Concerns around pharmacological interaction between tamoxifen and antidepressants have resulted in evidence-base guidelines that recommend avoidance or caution with concurrent use. It remains unclear however whether this interaction is clinically important. A systematic review of studies comparing endocrine therapy (including tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors) alone or concurrent with antidepressants in breast cancer patients was performed. The literature search sought studies within MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library published from database inception until December 1, 2020. Outcomes of interest included recurrence, breast cancer-specific survival, overall mortality, quality of life, and treatment compliance. Studies were assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle Ottawa tool for case-control and cohort studies. From 695 citations, we included 15 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [255 patients], 10 retrospective cohort studies [75,678 patients], and 3 case-control studies [18,836 patients]). While between-study clinical and methodologic differences (including analysis of confounding variables) precluded formal meta-analysis, findings from included studies did not find consistent evidence that concurrent use of antidepressants (including paroxetine) with tamoxifen therapy has negative impacts on the outcomes of interest. In this systematic review, despite data from nearly 100,000 patients, concurrent use of tamoxifen and antidepressants showed no consistent negative effect on clinical outcomes. Given the recognized harm to patients of changing either endocrine therapy or antidepressants to avoid concurrent use, current evidence-based guidelines should be updated accordingly. More rigorously designed pharmacoepidemiologic studies are needed.

Follow-up care of early breast cancer (EBC) patients usually includes routinely scheduled physical examinations. While ASCO guidelines recommend a physical exam every three to six months for the first three years, little evidence supports this schedule. We evaluated recurrence detection of patients transferred into a single centre survivorship program that follows ASCO recommendations. Patients with EBC referred to the Wellness Beyond Cancer Program (WBCP) who had breast cancer recurrence between February 1, 2013, and January 1, 2019 were reviewed. Descriptive analyses were used to present patient and disease characteristics stratified by type of recurrence and mode of cancer detection. Of 206 recurrences, 135 were distant recurrences (65.5%), 41 were ipsilateral breast recurrences (19.9%), and 30 were contralateral breast primaries (14.6%). Distant recurrences were primarily detected via patient-reported symptoms (125/135, 92.6%). 53.7% (22/41) of ipsilateral breast recurrences were detected by patients and 41.5% (17/41) by routine imaging. Contralateral breast primaries were primarily detected by imaging 83.3% (25/30) and patient-reported symptoms 16.7% (5/30). Only 2/206 (1.14%) recurrences/new primaries were detected by healthcare providers at routinely scheduled follow-up visits. Despite following ASCO guidelines, healthcare providers rarely detect recurrences at routinely scheduled follow-up appointments. Our data suggests that approximately 35, 000 follow-up visits were required for healthcare providers to detect these 2 recurrences. While reduced in-person visits may affect other aspects of follow-up care (e.g. toxicity management), it appears unlikely, provided patients attend regular screening tests, that less frequent in-person follow-up is associated with worse breast cancer-related outcomes.

Older patients with lower-risk hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer are frequently offered both radiotherapy (RT) and endocrine therapy (ET) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). A survey was performed to assess older patients’ experiences and perceptions regarding RT and ET, and participation interest in de-escalation trials. Of the 130 patients approached, 102 eligible patients completed the survey (response rate 78%). The median age of respondents was 74 (interquartile range 71–76). Most participants (71%, 72/102) received both RT and ET. Patients felt the role of RT and ET, respectively, was to: reduce ipsilateral tumor recurrence (91%, 90/99 and 62%, 61/99) and improve survival (56%, 55/99 and 49%, 49/99). More patients had significant concerns regarding ET (66%, 65/99) than RT (39%, 37/95). When asked which treatment had the most negative effect on their quality of life, the results showed: ET (35%, 25/72), RT (14%, 10/72) or both (8%, 6/72). Participants would rather receive RT (57%, 41/72) than ET (43%, 31/72). Forty-four percent (44/100) of respondents were either, “not comfortable” or “not interested” in participating in potential de-escalation trials. Although most of the adjuvant therapy de-escalation trials evaluate the omission of RT, de-escalation studies of ET are warranted and patient centered.

Despite the increasing use of adjuvant bisphosphonates for early stage breast cancer (EBC), little is known about the patient experience with such treatments. A patient survey was performed to identify current prescribing practices, perceptions around the role of treatment, the impact of treatment on patients’ quality of life, and future trial designs. EBC patients who had either completed or were currently receiving adjuvant bisphosphonates were sent an anonymized survey. The survey collected information on patient and disease characteristics, bisphosphonate scheduling, compliance, and tolerance. Questions also assessed patient interest in trials of de-escalated bisphosphonate therapy. A total of 255 patients were contacted, with 164 eligible respondents (eligible response rate 164/255, 64.3%). Median patient age was 52 years (range 28 to 82 years). The majority (111/163, 68.1%) were postmenopausal at the time of diagnosis, 23.3% (38/163) were premenopausal, and 7.4% (12/163) were perimenopausal. Most patients (78%) had received chemotherapy. Zoledronate was the most commonly used bisphosphonate (92%), with the majority receiving treatment every 6 months for 3 years (73%). While 66% (107/161) of respondents had experienced side effects with treatment, most had, or expected to, complete treatment (154/163, 94%). Provided there was no detriment in breast cancer outcomes, there was strong interest in future studies of de-escalating adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy. While most patients tolerate their treatment, there is interest in performing trials of de-escalation of these agents.

When managing older patients with lower-risk hormone-receptor-positive (HR+), HER2 negative (HER2−) early-stage breast cancer (EBC), the harms and benefits of adjuvant therapies should be taken into consideration. A survey was conducted among Canadian oncologists on the definitions of “low risk” and “older”, practice patterns, and future trial designs. We contacted 254 physicians and 21% completed the survey (50/242). Most respondents (68%, 34/50) agreed with the definition of “low risk” HR+/HER2− EBC being node-negative and either: ≤3 cm and low histological grade, ≤2 cm and intermediate grade, or ≤1 cm and high grade. The most popular chronological and biological age definition for older patients was ≥70 (45%, 22/49; 45% 21/47). In patients ≥ 70 with low risk EBC, most radiation and medical oncologists would recommend post-lumpectomy radiotherapy (RT) and endocrine therapy (ET). Seventy-eight percent (38/49) felt that trials are needed to evaluate RT and ET’s role in patients ≥ 70. The favored design was ET alone, vs. RT plus ET (39%, 15/38). The preferred primary and secondary endpoints were disease-free survival and quality of life, respectively. Although oncologists recommended both RT and ET, there is interest in performing de-escalation trials in patients ≥ 70.