Hobday, T.

Abstract Background S0221 investigated weekly vs every 2 weeks dosing of doxorubicin (A) and cyclophosphamide (C) followed by paclitaxel in patients with high-risk early breast cancer. After an interim analysis, random assignment to the 2 AC arms was stopped for futility, and the trial was modified to study only the paclitaxel schedules. Methods Between December 2003 and November 2010, a total of 2716 patients were randomly assigned in a 2 × 2 factorial design to 15 weeks of weekly A and daily C vs 6 cycles of every 2 weeks AC; and weekly paclitaxel for 12 weeks vs 6 cycles of every 2 weeks paclitaxel. Between January 2011 and January 2012, an additional 578 patients were assigned to 4 cycles of every 2 weeks AC and randomly assigned to weekly vs every 2 weeks paclitaxel. Updated survival was assessed using log-rank tests and Cox regression models. We compared outcomes by breast cancer subtype as well. Results At a median follow-up of 12.1 years, there were no statistically significant differences among the 4 treatment arms in disease-free survival (DFS) (P = .91) or overall survival (P = .34) in the original protocol. Among the 578 patients assigned AC for 4 cycles and randomly assigned to paclitaxel weekly vs every 2 weeks paclitaxel, there were no overall differences in DFS (P = .32) or overall survival (P = .42). Conclusion As there were no statistically significant outcome differences in DFS or overall survival between the studied schedules of AC and paclitaxel with extended follow-up in the original or revised protocol, either paclitaxel schedule may be recommended, with selection based on toxicity, cost, or patient preference.

Abstract Introduction: An Our Practice Advisory (OPA), formerly known as Best Practice Advisory (BPA), is an electronic health record (EHR) tool. OPAs identify key parameters to alert providers of potential interventions that could enhance quality of care. Such functionality is increasingly relevant given the rapid pace of new drug approvals. Within the Mayo Clinic system, we previously identified that amongst Mayo Clinic patients (pts) meeting the MonarchE criteria, 28% of pts did not undergo a documented discussion with their provider regarding the role of adjuvant abemaciclib (Premji, SABCS 2024). Further, a Flatiron study identified that only 40% of eligible pts received abemaciclib (Sandoval, Miami Breast 2025). To address this practice gap, in 2024 we began to implement EHR clinical decision support by creating an OPA trigger for pts eligible for an adjuvant CDK 4/6 inhibitor (CDK 4/6i). Here we report on ‘action taken’ versus not for the OPA and the most common reasons for re-prompts. Methods: The Mayo Breast Disease Group designed an OPA including pts who are within 14 months of a clinical or pathologic diagnosis of high-risk early-stage breast cancer. We leveraged structured data captured in the Epic staging forms (Epic Systems) to identify pts with clinical or pathologic T-stage, N-stage, grade, ± Ki-67/ multigene signature to identify ER+/HER2- pts eligible for adjuvant ribociclib or abemaciclib based on FDA approvals. The OPA was triggered by a patient encounter in oncology when endocrine therapy (but not CDK4/6i) was on the active medication list resulting in a hard stop. The OPA gathered limited details about whether adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitors were discussed and whether the provider followed a link that resulted in prescribing one—considered an indicator of action taken. In this IRB-exempt quality improvement project, we describe the responses captured in the OPA trigger utilizing Epic tools. Results: The OPA went live on 1/10/2025. Over a 5-month period post OPA initiation, we identified 517 OPA alerts among 332 unique pts. Their median age was 62.5 years, and the majority were female (97%). The median time to resolve the OPA was 17.5 seconds (range 2-567 seconds). 12.6% (65/517) of the time there was ‘action taken’ by selecting the hyperlink to potentially start a treatment plan. Providers selected the following OPA pre-set responses: ‘re-prompt in one month’ 248 (48%), ‘patient not a candidate for therapy’ 48 (9%), ‘patient declines’ 69 (13%), ‘outside oncologist will prescribe’ 36 (7%), ‘not discussed’ 44 (9%), and unknown 72 (14%). The most common free text comments among the 517 OPA alerts (summarized) included: ‘revisit in future’ 108 (21%), ‘too early’ 65 (13%), ‘patient declines’ 66 (13%), ‘outside oncologist will start’ 31 (6%), ‘not a candidate’ 26 (5%), and ‘co-morbidities’ 18 (3%). Erroneous OPA prompting occurred in 14 (3%) who previously failed a CDK4/6i due to toxicity and in 18 (3%) for pts currently on a CDK4/6i. 30 (6%) OPA comments noted that they discussed or started therapy that day. Conclusion: The OPA offered clinical decision support and ensured that clinicians considered prescribing CDK 4/6i in all pts identified as eligible, and captured deferrals. Refinements are needed to ensure appropriate timing of OPA and minimize erroneous firing. The OPA remains active and captures the reason for deferral of adjuvant CDK 4/6i prescription. This data pairs real world decision making to better understand clinically meaningful application of improved invasive disease-free survival (iDFS). Citation Format: S. Premji, P. Advani, S. Chumsri, L. Mina, J. Taraba, J. Carroll, J. Hoppenworth, E. Cathcart-Rake, T. Haddad, B. Rudder, G. Choong, D. Idossa, C. O’Sullivan, S. Yadav, K. Ruddy, P. Peethambaram, T. Hobday, M. Goetz, R. Rao, B. Ernst, F. Batalini, R. Leon-Ferre, A. Tevaarwerk, K. Giridhar. Implementing an Our Practice Advisory (OPA) to provide clinical decision support for adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitors in early-stage hormone receptor positive breast cancer: The Mayo Clinic Experience [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS5-11-10.