Pierce, Lori J.

Abstract Background NRG Oncology NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413 compared whole-breast irradiation (WBI) to accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI). APBI was not equivalent to WBI in local tumor control. Secondary outcome was quality of life (QOL). Methods The QOL sub-study used validated self-report questionnaires, including the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS) and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) vitality scale. Assessments occurred before random assignment, at treatment completion (chemotherapy or radiotherapy), 4 weeks later, at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Primary aims: cosmesis change equivalency (baseline to 3 years; a priori margin of equivalence 0.4 standard deviations) and fatigue change superiority (baseline to end of treatment [EOT]) for APBI vs WBI, by patient groups treated with or without chemotherapy when appropriate. Results From March 21, 2005 to May 25, 2009, 975 patients enrolled in this sub-study; 950 had follow-up data. APBI had 3-year cosmesis equivalent to WBI (95% CI = -0.0001 to -0.16; equivalence margin -0.22 to -0.22) in all patients. The APBI group without chemotherapy had less EOT fatigue (P = .011; mean score APBI 63 vs WBI 59); the APBI group receiving chemotherapy had worse EOT fatigue (P = .011; APBI 43 vs WBI 49). The APBI group reported less pain (BCTOS) at EOT (WBI 2.29 vs APBI 1.97) but worse pain at 3 years (WBI 1.62 vs APBI 1.71). APBI patients reported greater convenience of care than with WBI and reported less symptom severity at EOT and 4 weeks later. Conclusion Cosmetic outcomes were similar for the APBI and WBI groups, with small statistically significant differences in other outcomes that varied over time. Differences in fatigue and other symptoms appeared to resolve by ≥6 months. APBI may be preferred by some patients, for whom extended treatment is burdensome. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00103181.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Breast Cancer address all aspects of management for breast cancer. The treatment landscape of metastatic breast cancer is evolving constantly. The therapeutic strategy takes into consideration tumor biology, biomarkers, and other clinical factors. Due to the growing number of treatment options, if one option fails, there is usually another line of therapy available, providing meaningful improvements in survival. This NCCN Guidelines Insights report focuses on recent updates specific to systemic therapy recommendations for patients with stage IV (M1) disease.

Clinical trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of people with cancer. ASCO and the Association of Community Cancer Centers collaborated on a quality improvement study to enhance racial and ethnic equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in cancer clinical trials. The groups conducted a pilot study to examine the feasibility, utility, and face validity of a two-part clinical trial site self-assessment to enable diverse types of research sites in the United States to (1) review internal data to assess racial and ethnic disparities in screening and enrollment and (2) review their policies, programs, procedures to identify opportunities and strategies to improve EDI. Overall, 81% of 62 participating sites were satisfied with the assessment; 82% identified opportunities for improvement; and 63% identified specific strategies and 74% thought the assessment had potential to help their site increase EDI. The assessment increased awareness about performance (82%) and helped identify specific strategies (63%) to increase EDI in trials. Although most sites (65%) were able to provide some data on the number of patients that consented, only two sites were able to provide all requested trial screening, offering, and enrollment data by race and ethnicity. Documenting and evaluating such data are critical steps toward improving EDI and are key to identifying and addressing disparities more broadly. ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers will partner with sites to better understand their processes and the feasibility of collecting screening, offering, and enrollment data in systematic and automated ways.

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 .

6530 Background: Only a small fraction of patients with cancer participate in treatment trials. Patients identifying as members of racial and ethnic minority groups are consistently underrepresented in these trials. A recent systematic review reported that patients, regardless of race and ethnicity, are willing to enroll in trials if asked to participate by their treating clinician. Prospective and longitudinal data and metrics at the site- and clinician-level are necessary to understand whether patients are equitably considered for clinical trials. Methods: ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) developed a self-assessment for trial sites to record and gauge the number of patients across races and ethnicities screened, offered, and enrolled into clinical trials. Research sites, from across the US, were recruited through an open call to apply to participate in the ASCO-ACCC Pilot Project. There were 65 sites assigned to this pilot study, which tested the feasibility and utility of the site assessment. Sites were asked to enter 2019 and 2020 aggregate data for each step along the clinical trial enrollment continuum by select races and ethnicities (Black, Hispanic/Latinx, White) and overall. Results: 62 of 65 sites completed the study and represented a range of settings and practice types (61% academic, 26% hospital/health system, 13% independent). Only 2 sites (3%) were able to provide the data requested at each enrollment step in the assessment (table). Sites that collected the data did not do so routinely (table) and most had to compile data through multiple sources and/or manual extraction (40-100% across enrollment steps). Sites with missing data reported they did not collect data at all (36-64% across enrollment steps), did not collect data in a systematic way (0-29% across enrollment steps), or stated it would be too burdensome to manually review charts to extract data (12-29% across enrollment steps). Conclusions: Data collection and routine evaluation of participation metrics, by race and ethnicity, are necessary to assess and monitor equity and diversity in clinical trials. Most sites in this study did not collect, or routinely collect, data for screening, offering, and consenting patients to clinical trials. Without these data, sites are unable to evaluate and monitor whether their patients have equitable access to clinical trials or establish strategies to address any inequities. ASCO and ACCC will continue to partner with sites to better understand their processes and the feasibility of collecting such data in a systematic and automated way, such as through electronic health record systems. [Table: see text]

A concerted commitment across research stakeholders is necessary to increase equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and address barriers to cancer clinical trial recruitment and participation. Racial and ethnic diversity among trial participants is key to understanding intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may affect patient response to cancer treatments. This ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Research Statement presents specific recommendations and strategies for the research community to improve EDI in cancer clinical trials. There are six overarching recommendations: (1) clinical trials are an integral component of high-quality cancer care, and every person with cancer should have the opportunity to participate; (2) trial sponsors and investigators should design and implement trials with a focus on reducing barriers and enhancing EDI, and work with sites to conduct trials in ways that increase participation of under-represented populations; (3) trial sponsors, researchers, and sites should form long-standing partnerships with patients, patient advocacy groups, and community leaders and groups; (4) anyone designing or conducting trials should complete recurring education, training, and evaluation to demonstrate and maintain cross-cultural competencies, mitigation of bias, effective communication, and a commitment to achieving EDI; (5) research stakeholders should invest in programs and policies that increase EDI in trials and in the research workforce; and (6) research stakeholders should collect and publish aggregate data on racial and ethnic diversity of trial participants when reporting results of trials, programs, and interventions to increase EDI. The recommendations are intended to serve as a guide for the research community to improve participation rates among people from racial and ethnic minority populations historically under-represented in cancer clinical trials. ASCO and ACCC will work at all levels to advance the recommendations in this publication.

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.

Several new systemic therapy options have become available for patients with metastatic breast cancer, which have led to improvements in survival. In addition to patient and clinical factors, the treatment selection primarily depends on the tumor biology (hormone-receptor status and HER2-status). The NCCN Guidelines specific to the workup and treatment of patients with recurrent/stage IV breast cancer are discussed in this article.

PURPOSE To develop recommendations for management of patients with breast cancer (BC) with germline mutations in BC susceptibility genes. METHODS The American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology convened an Expert Panel to develop recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature and a formal consensus process. RESULTS Fifty-eight articles met eligibility criteria and formed the evidentiary basis for the local therapy recommendations; six randomized controlled trials of systemic therapy met eligibility criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS Patients with newly diagnosed BC and BRCA1/ 2 mutations may be considered for breast-conserving therapy (BCT), with local control of the index cancer similar to that of noncarriers. The significant risk of a contralateral BC (CBC), especially in young women, and the higher risk of new cancers in the ipsilateral breast warrant discussion of bilateral mastectomy. Patients with mutations in moderate-risk genes should be offered BCT. For women with mutations in BRCA1/ 2 or moderate-penetrance genes who are eligible for mastectomy, nipple-sparing mastectomy is a reasonable approach. There is no evidence of increased toxicity or CBC events from radiation exposure in BRCA1/ 2 carriers. Radiation therapy should not be withheld in ATM carriers. For patients with germline TP53 mutations, mastectomy is advised; radiation therapy is contraindicated except in those with significant risk of locoregional recurrence. Platinum agents are recommended versus taxanes to treat advanced BC in BRCA carriers. In the adjuvant/neoadjuvant setting, data do not support the routine addition of platinum to anthracycline- and taxane-based chemotherapy. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib and talazoparib) are preferable to nonplatinum single-agent chemotherapy for treatment of advanced BC in BRCA1/ 2 carriers. Data are insufficient to recommend PARP inhibitor use in the early setting or in moderate-penetrance carriers. Additional information available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

508 Background: PBI is an alternative to WBI, with potentially greater therapy (tx) compliance, and better integration with chemotherapy (CTX). NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413 clinical outcome results from 2018 did not show equivalence of PBI to WBI in local tumor control; PBI was statistically inferior, but with clinically small differences. PBI may be an acceptable alternative to WBI for some women. Understanding cosmesis and quality of life (QOL) treatment outcomes is important. Methods: B-39/0413 included a prospective QOL substudy with PRO evaluation of breast cancer treatment outcomes (cosmesis, function, pain) and fatigue using BCTOS and SF-36 vitality scales. Secondary QOL parameters included treatment related symptoms, perceived convenience of care, and the BPI pain scale. The study sample was stratified by CTX or not, as CTX is given before WBI but after PBI. PRO assessments occurred before randomization, the last day of adjuvant tx [CTX or radiation], 4 wks later, and 6, 12, 24, and 36 mo later. Primary aims included comparisons of change in fatigue from baseline to end of tx and equivalency of change in cosmesis from baseline to 36 mo for PBI v WBI. Separate analyses were done for CTX and non-CTX pts, controlling for axillary dissection. Each comparison used α=0.0125. Planned sample size was 964. Results: From 3-23-05 to 5-27-09, 975 pts were enrolled in the PRO study; 950 had follow-up data. 504 did not receive CTX and 446 received CTX. In non-CTX pts, PBI had less fatigue (p=0.011) and did not meet criteria for cosmesis equivalence (97.5% CI, -0.02 to 0.22; ∆=0.20). In CTX pts, PBI had worse fatigue (p=0.011) and equivalent cosmesis to WBI (97.5% CI, -0.09 to 0.21; ∆=0.24). In both groups, PBI pts reported less pain at end of tx. In non-CTX pts, PBI had more pain at 36 mo but in CTX pts, there was no difference. Convenience of care and treatment related symptom outcomes will be presented. Conclusions: In non-CTX pts, PBI is more convenient with less fatigue and slightly poorer cosmesis at 36 mo. Cosmesis was equivalent at 36 mo in CTX pts. Support: U10CA180868, -180822, UG1CA189867. Clinical trial information: NCT00103181.