Background: When monitoring patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC), the optimal strategies for imaging and utilization of tumor markers (TM) are uncertain. Patients and Methods: We used a retrospective cohort of 302 patients with de novo mBC treated from 2000 to 2012 at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute to describe the type and timing of imaging and TM testing during the first line of treatment (baseline, first, and subsequent testing). Results: At baseline, all patients had staging scans, with increasing use of PET/PET-CT (17.5% from 2000–2002; 40.3% from 2009–2012). PET/PET-CT was used by itself in only 12.5% of cases. Overall, 30.1% of patients, of whom 80.2% had no neurologic symptoms, underwent central nervous system (CNS) screening; 78.2% of patients had baseline TM testing. Over the course of treatment, 23.5% of patients had TM retested once a month or more. Time-to-first reimaging varied by disease site (hazard ratios for shorter time-to-first reimaging [95% CI] vs bone: brain, 4.27 [1.46–12.50]; liver, 2.19 [1.39–3.46]; lung, 2.75 [1.66–4.57]), but was not associated with tumor subtype or baseline TM testing, regardless of test results. First reimaging was prompted by an elevation in TM in only 1.4% of cases. There was weak correlation between frequency of imaging and TM tests (r=0.33; R2=0.11; P<.001). Discussion: Over time, we found an increased utilization of more sophisticated imaging staging techniques, such as PET/PET-CT scan, which was mostly requested in addition to other radiographic studies. CNS evaluations were frequently performed to screen asymptomatic patients. TM testing was often ordered, both at baseline and after treatment initiation. However, patterns of imaging utilization, although appropriately influenced by clinicopathologic factors such as disease site, did not appear to be impacted by TM testing. Conclusions: Studies focused on optimizing disease monitoring, including better integration of TM testing with imaging, are encouraged.
Antonio Di Meglio, Nancy U. Lin, Rachel A. Freedman, William T. Barry, Eric P. Winer, and Ines Vaz-Luis
Antonio Di Meglio, Cecile Charles, Elise Martin, Julie Havas, Arnauld Gbenou, Jean-Daniel Flaysakier, Anne-Laure Martin, Sibille Everhard, Enora Laas, Nicolas Chopin, Laurence Vanlemmens, Christelle Jouannaud, Christelle Levy, Olivier Rigal, Marion Fournier, Patrick Soulie, Florian Scotte, Barbara Pistilli, Agnes Dumas, Gwenn Menvielle, Fabrice André, Stefan Michiels, Sarah Dauchy, and Ines Vaz-Luis
Background: Physical activity (PA) and psychosocial interventions are recommended management strategies for cancer-related fatigue (CRF). Randomized trials support the use of mind–body techniques, whereas no data show benefit for homeopathy or naturopathy. Methods: We used data from CANTO (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01993498), a multicenter, prospective study of stage I–III breast cancer (BC). CRF, evaluated after primary treatment completion using the EORTC QLQ-C30 (global CRF) and QLQ-FA12 (physical, emotional, and cognitive dimensions), served as the independent variable (severe [score of ≥40/100] vs nonsevere). Outcomes of interest were adherence to PA recommendations (≥10 metabolic equivalent of task [MET] h/week [GPAQ-16]) and participation in consultations with a psychologist, psychiatrist, acupuncturist, or other complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioner (homeopath and/or naturopath) after CRF assessment. Multivariable logistic regression examined associations between CRF and outcomes, adjusting for sociodemographic, psychologic, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Results: Among 7,902 women diagnosed from 2012 through 2017, 36.4% reported severe global CRF, and 35.8%, 22.6%, and 14.1% reported severe physical, emotional, and cognitive CRF, respectively. Patients reporting severe global CRF were less likely to adhere to PA recommendations (60.4% vs 66.7%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71–0.94; P=.004), and slightly more likely to see a psychologist (13.8% vs 7.5%; aOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05–1.58; P=.014), psychiatrist (10.4% vs 5.0%; aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10–1.76; P=.0064), acupuncturist (9.8% vs 6.5%; aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.17–1.82; P=.0008), or CAM practitioner (12.5% vs 8.2%; aOR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.23–1.82; P<.0001). There were differences in recommendation uptake by CRF dimension, including that severe physical CRF was associated with lower adherence to PA (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63–0.86; P=.0001) and severe emotional CRF was associated with higher likelihood of psychologic consultations (aOR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.06–1.79; P=.017). Conclusions: Uptake of recommendations to improve CRF, including adequate PA and use of psychosocial services, seemed suboptimal among patients with early-stage BC, whereas there was a nonnegligible interest in homeopathy and naturopathy. Findings of this large study indicate the need to implement recommendations for managing CRF in clinical practice.