Back to Authors

Kuerer, HM

Mayo Clinic

Allegheny Health Network

Citations 2

Abstract GS4-04: Primary results of NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413 (NRG Oncology): A randomized phase III study of conventional whole breast irradiation (WBI) versus partial breast irradiation (PBI) for women with stage 0, I, or II breast cancer
Vicini, F.A., Cecchini, RS, White, JR, Julian, TB, Arthur, D.W., Rabinovitch, R, Kuske, RR, Parda, DS, Ganz, PA, Scheier, MF, Winter, K., Kuerer, HM, Vallow, LA, Pierce, L.J., Mamounas, EP, Costantino, J. P., Bear, HD, Germaine, I, Gustafson, Gary, Grossheim, Linda , Petersen, IA, Hudes, RS, Wj, Curran, Ganz, Patricia A. , Kuske, Robert R. , Paik, Soonmyung , Kuerer, Henry Mark, Curran, WJ, Wolmark, Norman

Cancer Research | May 11, 2019 | Volume: 79 | Issue: 4_Supplement | Pages: GS4-04-GS4-04

10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-gs4-04 Get It

Abstract Background: Conventional WBI after lumpectomy for early-stage breast cancer decreases ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), yielding comparable results to mastectomy. Accelerated PBI appears effective in reducing IBTR by treating only the tumor bed area. As the majority of IBTR occur at or in the vicinity of the tumor bed, we hypothesized that PBI would be as effective as WBI in controlling IBTR. The primary aim of NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413 was to determine if PBI provides equivalent local tumor control post lumpectomy compared to WBI in pts with early-stage breast cancer. The equivalency test was based on a 50% margin of increase in the hazard ratio (HR=1.5). Secondary endpoints included: overall survival (OS), recurrence-free interval (RFI), distant disease-free interval (DDFI), and toxicity. Methods: Eligible pts had lumpectomy with histologically-free margins and 0-3 positive axillary nodes. Pts were stratified by stage, menopausal status, hormone receptor status, and intent to receive chemotherapy and then randomized to PBI or WBI. PBI was 10 fractions of 3.4-3.85 Gy, given twice daily with either brachytherapy or 3D external beam radiation. WBI was 50 Gy in 2 Gy fractions given daily with a sequential boost to the surgical cavity. Follow-up was every 6 mos for 5 yrs and then annually. All analyses were by intent-to-treat. Results: From 3-21-05 to 4-16-13, 4216 pts were randomized: 2107 PBI; 2109 WBI. 61% were postmenopausal; 81% were hormone receptor-positive; 29% intended to receive chemotherapy. Stage distribution was: DCIS, 24%; invasive pN0, 65%; invasive pN1, 10%. As of 7-31-18, median follow-up was 10.2 yrs. There were 161 IBTRs as first events: 90 PBI v 71 WBI (HR 1.22; 90%CI 0.94-1.58). Per protocol-defined margin, to declare PBI and WBI equivalent regarding IBTR risk, the 90% CI for the observed HR had to lie entirely between 0.667 and 1.5. The percent of pts IBTR-free at 10 yrs was 95.2% PBI v 95.9% WBI. A statistically significant difference in the 10-yr RFI rate favored WBI (91.9% PBI v 93.4% WBI; HR 1.32; 95%CI 1.04-1.68; p=0.02). No statistically significant differences existed between PBI and WBI in DDFI (HR 1.31; 95%CI 0.91-1.91; p=0.15), OS (HR 1.10; 95%CI 0.90-1.35; p=0.35), or DFS (HR 1.12; 95%CI 0.98-1.29; p=0.11). Grade 3 toxicity was 9.6% PBI v 7.1% WBI, and grade 4-5 toxicity was 0.5% v 0.3%, respectively. Discussion: PBI did not meet the criteria for equivalence to WBI in controlling IBTR based on the upper limit of the hazard ratio confidence interval. However, the absolute difference in 10-yr rate of IBTR was <1% (4.8% PBI v 4.1% WBI). The risk of an RFI event was statistically significantly higher for PBI compared to WBI, but the absolute difference in 10-yr RFI rate was also small (8.1% PBI v 6.6% WBI). DDFI, OS, and DFS were not statistically different for PBI v WBI. Grade 3-5 toxicities, although low, were more common for PBI than WBI. The trial population was heterogeneous, ranging from Stage 0-2 breast cancer, and outcome by risk categories are being analyzed. Support: U10CA180868, -180822, UG1CA189867. Citation Format: Vicini FA, Cecchini RS, White JR, Julian TB, Arthur DW, Rabinovitch RA, Kuske RR, Parda DS, Ganz PA, Scheier MF, Winter KA, Paik S, Kuerer HM, Vallow LA, Pierce LJ, Mamounas EP, Costantino JP, Bear HD, Germaine I, Gustafson G, Grossheim L, Petersen IA, Hudes RS, Curran, Jr. WJ, Wolmark N. Primary results of NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413 (NRG Oncology): A randomized phase III study of conventional whole breast irradiation (WBI) versus partial breast irradiation (PBI) for women with stage 0, I, or II breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS4-04.
Abstract PD06-08: Size Matters: Incorporation of Sentinel Lymph Node (SLN) Metastasis Size into a Nomogram Predicting NonSLN Involvement in SLN Positive Breast Cancer Patients
Mittendorf, EA , Boughey, JC , Degnim, AC, Harrell, Robyn K., Yi, Min , Ross, MI, Babiera, GV, Kuerer, HM, Bedrosian, I., Hunt, KK , Hwang, RF, Bassett, Roland L. , Meric‐Bernstam, Funda , Kuerer, Henry Mark, Lucci, Anthony

Cancer Research | April 27, 2011 | Volume: 70 | Issue: 24_Supplement | Pages: PD06-08-PD06-08

10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs10-pd06-08 Get It

Abstract Purpose: Emerging data from cooperative group trials suggests that not all patients with a positive SLN require completion axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). The controversy regarding who will benefit from additional nodal clearance continues, suggesting a need for improved tools to predict non-SLN involvement. We hypothesized that the size of a SLN metastasis evaluated as a continuous variable would be an important predictor of non-SLN involvement. The goal of this study was to determine clinicopathologic factors including SLN metastasis size that predicted non-SLN involvement and to use these factors to construct an improved predictive nomogram. Methods: Using a prospective database, we identified 509 patients with invasive breast cancer from 1996 - 2007 with a positive SLN who underwent ALND. Patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. Clinicopathologic data including age, primary tumor size, presence of multifocal disease, histology (invasive ductal vs. invasive lobular vs. mixed invasive), tumor grade, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2/neu status, presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI), the number of SLNs identified, number of positive SLNs, the maximum SLN metastasis size and the presence of extranodal extension were recorded. For SLNs described only as containing isolated tumor cells, size was recorded as 0.1 mm. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors predictive of positive non-SLNs. Using these variables, a nomogram was constructed and subsequently validated using an external cohort of 464 patients. Results: On univariate analysis, the following factors were predictive of positive non-SLNs: number of SLN identified (p<.001), number of positive SLN (p<.001), maximum SLN metastasis size (p<.001), extranodal extension (p<.001), primary tumor size (p=.001), LVI (p=.019) and histology (p=.034). On multivariate analysis, all factors remained significant at the 5% level except LVI. A nomogram was created using these variables. When applied to an external cohort, the nomogram was accurate and discriminating with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of .73 (95% CI: .68 - .77). Conclusions: SLN metastasis size is predictive for identifying additional disease in the axilla. These data have been incorporated into a nomogram that accurately predicts the likelihood of having additional, non-SLN metastasis suggesting that routine reporting of the SLN metastasis size would assist with clinical decision making regarding the need to perform a completion ALND. Figures available in online version. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr PD06-08.