Basik, Mark

Importance Use of modern neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) regimens has markedly increased rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) in breast cancer, raising the question of whether surgical removal of the primary tumor is required for patients with pCR. For surgery to be omitted, one must be able to accurately predict pCR before surgery. Objective To investigate if adding post-NAC core needle biopsy of the tumor bed to trimodality imaging in patients who have clinical complete response (cCR) will predict pCR (resolution of both invasive disease and ductal carcinoma in situ) in 90% or more cases. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a phase 2, prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial. Patients were enrolled from August 2017 to June 2019. This is the final analysis, which was completed in December 2023. The setting included academic and community hospital center members of NRG (ie, the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, and the Gynecologic Oncology Group) in the US and Canada. Patients with operable (T1-T3, stage I-III) invasive ductal carcinoma who completed NAC and achieved cCR and radiological complete response (rCR) or near rCR by mammography (mass ≤1 cm and no malignant microcalcifications), ultrasound (mass ≤2 cm), and magnetic resonance imaging (no mass with rapid rise or washout kinetics). Interventions Patients underwent marker-directed stereotactic multiple-core needle biopsy of the tumor bed with marker placement before breast-conservation surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures End points were negative predictive value (NPV) and sensitivity of the biopsy. Results A total of 105 patients were enrolled with 101 evaluable (mean [SD] age, 52.8 [10.5] years); 77 patients (76.2%) were younger than 60 years, and all breast cancer subtypes were represented with 32 (31.7%) triple-negative breast cancer, 21 (20.8%) hormone receptor–positive/epidermal growth factor receptor 2 ( ERBB2 ; formerly HER2 )–negative ( ERBB2 −) breast cancer, and 46 (45.5%) ERBB2 -positive ( ERBB2 +) breast cancer. In 101 evaluable patients, 36 had residual disease at surgery (pCR = 64%). With imaging criteria, NPV of the biopsy was 78.3% (95% CI, 67.9%-86.6%), and the sensitivity of the biopsy was 50% (95% CI, 32.9%-67.1%). In an exploratory subset analysis, the NPV in patients with ERBB2 + breast cancer was 90% (95% CI, 76.3%-97.2%). On retrospective central review, 62 of 101 enrolled patients met imaging eligibility criteria. In this exploratory post hoc analysis, NPV in these patients was 86.8% (95% CI, 74.7%-94.5%). Conclusions and Relevance These findings do not support breast conservation treatment without surgery based on the study criteria for cCR and rCR/near rCR by trimodality imaging and negative tumor-bed biopsy. Strict adherence to imaging criteria may be required to achieve acceptable predictive values. TRIAL Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03188393

PURPOSE Distant metastases are present in 6% or more of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. In this context, locoregional therapy for the intact primary tumor has been hypothesized to improve overall survival (OS), but clinical trials have reported conflicting results. METHODS Women presenting with metastatic breast cancer and an intact primary tumor received systemic therapy for 4-8 months; if no disease progression occurred, they were randomly assigned to locoregional therapy for the primary site (surgery and radiotherapy per standards for nonmetastatic disease) or continuing sysmetic therapy. The primary end point was OS; locoregional control and quality of life were secondary end points. The trial design provided 85% power to detect a 19.3% absolute difference in the 3-year OS rate in randomly assigned patients. The stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model were used to compare OS between arms. Cumulative incidence of locoregional progression was compared using Gray's test. Quality-of-life assessment used standard instruments. RESULTS Of 390 participants enrolled, 256 were randomly assigned: 131 to continued systemic therapy and 125 to early locoregional therapy. The 3-year OS was 67.9% without and 68.4% with early locoregional therapy (hazard ratio = 1.11; 90% CI, 0.82 to 1.52; P = .57). The median OS was 53.1 months (95% CI, 47.9 to not estimable) in the systemic therapy arm and 54.9 months (95% CI, 46.7 to not estimable) in the locoregional therapy arm. Locoregional progression was less frequent in those randomly assigned to locoregional therapy (3-year rate: 16.3% v 39.8%; P < .001). Quality-of-life measures were largely similar between arms. CONCLUSION Early locoregional therapy for the primary site did not improve survival in patients presenting with metastatic breast cancer. Although it was associated with improved locoregional control, this had no overall impact on quality of life.

LBA2 Background: About 6% of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients present with Stage IV disease and an intact primary tumor (IPT). Locoregional treatment (LRT) for the IPT is hypothesized to improve survival based on retrospective analyses, but randomized trials have provided conflicting data. We now report the results of E2108, a Phase 3 trial that examined the worth of LRT for the IPT following initial systemic therapy. Methods: Stage IV patients with IPT were registered, treated with optimal systemic therapy (OST) based on patient and tumor characteristics; those who did not progress during 4-8 months of OST were randomized to LRT for the IPT, or no LRT. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), with locoregional disease control as a secondary endpoint. Stratified log rank test and Cox proportional hazard model were used to compare OS between treatment groups. Cumulative incidence of locoregional recurrence/progression was estimated and Gray test was used for treatment group comparisons. The trial was designed to detect an improvement in 3 year OS rate from 30% with OST alone to 49.3% for OST+LRT (power 95%, 1-sided alpha 0.05) with full information expected after 152 deaths; the data monitoring committee recommended data release after 80% of full information. Results: 390 patients were enrolled between 2/8/11 and 7/23/15, and received OST. Of these, 256 eligible patients were randomized to either continued OST alone (N = 131) or OST+LRT (N = 125).There were 121 deaths and 43 locoregional progression events after a median follow up 59 months (range: 0-91). There was no significant difference in OS (3-year OS rate 68.4% in OST+LRT vs. 67.9% OST alone arm, stratified log-rank p = 0.63, HR = 1.09, 90% CI: 0.80, 1.49) or in progression-free survival (p = 0.40). The locoregional recurrence/progression was significantly higher in the OST alone arm (3-year rate 25.6% vs 10.2%, Gray test p = 0.003). Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measured by FACT-B Trial Outcome Index was significantly worse in the OST+LRT arm than OST alone arm at 18 months post randomization (60% completion, Wilcoxon rank sum test p = 0.01), but no difference was observed at time points 6 months (74% completion) or 30 months (56% completion). Conclusions: Early local therapy does not improve survival in patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer and an IPT. Although there was a 2.5-fold higher risk of local disease progression without LRT, LRT of the IPT did not lead to improved HRQOL. Clinical trial information: NCT01242800 .