Dignam, James J.

Importance The NRG Oncology research organization and NSABP B-35 randomized clinical trial prospectively collected margin width data on postmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)–positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who underwent lumpectomy, whole-breast irradiation (WBI), and randomly assigned adjuvant anastrozole or tamoxifen therapy. This permitted analysis of outcomes per margin width. Objective To analyze the effect of margin width on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). Design, Setting, and Participants NSABP B-35 was a phase 3, double-blind, randomized clinical trial in which patients were randomized to either 5 years of tamoxifen or anastrozole. Postmenopausal women with HR-positive DCIS and tumor-free margins were eligible. Enrollment was from January 6, 2003, to June 15, 2006, in academic and community hospital members of the NSABP. Study data were analyzed from July 2024 to April 2025. Interventions There were no specific interventions based on lumpectomy margin width. Main Outcomes and Measures Lumpectomy margin width data were prospectively collected within 3 months of randomization. A pathology form classified margins as positive (ink on tumor), close (<1 mm), or negative (≥1 mm). For the negative margin subgroup, closest margin width was stated separately. Thus, an ancillary analysis using 1-mm and 2-mm margin width partitions was performed. Results A total of 3104 postmenopausal women (mean [SD] age, 61 [7.8] years) were enrolled in NSABP B-35. In an ancillary analysis, 2707 patients were included in the 1-mm margin width partition group, and 2546 patients were included in the 2-mm margin width partition group. IBTR was the most common first event, occurring in 90 of 2707 patients (3.3%): 24 of 502 patients (4.8%) with a margin width less than 1 mm and 66 of 2205 patients (3.0%) with a margin width greater than or equal to 1 mm. Ten-year unadjusted cumulative incidence of IBTR events was 5.6% vs 4.0% for margins less than 1 mm vs margins greater than or equal to 1 mm ( P = .04). Using 2 mm as the discriminant threshold for margin width, 39 of 879 patients (4.4%) with margins less than 2 mm and 49 of 1667 patients (2.9%) with margins greater than or equal to 2 mm experienced an IBTR first. Ten-year unadjusted cumulative incidence of IBTR events with margins less than or equal to 2 mm was 5.3% vs 3.8% for those with margins greater than 2 mm ( P = .05). In models adjusting for other patient and tumor factors, margin width was not a significant predictor of IBTR risk (2-mm threshold hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.86-2.06). Conclusions and Relevance Results of this ancillary analysis of the NSABP B-35 trial show that absolute differences in IBTR rates using margin width groupings of less than 1 mm or greater than or equal to 1 mm and margin width groupings of less than 2 mm or greater than or equal to 2 mm in postmenopausal women with HR-positive DCIS receiving lumpectomy, WBI, and adjuvant endocrine therapy were small. Omission of reexcision lumpectomies based on margin widths of less than 1 mm or less than 2 mm can be reconsidered in appropriate patients. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00053898

Abstract Examining treatment effects in subgroups of patients defined by demographic, genetic, or clinical characteristics is increasingly of interest given the pursuit of personalized medicine and the importance of representation and equity in treatment decisions. The magnitude or even the direction of the treatment effect may vary across subgroups, and these differential treatment effects could have clinical implications. Subgroup analyses require caution in their interpretation, however, because of the high probability of a false-positive or false-negative conclusion. We outline study design and analysis considerations for responsibly investigating and reporting differential treatment effects across subgroups in oncology trials, with examples from the National Cancer Institute’s National Clinical Trials Network and Community Oncology Research Program. Recommendations include ensuring appropriate representation of patients from subgroups of interest, recognizing power and multiplicity limitations, and treating exploratory subgroup analyses as hypothesis generating rather than practice changing.

PURPOSE In the United States, the National Cancer Institute National Cancer Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) groups have conducted publicly funded oncology research for 50 years. The combined impact of all adult network group trials has never been systematically examined. METHODS We identified randomized, phase III trials from the adult NCTN groups, reported from 1980 onward, with statistically significant findings for ≥ 1 clinical, time-dependent outcomes. In the subset of trials in which the experimental arm improved overall survival, gains in population life-years were estimated by deriving trial-specific hazard functions and hazard ratios to estimate the experimental treatment benefit and then mapping this trial-level benefit onto the US cancer population using registry and life-table data. Scientific impact was based on citation data from Google Scholar. Federal investment costs per life-year gained were estimated. The results were derived through December 31, 2020. RESULTS One hundred sixty-two trials comprised of 108,334 patients were analyzed, representing 29.8% (162/544) of trials conducted. The most common cancers included breast (34), gynecologic (28), and lung (14). The trials were cited 165,336 times (mean, 62.2 citations/trial/year); 87.7% of trials were cited in cancer care guidelines in favor of the recommended treatment. These studies were estimated to have generated 14.2 million (95% CI, 11.5 to 16.5 million) additional life-years to patients with cancer, with projected gains of 24.1 million (95% CI, 19.7 to 28.2 million) life-years by 2030. The federal investment cost per life-year gained through 2020 was $326 in US dollars. CONCLUSION NCTN randomized trials have been widely cited and are routinely included in clinical guidelines. Moreover, their conduct has predicted substantial improvements in overall survival in the United States for patients with oncologic disease, suggesting they have contributed meaningfully to this nation's health. These findings demonstrate the critical role of government-sponsored research in extending the lives of patients with cancer.

The prevalence of Lynch syndrome (LS) varies significantly in different populations, suggesting that ethnic features might play an important role. We enrolled 3330 consecutive Chinese patients who had surgical resection for newly diagnosed colorectal cancer. Universal screening for LS was implemented, including immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, BRAFV600E mutation test and germline sequencing. Among the 3250 eligible patients, MMR protein deficiency (dMMR) was detected in 330 (10.2%) patients. Ninety‐three patients (2.9%) were diagnosed with LS. Nine (9.7%) patients with LS fulfilled Amsterdam criteria II and 76 (81.7%) met the revised Bethesda guidelines. Only 15 (9.7%) patients with absence of MLH1 on IHC had BRAFV600E mutation. One third (33/99) of the MMR gene mutations have not been reported previously. The age of onset indicates risk of LS in patients with dMMR tumors. For patients older than 65 years, only 2 patients (5.7%) fulfilling revised Bethesda guidelines were diagnosed with LS. Selective sequencing of all cases with dMMR diagnosed at or below age 65 years and only of those dMMR cases older than 65 years who fulfill revised Bethesda guidelines results in 8.2% fewer cases requiring germline testing without missing any LS diagnoses. While the prevalence of LS in Chinese patients is similar to that of Western populations, the spectrum of constitutional mutations and frequency of BRAFV600E mutation is different. Patients older than 65 years who do not meet the revised Bethesda guidelines have a low risk of LS, suggesting germline sequencing might not be necessary in this population.

PURPOSE: This trial was prompted by uncertainty about the need for breast irradiation after lumpectomy in node-negative women with invasive breast cancers of ≤ 1 cm, by speculation that tamoxifen (TAM) might be as or more effective than radiation therapy (XRT) in reducing the rate of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) in such women, and by the thesis that both modalities might be more effective than either alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After lumpectomy, 1,009 women were randomly assigned to TAM (n = 336), XRT and placebo (n = 336), or XRT and TAM (n = 337). Rates of IBTR, distant recurrence, and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) were among the end points for analysis. Cumulative incidence of IBTR and of CBC was computed accounting for competing risks. Results with two-sided P values of .05 or less were statistically significant. RESULTS: XRT and placebo resulted in a 49% lower hazard rate of IBTR than did TAM alone; XRT and TAM resulted in a 63% lower rate than did XRT and placebo. When compared with TAM alone, XRT plus TAM resulted in an 81% reduction in hazard rate of IBTR. Cumulative incidence of IBTR through 8 years was 16.5% with TAM, 9.3% with XRT and placebo, and 2.8% with XRT and TAM. XRT reduced IBTR below the level achieved with TAM alone, regardless of estrogen receptor (ER) status. Distant treatment failures were infrequent and not significantly different among the groups (P = .28). When TAM-treated women were compared with those who received XRT and placebo, there was a significant reduction in CBC (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.95; P = .039). Survival in the three groups was 93%, 94%, and 93%, respectively (P = .93). CONCLUSION: In women with tumors ≤ 1 cm, IBTR occurs with enough frequency after lumpectomy to justify considering XRT, regardless of tumor ER status, and TAM plus XRT when tumors are ER positive.