Winchester, David P.

Abstract Background Guidelines for follow-up after locoregional breast cancer treatment recommend imaging for distant metastases only in the presence of patient signs and/or symptoms. However, guidelines have not been updated to reflect advances in imaging, systemic therapy, or the understanding of biological subtype. We assessed the association between mode of distant recurrence detection and survival. Methods In this observational study, a stage-stratified random sample of women with stage II-III breast cancer in 2006-2007 and followed through 2016 was selected, including up to 10 women from each of 1217 Commission on Cancer facilities (n = 10 076). The explanatory variable was mode of recurrence detection (asymptomatic imaging vs signs and/or symptoms). The outcome was time from initial cancer diagnosis to death. Registrars abstracted scan type, intent (cancer-related vs not, asymptomatic surveillance vs not), and recurrence. Data were merged with each patient’s National Cancer Database record. Results Surveillance imaging detected 23.3% (284 of 1220) of distant recurrences (76.7%, 936 of 1220 by signs and/or symptoms). Based on propensity-weighted multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, patients with asymptomatic imaging compared with sign and/or symptom detected recurrences had a lower risk of death if estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) negative, HER2 negative (triple negative; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54 to 0.99), or HER2 positive (HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.80). No association was observed for ER- or PR-positive, HER2-negative (HR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.44) cancers. Conclusions Recurrence detection by asymptomatic imaging compared with signs and/or symptoms was associated with lower risk of death for triple-negative and HER2-positive, but not ER- or PR-positive, HER2-negative cancers. A randomized trial is warranted to evaluate imaging surveillance for metastases results in these subgroups.

6520 Background: Breast cancer follow-up guidelines recommend imaging for distant metastases only in the presence of signs/symptoms. However, data supporting this recommendation predates the current era of improved imaging and targeted therapies based on molecular subtype. The objective was to assess the relationship between mode of distant recurrence detection and survival. Methods: A stage-stratified random sample of Stage II-III breast cancer patients diagnosed in 2006-7 was selected from NCDB records from 1,217 CoC-accredited facilities (10/hospital n = 10,853). Women were categorized by subtype: 1) ER or PR+/HER2-; 2) ER and PR-/Her2- (triple negative); 3) HER2+. Medical records abstracted for 5-years post-surgery supplemented NCDB data and assessed distant recurrence and mode of detection (prompted by signs/symptoms or surveillance imaging), imaging (chest CT, abdomen/pelvis CT/MRI, head CT/MRI, bone scan, PET/CT), death date. The relationship between mode of recurrence detection and days from initial cancer diagnosis to death was assessed using propensity-weighted multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression stratified by subtype. Propensity weights, based on receipt of surveillance systemic imaging, accounted for sociodemographic and tumor/treatment factors. Results: 5-year distant recurrence was 22.3% for triple negative, 14.8% HER2+, and 11.2% for ER or PR+/ HER2- patients. Asymptomatic imaging detected recurrence in 22.9% and signs/symptoms in 77.1%. Patients with asymptomatic as compared to sign/symptom detected recurrences had reduced risk of death in 5 years if triple negative (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.50-0.93) or HER2+ (HR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.24-0.65) with no significant association for ER or PR+/HER2- (HR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.88-1.51). This translated to a between-group difference in weighted median survival of 5 months for triple negative and 13 months for HER2+ patients. Conclusions: This is the first nationally representative study to show a survival advantage with asymptomatic detection of distant metastases for patients, with the benefit limited to triple negative and HER2+ disease. Further research to confirm observational findings is warranted.

Abstract The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual has become the benchmark for classifying patients with cancer, defining prognosis, and determining the best treatment approaches. Many view the primary role of the tumor, lymph node, metastasis (TNM) system as that of a standardized classification system for evaluating cancer at a population level in terms of the extent of disease, both at initial presentation and after surgical treatment, and the overall impact of improvements in cancer treatment. The rapid evolution of knowledge in cancer biology and the discovery and validation of biologic factors that predict cancer outcome and response to treatment with better accuracy have led some cancer experts to question the utility of a TNM‐based approach in clinical care at an individualized patient level. In the Eighth Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual , the goal of including relevant, nonanatomic (including molecular) factors has been foremost, although changes are made only when there is strong evidence for inclusion. The editorial board viewed this iteration as a proactive effort to continue to build the important bridge from a “population‐based” to a more “personalized” approach to patient classification, one that forms the conceptual framework and foundation of cancer staging in the era of precision molecular oncology. The AJCC promulgates best staging practices through each new edition in an effort to provide cancer care providers with a powerful, knowledge‐based resource for the battle against cancer. In this commentary, the authors highlight the overall organizational and structural changes as well as “what's new” in the Eighth Edition. It is hoped that this information will provide the reader with a better understanding of the rationale behind the aggregate proposed changes and the exciting developments in the upcoming edition. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:93–99. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Background Data collection and review were identified as major contributors to the cost of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Purpose We proposed and assessed a novel alternative for long-term clinical trial follow-up based on the data captured through an accredited Cancer Registry (CR) that is part of the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods Patients from Mayo Clinic, Rochester, enrolled in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N934653 (COST) trial (98 patients) and the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0030 trial (55 patients) were included in the study. Demographic, treatment, and long-term outcome data were compared between the hospital-based CR and the RCTs’ databases. Concordances were used to estimate the agreement between two databases. Kaplan—Meier curves were plotted to examine the consistency of time-to-event long-term outcomes of the CR and RCT databases. Results High concordances (>95%) were observed for most demographic and treatment variables between the CR data and RCT data. The vital status concordances were 100% and 94.5% between the CR and COST and Z0030 databases, respectively. Three discrepant death dates were observed, one in the COST trial and two in the Z0030 trial. The concordances of disease-free status between the CR and RCT databases were 99.0% and 87.3%, and 15 discrepant disease recurrence cases were identified: 4 for COST and 11 for Z0030. Limitations The analysis has been focused on patients from a single site, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, enrolled in two large RCT evaluating surgical treatments. The findings herein need to be confirmed in a broader setting, such as multi-center, multi-registry including nonsurgical trials. Conclusions CR data were nearly identical to data from two randomized phase III trials in different disease types and conducted by two different cooperative groups. The NCDB Cancer Registries represent a feasible alternative for obtaining long-term follow-up data for large clinical trials. Clinical Trials 2010; 7: 686—695. http:// ctj.sagepub.com