Smith, Karen L.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Anti-HER2 therapies have transformed the trajectory for patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) MBC. A subset of patients with HER2+ MBC do exceptionally well and remain on maintenance anti-HER2 therapy for many years. However, current therapy is non-curative and patients are treated indefinitely. While these therapies often are well-tolerated, they may cause significant toxicities, are expensive, and typically require frequent infusion and provider visits. Case reports and retrospective series demonstrate that some patients may do well after stopping anti-HER2 treatment. We currently lack prospective data on the likelihood of clinical impact of successful treatment discontinuation, outcomes among patients who progress and restart HER2-directed therapy, and tools to predict who may safely stop therapy. In this study, we will enroll pts with an exceptional response to anti-HER2 therapy. Pts may elect to either continue or stop anti-HER2 therapy and will be followed clinically and radiographically on a protocol-specified schedule. Considering the central role of patients in choosing the study intervention arm, and the unique nature of stopping therapy as a treatment intervention, patient advocates have been deeply involved in the study design to ensure patient concerns are being heard and addressed. We will retrospectively assess minimal residual disease (MRD), measured in plasma, as a biomarker of ongoing response, in a step toward shifting the treatment paradigm for pts with HER2+ MBC. METHODS: STOP-HER2 is a prospective, non-randomized, phase II, multicenter study of either continuation (cohort 1) or cessation (cohort 2) of anti-HER2 therapy in exceptional responders with HER2+ MBC. Eligible patients must have biopsy-proven HER2+ MBC by ASCO/CAP guidelines and must have been receiving first-line anti-HER2 therapy for MBC for at least 3 years without evidence of progressive disease (PD) as determined by the treating investigator. Patients with prior brain-only PD or oligo-PD outside the brain are eligible at least 2 years after local treatment to the central nervous system (CNS) and in absence of subsequent PD. Up to fifty-two participants will be enrolled into cohort 2, and an additional thirty participants enrolled into the cohort 1, at 10 US sites within the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium. Co-primary endpoints are the 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) in cohorts 2 and 1, separately. Secondary endpoints include the clinical benefit rate upon re-initiation of anti-HER2 therapy for patients in cohort 2 experiencing PD after treatment discontinuation; and 3-year overall survival in both cohorts. Correlative endpoints include MRD status at baseline and the correlation between MRD dynamics and outcomes. Patient-reported outcomes will be collected and analyzed, including quality of life, illness intrusiveness, financial toxicity, anxiety, and decision regret. The study will use a two-stage design to assess the primary objective of estimating the rate of participants who are free of progression at one year after discontinuing anti-HER2 therapy. If 50% or less are free of progression at one year, stopping HER2 therapy would not be considered a viable treatment plan (null hypothesis). The study is designed to have 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at the 10% type I error rate when 68% of exceptional responders are free of progression at one year after stopping HER2 therapy. STOP-HER2 began enrollment in Q2 2023 (NCT05721248). Citation Format: Heather Parsons, Kathryn Ruddy, Stefania Morganti, Karen Smith, Victoria Attaya, Eliza Kallfelz, Michelle DeMeo, Jamie LaScala, Shirley Mertz, Teri Pollastro, Patricia Spears, Adam Brufsky, Chau Dang, Susan Dent, Ahmed Elkhanany, WIlliam Gwin, Ciara O'Sullivan, Kathy Miller, Sara Nunnery, Elaine Walsh, Anna Maria Storniolo, Sara Tolaney, Nabihah Tayob, Antonio Wolff, Eric Winer, Mothaffar Rimawi, Ian Krop, Nancy Lin. The STOP-HER2 Trial: A Phase 2 Study of Stopping Trastuzumab - Outcomes in Patients with HER2+ Metastatic Breast Cancer (TBCRC 062) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO2-20-01.

AbstractBackgroundBreast cancer patients experienced heightened anxiety during the pandemic. Also, modifications to clinical trial activities allowing for virtual platforms, local assessments, and greater flexibility were introduced to facilitate participation. We sought to evaluate the association between pandemic‐related anxiety and willingness to participate in trials and how pandemic‐era modifications to trial activities affect the decision to participate.MethodsWe conducted an online survey from August to September, 2021 of patients with breast cancer assessing pandemic‐related anxiety; clinical trials knowledge and attitudes; willingness to participate during and before the pandemic; and how each modification affects the decision to participate. Fisher's exact tests evaluated differences in proportions and two‐sample t‐tests evaluated differences in means. The association of pandemic‐related anxiety with a decline in willingness to participate during compared to prior to the pandemic was modeled using logistic regression.ResultsAmong 385 respondents who completed the survey, 81% reported moderate–severe pandemic‐related anxiety. Mean willingness to participate in a trial was lower during the pandemic than prior [2.97 (SD 1.17) vs. 3.10 (SD 1.09), (p < 0.001)]. Severe anxiety was associated with higher odds of diminished willingness to participate during the pandemic compared to prior (OR 5.07). Each of the modifications, with the exception of opting out of research‐only blood tests, were endorsed by >50% of respondents as strategies that would increase their likelihood of deciding to participate.ConclusionsWhile pandemic‐related anxiety was associated with diminished willingness to participate in trials, the leading reasons for reluctance to consider trial participation were unrelated to the pandemic but included worries about not getting the best treatment, side effects, and delaying care. Patients view trial modifications favorably, supporting continuation of these modifications, as endorsed by the National Cancer Institute and others.

AbstractBackgroundPatient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are a better tool for evaluating the experiences of patients who have symptomatic, treatment‐associated adverse events (AEs) compared with clinician‐rated AEs. The authors present PROs assessing health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment‐related neurotoxicity for adjuvant capecitabine versus platinum on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group‐American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG‐ACRIN) EA1131 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02445391).MethodsParticipants completed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI‐16) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Gynecologic Oncology Group neurotoxicity subscale (platinum arm only) at baseline, cycle 3 day 1 (C3D1), 6 months, and 15 months. Because of early termination, power was insufficient to test the hypothesis that HRQoL, as assessed by the NFBSI‐16 treatment side‐effect (TSE) subscale, would be better at 6 and 15 months in the capecitabine arm; all analyses were exploratory. Means were compared by using t‐tests or the Wilcoxon rank‐sum test, and proportions were compared by using the χ2 test.ResultsTwo hundred ninety‐six of 330 eligible patients provided PROs. The mean NFBSI‐16 TSE subscale score was lower for the platinum arm at baseline (p = .02; absolute difference, 0.6 points) and for the capecitabine arm at C3D1 (p = .04; absolute difference, 0.5 points), but it did not differ at other times. The mean change in TSE subscale scores differed between the arms from baseline to C3D1 (platinum arm, 0.15; capecitabine arm, −0.72; p = .03), but not from baseline to later time points. The mean decline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Gynecologic Oncology Group neurotoxicity subscale scores exceeded the minimal meaningful change (1.38 points) from baseline to each subsequent time point (all p < .05).ConclusionsDespite the similar frequency of clinician‐rated AEs, PROs identified greater on‐treatment symptom burden with capecitabine and complemented clinician‐rated AEs by characterizing patients’ experiences during chemotherapy.

Abstract PURPOSE: Treatment options for patients (pts) with HER2+ BCBM remain limited. We previously reported that neratinib monotherapy is associated with a volumetric central nervous system objective response rate (CNS ORR) of 8%, whereas the combination of neratinib and capecitabine resulted in a volumetric CNS ORR of 49% (in lapatinib-naïve pts). Preclinical data suggest that neratinib may overcome resistance to trastuzumab-emtansine (T-DM1) and that the combination has potential CNS efficacy. Here, we report results of neratinib plus T-DM1 in pts with HER2+ BCBM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, phase II study, pts with measurable HER2+ BCBM received neratinib 160 mg orally once daily plus T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg IV every 21 days in three parallel-enrolling cohorts. Cohort 4A enrolled pts with previously untreated brain metastases. Cohort 4B enrolled pts with BCBM progressing after prior local CNS-directed therapy without prior exposure to T-DM1. Cohort 4C enrolled pts with BCBM progressing after prior local CNS-directed therapy who had previous exposure to T-DM1. Diarrhea prophylaxis with colestipol and loperamide was required during cycle 1. Cohorts 4A and 4B were single-stage with a planned enrollment of 20 patients; cohort 4C had a two-stage design, with a requirement for at least 1 of the first 9 pts to achieve a response in order to enroll a total of 24 patients. The primary endpoint was Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology-Brain Metastases (RANO BM) in each cohort separately. Correlative studies included patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for gastrointestinal toxicity. RESULTS: We enrolled 6, 17, and 21 patients to cohorts 4A, 4B, and 4C, during 11/07/2018 – 11/01/2021. Enrollment was stopped prematurely due to slow accrual. Across Cohorts 4A-4C, the median number of prior lines of chemotherapy prior to enrollment was 2 (range 1-10); 25% received prior lapatinib and no patients received prior tucatinib. In cohorts 4B and 4C (prior CNS-treated cohorts), 33% had prior CNS surgery and &gt;94% had prior CNS radiation. Among evaluable patients, CNS ORR in cohorts 4A (n=6), 4B (n=16), and 4C (n=21) was 50.0% (95% CI 18.8- 81.2%), 25.0% (95% CI 8.3-52.6%), and 38.1% (95% CI 19.0-61.3%), respectively. Median (range) number of cycles completed for 4A, 4B, and 4C was 4.5 (1-15), 4 (range 0-49+), and 6 (0-23); three patients on Cohort 4B remain on protocol therapy (cycles 14, 45, and 49). The overall survival at 12-months for cohorts 4A, 4B, and 4C was 83.3% (95% CI, 58.3-100%), 86.2% (95% CI 70-100%), and 83.3% (95% CI 67.6-100%). Diarrhea was the most common grade 3 toxicity (19.0–33.3% across cohorts); one grade 4 liver function event occurred in cohort 4B. Updated efficacy results will be reported at the meeting; PRO analyses are ongoing. CONCLUSION: Intracranial activity was observed for the combination of neratinib plus T-DM1 across all three enrolled cohorts, including those with prior T-DM1 exposure, suggesting synergistic effects of this treatment combination. Our data provide additional evidence for consideration of neratinib-based combinations in pts with HER2+ BCBM. Citation Format: Rachel Freedman, Siyang Ren, Nabihah Tayob, Rebecca Gelman, Karen L. Smith, Raechel Davis, Alyssa Pereslete, Victoria Attaya, Christine Cotter, Wendy Y. Chen, Cesar Augusto Santa-Maria, Catherine Van Poznak, Beverly Moy, Adam M. Brufsky, Michelle Melisko, Ciara C. O’Sullivan, Nadia Ashai, Yasmeen Rauf, Julie Nangia, Dario Trapani, Jennifer Savoie, Robyn Burns, Antonio C. Wolff, Eric Winer, Mothaffar Rimawi, Ian Krop, Nancy U. Lin. Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium Trial 022: Neratinib and Trastuzumab-Emtansine for HER2+ Breast Cancer Brain Metastases (BCBM) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PD7-03.

Abstract Background: Historically, less than 10% of adult patients with cancer enroll in clinical trials, however, enrollment dropped further at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Barriers to trial participation during the pandemic have not been reported. As part of the TBCRC 057 survey on the impact of the pandemic on willingness to participate in breast cancer trials, we assessed reasons for reluctance to participate in trials during the pandemic. Methods: US residents who self-reported a breast cancer diagnosis were eligible to complete the online survey 8/6/21-9/30/21. Respondents indicated whether they were current trial participants and, if not, their willingness to consider participating in a trial during the pandemic using a 5-point scale (0-not at all willing to 4-definitely willing). Respondents who were not current trial participants and who were not “definitely willing” to consider participation during the pandemic were characterized as “reluctant” and asked to select reasons for their reluctance from a checklist. Pandemic-related anxiety was assessed on an 11-point scale (0-no anxiety to 10-worst anxiety possible). Respondents indicated how the option to conduct trial activities online would affect their decision to participate in a trial (much less likely, somewhat less likely, would not affect my decision, somewhat more likely, or much more likely). In exploratory analyses, we evaluated whether pandemic-related anxiety and favorable reactions towards opportunities to conduct trial activities online were associated with reluctance to consider trial participation during the pandemic due to fear of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Means were compared with two sample t-tests and proportions with Fisher’s exact tests. Results: Of 385 survey respondents, 185 (48%) were characterized as reluctant to consider trial participation during the pandemic. Among these 185, median age was 55 (range 25-80), 85.7% were non-Hispanic White, 48.1% had metastatic disease and 44.2% received care at academic centers. Reasons for reluctance to consider trial participation during the pandemic cited by ≥15% of the 185 reluctant respondents are shown in the Table. Respondents who selected fear of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 as a reason for their reluctance to consider participating in a trial during the pandemic had higher mean pandemic-related anxiety (7.0 vs 5.2, p&lt; 0.001). These respondents were more likely to indicate telemedicine doctor visits (p=0.01), virtual consents (p=0.001) and online study questionnaires (p=0.001) would make them somewhat or much more likely to participate in trials than respondents who did not select fear of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 as a reason for their reluctance. Conclusions: Reasons for reluctance of patients with breast cancer to consider participation in clinical trials during the pandemic are multifactorial. Although concerns about safety and efficacy remain prominent, fear of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 drives unwillingness to participate in &gt;25% of reluctant patients. Trial accrual may benefit from incorporation of electronic activities when possible. Table Citation Format: Karen L. Smith, Carolyn Mead-Harvey, Gina L. Mazza, Albert E. Holler, Eileen Shinn, Elizabeth Frank, Michelle Melisko, Cyd Eaton, Jeannine M. Salamone, Teri Pollastro, Patricia Spears, Antonio C. Wolff, Gabrielle B. Rocque. Reasons for Reduced Willingness to Participate in Clinical Trials During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium (TBCRC) 057 Survey [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-08-07.

Abstract Background: Pregnancy after breast cancer (BC) is of substantial importance for many young women at diagnosis and during follow-up. BC treatment including standard endocrine therapy (ET) (5-10 years) may reduce ovarian reserve and the chances of subsequent successful pregnancy, given conception is contraindicated during ET. A temporary interruption of ET to attempt and carry a pregnancy in this population has never been prospectively studied. Methods: POSITIVE is a single-arm, prospective, investigator-initiated, international trial evaluating the safety and pregnancy outcomes of interrupting ET for young women with early-stage hormone-receptor-positive (HR+) BC who desire pregnancy. The primary objective is to assess the risk of BC relapse associated with ET interruption for ~2 years to achieve pregnancy. Women ≤42 years with stage I-III HR+ BC who received adjuvant ET (SERM alone, GnRH analogue plus SERM or AI) for 18 to 30 months and wished to interrupt ET to attempt pregnancy were eligible. The primary endpoint is breast cancer free interval (BCFI) defined as the time from enrollment to the first BC event (local, regional, distant recurrence or a new invasive contralateral BC). Planned sample size was 500 patients. Three interim analyses of BCFI were reviewed by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) to assure a 95% chance of stopping the trial early if the annual BCFI event rate exceeded 4%; with primary analysis triggered after 1600 patient years of follow-up (pyfu) and no more than 46 BCFI events defined as the safety threshold. The DSMC recommended continuing the study following each interim analysis. We now report the primary results. Results: From 12/2014 to 12/2019, 518 women were enrolled. At enrollment, the median age of participants was 37 years (27-43 years); 75.0% were nulliparous, 93.4% had stage I/II disease, 66.3% node-negative. Median time from BC diagnosis to enrollment was 29 months (IQR: 25-32). Tamoxifen alone was the most prescribed ET (41.7%), followed by tamoxifen+ovarian function suppression (35.7%). 62.0% of participants had received neo/adjuvant chemotherapy. At a median follow-up of 41 months (1638 pyfu), 44 participants had experienced a BCFI event, not exceeding the pre-specified safety threshold of 46 events. The 3-year BCFI failure percent was 8.9% (95% CI: 6.3 to 11.6%), similar to the 9.2% (95% CI: 7.6 to 10.8%) calculated in the comparative external control cohort from the SOFT/TEXT trials (Sun et al, Breast 2020). Of 497 women followed for pregnancy status, 368 (74.0%) had at least one pregnancy, 317 (63.8%) had at least one live birth, with a total of 365 babies born. Based on competing risk analysis, 76.3% of patients resumed ET (half within 26 months), 8.3% had BCFI event/death before ET resumption, and 15.4% had not resumed ET yet. Conclusions: The POSITIVE trial demonstrates that for young women with early HR+ BC desiring pregnancy, temporary interruption of ET to attempt pregnancy does not confer a greater short-term risk of recurrence than that observed in a modern historical control group that did not interrupt ET. Most participants have had a live birth. Further follow-up is planned to confirm long-term safety. These results should be considered in counselling BC patients desiring future pregnancy. Citation Format: Ann Partridge, Olivia Pagani, Samuel M. Niman, Monica Ruggeri, Fedro Alessandro A. Peccatori, Hatem A. Azim, Marco Colleoni, Cristina Saura, Chikako Shimizu, Anna Saetersdal, Judith Kroep, Audrey Mailliez, Ellen Warner, Virginia F. Borges, Frédéric Amant, Andrea Gombos, Akemi Kataoka, Christine Rousset-Jablonski, Simona Borstnar, Junko Takei, Jeong Eon Lee, Janice Walshe, Manuel Ruiz Borrego, Halle Moore, Christobel Saunders, Vesna Bjelic-Radisic, Snezana Susnjar, Fatima Cardoso, Karen L. Smith, Teresa Ferreiro Vilarino, Karin Ribi, Kathryn Ruddy, Sarra El-Abed, Martine Piccart, Larissa A. Korde, Aron Goldhirsch, Richard D. Gelber. Pregnancy Outcome and Safety of Interrupting Therapy for women with endocrine responsIVE breast cancer: Primary Results from the POSITIVE Trial (IBCSG 48-14/BIG 8-13) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr GS4-09.

97 Background: In order to maintain safety, clinical trial activities have been modified during the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of the TBCRC 057 survey, we assessed how pandemic-related modifications to trial activities affect breast cancer patients’ willingness to participate in clinical trials. Methods: US residents with breast cancer were eligible to complete the online survey 8/6/21 – 9/30/21. Respondents rated whether each of 11 modifications to clinical trial activities would affect their decision to participate in a trial during or after the pandemic. Items evaluated modifications that involved changing the location of trial activities to closer to home, switching trial activities to telemedicine and making the trial schedule more flexible and convenient. Response options were “much less likely to participate”, “somewhat less likely to participate”, “would not affect my decision whether or not to participate”, “somewhat more likely to participate” and “much more likely to participate”. Current trial participants were asked to consider how modifications would affect their decision to participate in another trial. Results are reported descriptively. Results: Among 385 respondents, median age was 52 (range 25-85), 88.6% were non-Hispanic White, 52.5% had metastatic disease, 93% were receiving active treatment, 48.6% received care at an academic center and 9.6% were current trial participants. Changing location of trial activities was viewed favorably, with 70.2%, 64.6% and 54.1% of respondents indicating they would be much or somewhat more likely to participate if they could complete trial blood tests, x-ray tests or doctor visits closer to home, respectively. Similarly, the option to complete trial activities electronically was viewed favorably, with 59.6%, 58.6% and 60.9% of respondents indicating they would be much or somewhat more likely to participate if they could complete trial doctor visits, consent and questionnaires via telemedicine, respectively. With regard to modifications to make the trial schedule more flexible and convenient, respondent feedback was also favorable. 71.4%, 67.7% and 82.4% of respondents indicated that requiring study site visits no more than once per 3 weeks, widening windows for trial activities and offering home delivery of oral study medications, respectively, would make them much or somewhat more likely to participate. Finally, 30.4% and 51.7% indicated that the flexibility to opt-out of research-only blood tests and biopsies, respectively, would make them much or somewhat more likely to participate. Conclusions: Patients view modifications to trial activities implemented during the pandemic favorably. Trials should be flexible and the option to conduct study activities close to home or electronically when possible should be maintained during the pandemic and beyond.

The therapeutic options for patients with noninvasive or invasive breast cancer are complex and varied. These NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer include recommendations for clinical management of patients with carcinoma in situ, invasive breast cancer, Paget disease, phyllodes tumor, inflammatory breast cancer, and management of breast cancer during pregnancy. The content featured in this issue focuses on the recommendations for overall management of ductal carcinoma in situ and the workup and locoregional management of early stage invasive breast cancer. For the full version of the NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer, visit NCCN.org .

1564 Background: Enrollment in clinical trials has declined during the COVID-19 pandemic. Simultaneously, breast cancer patients have reported heightened anxiety. We assessed whether breast cancer patients’ anxiety about the pandemic affects their willingness to participate in trials. Methods: English or Spanish-speaking US residents with breast cancer were eligible to complete the online REDCap survey 8/6/21 – 9/30/21. Respondents rated their anxiety about the pandemic on an 11-point scale from 0 (no anxiety) to 10 (worst anxiety possible). Anxiety scores were categorized as no/mild (0-3), moderate (4-6) or severe (7-10). Knowledge about trials was assessed with 11 true/false items and attitudes toward trials with the Attitudes Toward Cancer Trials Scales - Cancer Treatment Subscale (ATCTS-CTS). Respondents rated their willingness to participate in a breast cancer clinical trial before and during the pandemic on 5-point scales from 0 (not at all willing) to 4 (definitely willing). Trial participants were considered “definitely willing.” Change in willingness to participate in trials during the pandemic compared to prior was defined as a binary outcome, "less willing" vs "no less willing." Means were compared via t-test and mean difference was tested via paired t-test. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model the association of anxiety and other factors with being less willing to participate in trials during compared to prior to the pandemic. Results: Among 385 respondents, median age was 52 (range 25-85), 271 (70%) were non-Hispanic White and 202 (53%) had metastatic disease. 154 (40%) received care at academic centers and 37 (10%) were current trial participants. Most rated their anxiety as moderate (43%) or severe (38%). Mean willingness to participate in a trial was lower during compared to prior to the pandemic (2.97 vs 3.10; p < 0.0001). Fifty (13%) respondents were less willing to participate in a trial during the pandemic compared to prior. After controlling for covariates, those with severe anxiety had 5.07 times odds of being less willing to participate during the pandemic compared to prior than those with no/mild anxiety (p = 0.01). For every 1-point increase in ATCTS-CTS score (indicating better attitude toward trials) there was a 3% decrease in the odds of being less willing to participate during the pandemic (p = 0.006). For every 1-point increase in the clinical trials knowledge score (indicating more knowledge) there was a 15% decrease in the odds of being less willing to participate during the pandemic (p = 0.02). Conclusions: Pandemic-related anxiety is common in breast cancer patients and is associated with being less willing to participate in trials during the pandemic compared to prior. Education about trials, including safety modifications implemented during the pandemic, may mitigate anxiety and improve willingness to participate.

The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer include up-to-date guidelines for clinical management of patients with carcinoma in situ, invasive breast cancer, Paget disease, phyllodes tumor, inflammatory breast cancer, male breast cancer, and breast cancer during pregnancy. These guidelines are developed by a multidisciplinary panel of representatives from NCCN Member Institutions with breast cancer–focused expertise in the fields of medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, pathology, reconstructive surgery, and patient advocacy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the most recent updates to recommendations for adjuvant systemic therapy in patients with nonmetastatic, early-stage, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.