health care utilization, reduce overall costs, and decrease mortality in some settings for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer, however only a small proportion are being promptly referred. As interventions that respond to patient reported outcomes (PROs) have been shown to improve symptoms and decrease mortality, we hypothesized that the rates of SPC referral would be increased by documenting, tracking, and presenting PROs for oncology visits to referring oncologists. Methods: Over a period of 2 months, 74 English-speaking established patients seen in an advanced breast cancer clinic with an embedded SPC service were approached and completed the study. All patients filled out the electronic, validated PROMIS and PRO-CTCAE PRO questionnaires in the waiting room using a touch screen tablet. Results were presented to the oncologist during the encounter if the CTCAE severity score exceeded 3 in at least 1 domain. Patient demographics, clinical features and PC referrals or appointments were assessed via chart review. Results: At baseline, 9 (12.2%) patients scored a minimum of “severe” (4/5 or 5/5) in at least 1 of the 3 anxiety domains; 17 (23.0%) had moderate-severe pain; and 27 (32.1%) reported fatigue. At study entry, 25 patients (33.8%) had been referred previously to the SPC service; 19 had actually been seen (76% of referred). Of the 63 (85.1%) patients with sufficient follow-up, 13 (20.6%) reported at least “severe” in >1 CTCAE domains, 6 (46.2%) of whom were previously referred to SPC. For the remaining 7 patients, median PROMIS T-score and PRO-CTCAE maximum severity score were 58.3 and 3.2, respectively; none were referred to SPC during the follow up period. Conclusions: The choice to refer (or not to refer) a patient to SPC is complex and tied to patient specific factors such as coordinating additional visits and fear of end of life conversations. To enable greater access to SPC, alternative referral mechanisms, such as group-based or personalized patient education, or automatic referrals triggered by evidence of need, may be required. #YRL/CDM contributed equally.

Download Full-text