Discordance in estrogen (ER), progesterone (PR), and HER2/neu status between primary breast tumours and metastatic disease is well recognized. In this review, we highlight how receptor discordance between primary tumours and paired metastasis can help elucidate the mechanism of metastasis but can also effect patient management and the design of future trials. Discordance rates and ranges were available from 47 studies (3384 matched primary and metastatic pairs) reporting ER, PR, and HER2/neu expression for both primary and metastatic sites. Median discordance rates for ER, PR, and HER2/neu were 14 % (range 0-67 %, IQR 9-25 %), 21 % (range 0-62 %, IQR 15-41 %), and 10 % (range 0-44 %, IQR 4-17 %), respectively. Loss of receptor expression was more common (9.17 %) than gain (4.51 %). Discordance rates varied amongst site of metastasis with ER discordance being highest in bone metastases suggesting that discordance is a true biological phenomenon. Discordance rates vary for both the biomarker and the metastatic site. Loss of expression is more common than gain. This can affect patient management as it can lead to a reduction in both the efficacy and availability of potential therapeutic agents. Future studies are recommended to explore both the mechanisms of discordance as well as its impact on patient outcome and management.

Physicians and academic researchers are frequently targeted with spam invitations to submit manuscripts to predatory journals. This study was conducted to understand the nature and characteristics of these invitations. All spam e-mails received by an academic medical oncologist over a 3-month period were collected and categorized. Presumed predatory journal invitations were analyzed and cross-checked against Beall's list of "potential, probable, or possible predatory" journals and publishers. Invitations to submit to predatory journals were the most common single type of spam received. 2017;22:236-240.

Preclinical and clinical evidence suggests that mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) may be beneficial in treating both acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and ischemic heart failure (IHF). However, the safety profile and efficacy of MSC therapy is not well‐known. We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials that evaluated the safety or efficacy of MSCs for AMI or IHF. Embase, PubMed/Medline, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to September 27, 2017. Studies that examined the use of MSCs administered to adults with AMI or IHF were eligible. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess bias of included studies. The primary outcome was safety assessed by adverse events and the secondary outcome was efficacy which was assessed by mortality and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). A total of 668 citations were reviewed and 23 studies met eligibility criteria. Of these, 11 studies evaluated AMI and 12 studies evaluated IHF. There was no association between MSCs and acute adverse events. There was a significant improvement in overall LVEF in patients who received MSCs (SMD 0.73, 95% CI 0.24–1.21). No significant difference in mortality was noted (Peto OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.38–1.22). Results from our systematic review suggest that MSC therapy for ischemic heart disease appears to be safe. There is a need for a well‐designed adequately powered randomized control trial (with rigorous adverse event reporting and evaluations of cardiac function) to further establish a clear risk‐benefit profile of MSCs. Stem Cells Translational Medicine 2018;7:857–866

Perceptions among women with breast cancer about the relative importance of different potential chemotherapy side effects is not well understood. A survey was performed by women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer. Grade I/II (mild to moderate) and III/IV (moderate to severe) descriptions of nine common chemotherapy side effects were assigned preference weights using the standard gamble technique. For each hypothetical side effect, patients could choose to stay in the respective side effect state or take a gamble between full health (probability p) or being dead (1 - p). For each side effect, p was varied until the patient was indifferent between these options. The survey also included questions about the importance of survival, slowing cancer growth, and quality of life. This analysis included 69 patients; mean age 54 years (range 35-84), representing all cancer stages. Standard gamble preferences were lowest (i.e., least preferred) for grade III/IV nausea/vomiting (0.621), indicating that patients would, on average, risk a 38 % chance of being dead to avoid having grade III/IV nausea/vomiting for the rest of their lives. The next least preferred side effects were grade III/IV diarrhea (0.677) and grade III/IV sensory neuropathy (0.694). Survival appeared more important than slowing cancer growth and maintaining quality of life across cancer stages. Nevertheless, patients with advanced disease placed less importance on survival (p = 0.09) and higher importance on quality of life (p = 0.05). These standard gamble utilities provide unique insights into chemotherapy toxicities from the patient perspective. Differences in the relative importance of overall survival and quality of life with treatment existed between patients with different stages of disease. These studies should be expanded as the data may also be used to calculate quality-adjusted life expectancy in cost-effectiveness evaluations of breast cancer chemotherapies.

Objective. Our objective was to evaluate preferences associated with grade I/II and grade III/IV chemotherapy side effects among breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. We also assessed trade-offs that patients are willing to make between treatment side effects and the route and schedule of treatment administration. Methods. In this cross-sectional study, patients receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer completed a one-time Web survey. Conjoint analysis was used to elicit preferences for 17 grade I/II and III/IV side effects associated with available chemotherapies and regimens. In the analysis, the risk of each side effect was increased by 5%, holding all others constant, and the respective impact on patient preferences was identified. Results. A total of 102 women participated (mean age 54 6 11). Among the grade I/II side effects, a 5% reduction in the risk of sensory neuropathy, nausea, and motor neuropathy had the highest impact on preferences. Among grade III/IV side effects, motor neuropathy, nausea/vomiting, and myalgia made the most difference. An oral twice-daily regimen was most preferred; however, patients werewillingto receive an intravenous regimen relative to oral to avoid an increased risk of 5% in the majority of side effects. Avoiding an increased chance of grade III/IV motor neuropathy was associated with willingness to tolerate one of the least preferred administration schedules. Conclusion. This study identified relative preferences among both mild/moderate to severe side effects from the patient perspective. Patients appear to be willing to make trade-offs between side effects and different regimens. These findings may help to inform medical decision-making processes. The Oncologist 2014;19:127-134 Implications for Practice: Patient care has shown a gradual shift from a paternalistic model, in which the patient serves a passive role, to a model of shared decision making, in which patients become active participants in their health care plans. The current literature has suggested that this approach can result in increased satisfaction and adherence. In the current study, patients with breast cancer were able to express clear preferences for and make trade-offs among various grade I/II and grade III/IV side effects. Understanding these preferences and incorporating them into their treatment plans for breast cancer patients could lead to substantially improved clinical and quality of life outcomes.

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01913990.

In the absence of high-quality data comparing vascular access strategies, randomised, adequately powered, prospective studies would be required to help inform clinical practice and reduce variation.

Background Optimal dosing of bone-targeted agents (BTAs), in patients with bone metastases remains an important clinical question. This trial compared 4-weekly versus 12-weekly therapy. Patients and methods Patients with bone metastases from breast or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), who were going to start or already on BTAs, were randomised 1:1 to 4-weekly or 12-weekly BTA treatment for one year. Primary end point was change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL)-physical function European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-QLQ-C30). Secondary end points included pain (EORTC-QLQ-BM22), global health status (EORTC-QLQ-C30), symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) rates and time to SSEs. Primary analysis was per protocol and a non-inferiority margin of 5 points was used. Results Of 263 patients (160 breast cancer, 103 CRPC), 133 (50.6%) and 130 (49.4%) were randomised to the 4- and 12-weekly groups, respectively. BTAs included denosumab (56.3%), zoledronate (24.0%) and pamidronate (19.8%). Using repeated-measures analysis, across all time points, patients in the 4-weekly arm had a mean HRQL-physical subdomain score which was 1.2 (95% confidence interval: -1.6 to 4.0) higher than the 12-weekly arm. The study met the definition of non-inferiority for our primary outcome. Secondary outcomes showed no significant difference in scores for pain, global health status, SSE rates and SSE-free survival between arms. Subgroup analyses for cancer type, prior BTA use or BTA type showed no significant difference between arms. Conclusion These results in addition to those previously reported for de-escalating zoledronate and systematic reviews in both breast and prostate cancers, would support that de-escalation of commonly used BTAs is a reasonable treatment option.