Objective To examine the prevalence of, and risk factors for, depression and anxiety in women with early breast cancer in the five years after diagnosis. Design Observational cohort study. Setting NHS breast clinic, London. Participants 222 women with early breast cancer: 170 (77%) provided complete interview data up to either five years after diagnosis or recurrence. Main outcome measures Prevalence of clinically important depression and anxiety (structured psychiatric interview with standardised diagnostic criteria) and clinical and patient risk factors, including stressful life experiences (Bedford College life events and difficulties schedule). Results Nearly 50% of the women with early breast cancer had depression, anxiety, or both in the year after diagnosis, 25% in the second, third, and fourth years, and 15% in the fifth year. Point prevalence was 33% at diagnosis, falling to 15% after one year. 45% of those with recurrence experienced depression, anxiety, or both within three months of the diagnosis. Previous psychological treatment predicted depression, anxiety, or both in the period around diagnosis (one month before diagnosis to four months after diagnosis). Longer term depression and anxiety, were associated with previous psychological treatment, lack of an intimate confiding relationship, younger age, and severely stressful non-cancer life experiences. Clinical factors were not associated with depression and anxiety, at any time. Lack of intimate confiding support also predicted more protracted episodes of depression and anxiety. Conclusion Increased levels of depression, anxiety, or both in the first year after a diagnosis of early breast cancer highlight the need for dedicated service provision during this time. Psychological interventions for women with breast cancer who remain disease free should take account of the broader social context in which the cancer occurs, with a focus on improving social support.

Background Few data exist on the comparative safety and immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccines given as a third (booster) dose. To generate data to optimise selection of booster vaccines, we investigated the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of seven different COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT). Methods COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of third dose booster vaccination against COVID-19. Participants were aged older than 30 years, and were at least 70 days post two doses of ChAd or at least 84 days post two doses of BNT primary COVID-19 immunisation course, with no history of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 18 sites were split into three groups (A, B, and C). Within each site group (A, B, or C), participants were randomly assigned to an experimental vaccine or control. Group A received NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax; hereafter referred to as NVX), a half dose of NVX, ChAd, or quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) control (1:1:1:1). Group B received BNT, VLA2001 (Valneva; hereafter referred to as VLA), a half dose of VLA, Ad26. COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) or MenACWY (1:1:1:1:1). Group C received mRNA1273 (Moderna; hereafter referred to as m1273), CVnCov (CureVac; hereafter referred to as CVn), a half dose of BNT, or MenACWY (1:1:1:1). Participants and all investigatory staff were blinded to treatment allocation. Coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity and immunogenicity of anti-spike IgG measured by ELISA. The primary analysis for immunogenicity was on a modified intention-to-treat basis; safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the intentionto-treat population. Secondary outcomes included assessment of viral neutralisation and cellular responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 73765130. Findings Between June 1 and June 30, 2021, 3498 people were screened. 2878 participants met eligibility criteria and received COVID-19 vaccine or control. The median ages of ChAd/ChAd-primed participants were 53 years (IQR 44-61) in the younger age group and 76 years (73-78) in the older age group. In the BNT/BNT-primed participants, the median ages were 51 years (41-59) in the younger age group and 78 years (75-82) in the older age group. In the ChAd/ChAD-primed group, 676 (46•7%) participants were female and 1380 (95•4%) were White, and in the BNT/ BNT-primed group 770 (53•6%) participants were female and 1321 (91•9%) were White. Three vaccines showed overall increased reactogenicity: m1273 after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT; and ChAd and Ad26 after BNT/BNT. For ChAd/ChAd-primed individuals, spike IgG geometric mean ratios (GMRs) between study vaccines and controls ranged from 1•8 (99% CI 1•5-2•3) in the half VLA group to 32•3 (24•8-42•0) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wildtype cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1•1 (95% CI 0•7-1•6) for ChAd to 3•6 (2•4-5•5) for m1273. For BN...

BackgroundWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the risk of early and late cardiotoxicity of anthracycline agents in patients treated for breast or ovarian cancer, lymphoma, myeloma or sarcoma.MethodsRandomized controlled trials were sought using comprehensive searches of electronic databases in June 2008. Reference lists of retrieved articles were also scanned for additional articles. Outcomes investigated were early or late clinical and sub-clinical cardiotoxicity. Trial quality was assessed, and data were pooled through meta-analysis where appropriate.ResultsFifty-five published RCTs were included; the majority were on women with advanced breast cancer. A significantly greater risk of clinical cardiotoxicity was found with anthracycline compared with non-anthracycline regimens (OR 5.43 95% confidence interval: 2.34, 12.62), anthracycline versus mitoxantrone (OR 2.88 95% confidence interval: 1.29, 6.44), and bolus versus continuous anthracycline infusions (OR 4.13 95% confidence interval: 1.75, 9.72). Risk of clinical cardiotoxicity was significantly lower with epirubicin versus doxorubicin (OR 0.39 95% confidence interval: 0.20, 0.78), liposomal versus non-liposomal doxorubicin (OR 0.18 95% confidence interval: 0.08, 0.38) and with a concomitant cardioprotective agent (OR 0.21 95% confidence interval: 0.13, 0.33). No statistical heterogeneity was found for these pooled analyses. A similar pattern of results were found for subclinical cardiotoxicity; with risk significantly greater with anthracycline containing regimens and bolus administration; and significantly lower risk with epirubicin, liposomal doxorubicin versus doxorubicin but not epirubicin, and with concomitant use of a cardioprotective agent. Low to moderate statistical heterogeneity was found for two of the five pooled analyses, perhaps due to the different criteria used for reduction in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction. Meta-analyses of any cardiotoxicity (clinical and subclinical) showed moderate to high statistical heterogeneity for four of five pooled analyses; criteria for any cardiotoxic event differed between studies. Nonetheless the pattern of results was similar to those for clinical or subclinical cardiotoxicity described above.ConclusionsEvidence is not sufficiently robust to support clear evidence-based recommendations on different anthracycline treatment regimens, or for routine use of cardiac protective agents or liposomal formulations. There is a need to improve cardiac monitoring in oncology trials.

No abstract

ObjectiveTo obtain evidence whether the online pulmonary rehabilitation(PR) programme ‘my-PR’ is non-inferior to a conventional face-to-face PR in improving physical performance and symptom scores in patients with COPD.DesignA two-arm parallel single-blind, randomised controlled trial.SettingThe online arm carried out pulmonary rehabilitation in their own homes and the face to face arm in a local rehabilitation facility.Participants90 patients with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), modified Medical Research Council score of 2 or greater referred for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), randomised in a 2:1 ratio to online (n=64) or face-to-face PR (n=26). Participants unable to use an internet-enabled device at home were excluded.Main outcome measuresCoprimary outcomes were 6 min walk distance test and the COPD assessment test (CAT) score at completion of the programme.InterventionsA 6-week PR programme organised either as group sessions in a local rehabilitation facility, or online PR via log in and access to 'myPR’.ResultsThe adjusted mean difference for the 6 min walk test (6MWT) between groups for the intention-to-treat (ITT) population was 23.8 m with the lower 95% CI well above the non-inferiority threshold of −40.5 m at −4.5 m with an upper 95% CI of +52.2 m. This result was consistent in the per-protocol (PP) population with a mean adjusted difference of 15 m (−13.7 to 43.8). The CAT score difference in the ITT was −1.0 in favour of the online intervention with the upper 95% CI well below the non-inferiority threshold of 1.8 at 0.86 and the lower 95% CI of −2.9. The PP analysis was consistent with the ITT.ConclusionPR is an evidenced-based and guideline-mandated intervention for patients with COPD with functional limitation. A 6-week programme of online-supported PR was non-inferior to a conventional model delivered in face-to-face sessions in terms of effects on 6MWT distance, and symptom scores and was safe and well tolerated.