Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 1881–1886 | Cite as

Enhancing accrual to chemotherapy trials for patients with early stage triple-negative breast cancer: a survey of physicians and patients

  • Carmel Jacobs
  • Mark Clemons
  • Sasha Mazzarello
  • Brian Hutton
  • Anil A. Joy
  • Muriel Brackstone
  • Orit Freedman
  • Lisa Vandermeer
  • Mohammed Ibrahim
  • Dean Fergusson
  • John Hilton
Original Article
  • 192 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The optimal chemotherapy regimen for patients with early stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) remains unknown. The purpose of the study is to survey physicians and breast cancer patients about preferred chemotherapy regimens for early stage TNBC and clinical trial strategies.

Methods

A standardised online questionnaire was developed and circulated to medical oncologists known to treat breast cancer. A separate questionnaire was given to patients who had received chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Results

The questionnaire was completed by 41/84 medical oncologists (48.8% response rate) and 74 patients. The most commonly used neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for TNBC were dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC)–paclitaxel (P), dose-dense AC followed by weekly P and fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide–docetaxel (FEC-D). The majority of medical oncologists (80%) would be willing to enrol patients in trials evaluating the most effective chemotherapy regimen for TNBC. Oncologists favoured a three arm trial design comparing currently available standard of care treatments (36%) and trials of novel or non-standard of care agents 22% (9/41). Sixty percent (41/74) of patients indicated that they would be willing to be enrolled in trials evaluating various adjuvant regimens for TNBC. Both oncologists and patients were interested in novel consent approaches such as using the integrated consent model.

Conclusion

Optimisation of chemotherapy for TNBC is an important and unmet clinical need. It is apparent that various chemotherapy regimens are used for patients with early stage TNBC. The majority of medical oncologists and patients are interested in entering trials to optimise chemotherapy choices.

Keywords

Breast cancer Triple negative Trial design Chemotherapy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Local research ethics board approval was obtained from the Ottawa Health Science Network Research Ethics Board for both surveys.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Supplementary material

520_2017_3580_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 16 kb)
520_2017_3580_MOESM2_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 2(DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S et al (2010) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College Of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 28(16):2784–2795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, Cote RJ et al (2007) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 25(1):118–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Trivers KF, Lund MJ, Porter PL, Liff JM, Flagg EW, Coates RJ et al (2009) The epidemiology of triple-negative breast cancer, including race. Cancer Causes Control: CCC 20(7):1071–1082CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lin NU, Vanderplas A, Hughes ME, Theriault RL, Edge SB, Wong YN et al (2012) Clinicopathologic features, patterns of recurrence, and survival among women with triple-negative breast cancer in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cancer 118(22):5463–5472CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Henderson IC, Citron ML, Budman DR, Goldstein LJ et al (2006) Estrogen-receptor status and outcomes of modern chemotherapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer. JAMA 295(14):1658–1667CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Villarreal-Garza C, Khalaf D, Bouganim N, Clemons M, Pena-Curiel O, Baez-Revueltas B et al (2014) Platinum-based chemotherapy in triple-negative advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 146(3):567–572CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Khalaf D, Hilton JF, Clemons M, Azoulay L, Yin H, Vandermeer L et al (2014) Investigating the discernible and distinct effects of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer on time to progression. Oncol Lett 7(3):866–870PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kassam F, Enright K, Dent R, Dranitsaris G, Myers J, Flynn C et al (2009) Survival outcomes for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: implications for clinical practice and trial design. Clinical Breast Cancer 9(1):29–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines. 2014 [cited 2015 September 16]. Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf
  10. 10.
    Amir E, Ocana A, Freedman O, Clemons M, Seruga B (2010) Chemotherapy: dose-dense treatment for triple-negative breast cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 7(2):79–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    von Minckwitz G, Schneeweiss A, Loibl S, Salat C, Denkert C, Rezai M et al (2014) Neoadjuvant carboplatin in patients with triple-negative and HER2-positive early breast cancer (GeparSixto; GBG 66): a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncology 15(7):747–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sikov WM, Berry DA, Perou CM, Singh B, Cirrincione CT, Tolaney SM et al (2015) Impact of the addition of carboplatin and/or bevacizumab to neoadjuvant once-per-week paclitaxel followed by dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide on pathologic complete response rates in stage II to III triple-negative breast cancer: CALGB 40603 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 33(1):13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim SY, Miller FG (2014) Informed consent for pragmatic trials—the integrated consent model. N Engl J Med 370(8):769–772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hilton J, Mazzarello S, Fergusson D, Joy AA, Robinson A, Arnaout A, et al. (2016) Novel methodology for comparing standard-of-care interventions in patients with cancer. J Oncol Pract 12(12):e1016–e1024Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sugarman J, Califf RM (2014) Ethics and regulatory complexities for pragmatic clinical trials. JAMA 311(23):2381–2382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bouganim N, Tsvetkova E, Clemons M, Amir E (2013) Evolution of sites of recurrence after early breast cancer over the last 20 years: implications for patient care and future research. Breast Cancer Res Treat 139(2):603–606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ibrahim MFK MS, Hilton J, Ferguson D, Robinson A, Califaretti N, Hutton B, Vandermeer L, Clemons M (2016) A multi centre study to determine the feasibility of using an integrated consent model to compare schedules of G-CSF (filgrastim) for primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) in early stage breast cancer (REaCT-G Study). 2016 CAMO Annual Scientific Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mazzarello S IM, Hilton J, Joy AA, Arnaout A, Vandermeer L, Hutton B, Fergusson D, Clemons M (2016) Feasibility of using a pragmatic trials model to compare two standard of care regimens (ciprofloxacin versus G-CSF) for primary prophylaxis of taxotere/cyclophosphamide-induced febrile neutropenia (REaCT-TC). 2016 CAMO Scientific Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mazzarello S FD, Arnaout A, Hilton J, Joy AA, Robinson A, Hutton B, Vandermeer L, Clemons M (2016) A novel methodology for comparing standard of care interventions in cancer patients—the Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program. Applied Research in Cancer Control Conference 2016, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jacobs C, Ibrahim MF, Clemons M, Hutton B, Simos D, Caudrelier JM et al (2015) Treatment choices for patients with invasive lobular breast cancer: a doctor survey. J Eval Clin Pract 21(4):740–748CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jacobs C, Hutton B, Mazzarello S, Smith S, Joy A, Amir E et al (2015) Optimisation of steroid prophylaxis schedules in breast cancer patients receiving docetaxel chemotherapy-a survey of health care providers and patients. Supportive Care in Cancer: Official Journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer 23(11):3269–3275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hutton B, Addison C, Mazzarello S, Joy AA, Bouganim N, Fergusson D et al (2013) De-escalated administration of bone-targeted agents in patients with breast and prostate cancer—a survey of Canadian oncologists. J Bone Oncol 2(2):77–83CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hernandez Torres C, Mazzarello S, Ng T, Dranitsaris G, Hutton B, Smith S, et al. (2015) Defining optimal control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting-based on patients’ experience. Support Care Cancer 23(11):3341–3359Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dillman DA (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    ClinicalTrials.gov. A multi centre study to determine the feasibility of using an integrated consent model to compare standard of care administration schedules of G-CSF (Filgrastim) for primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in early stage breast cancer (React-G Study) NCT02428114 2015 [cited 2015 December 14]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02428114
  26. 26.
    Dykema J, Jones NR, Piche T, Stevenson J (2013) Surveying clinicians by web: current issues in design and administration. Eval Health Prof 36(3):352–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klabunde CN, Willis GB, Casalino LP (2013) Facilitators and barriers to survey participation by physicians: a call to action for researchers. Eval Health Prof 36(3):279–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fernandes R, Mazzarello S, Stober C, Vandermeer L, Dudani S, Ibrahim MF, et al. (2017) Optimal primary febrile neutropenia prophylaxis for patients receiving docetaxel-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 161(1):1–10Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mazzarello S, Clemons M, Graham ID, Jacobs C (2015) Surviving surveys. J Oncol Pract 11(1):44–46Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carmel Jacobs
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mark Clemons
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Sasha Mazzarello
    • 3
  • Brian Hutton
    • 4
  • Anil A. Joy
    • 5
  • Muriel Brackstone
    • 6
  • Orit Freedman
    • 7
  • Lisa Vandermeer
    • 3
  • Mohammed Ibrahim
    • 2
  • Dean Fergusson
    • 3
    • 8
  • John Hilton
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Public Health and Preventative MedicineUniversity of Ottawa School of EpidemiologyOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Division of Medical Oncology and Department of MedicineUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  3. 3.The Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteOttawaCanada
  4. 4.Public Health and Preventative MedicineUniversity of Ottawa School of EpidemiologyOttawaCanada
  5. 5.Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Cross Cancer InstituteUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  6. 6.London Health Sciences CentreLondonCanada
  7. 7.Durham Regional Cancer CentreOshawaCanada
  8. 8.Department of MedicineUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations