Shulman, Lawrence N.

ImportanceBlack women in the United States have higher breast cancer (BC) mortality rates than White women. The combined role of multiple factors, including body mass index (BMI), age, and tumor subtype, remains unclear.ObjectiveTo assess the association of race and ethnicity with survival among clinical trial participants with early-stage BC (eBC) according to tumor subtype, age, and BMI.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study analyzed survival data, as of November 12, 2021, from participants enrolled between 1997 and 2010 in 4 randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trials: Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 9741, 49907, and 40101 as well as North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) N9831, legacy groups of the Alliance of Clinical Trials in Oncology. Median follow-up was 9.8 years.ExposuresNon-Hispanic Black and Hispanic participants were compared with non-Hispanic White participants within subgroups of subtype (hormone receptor positive [HR+]/ERBB2[formerlyHER2] negative [ERBB2−],ERBB2+, and HR−/ERBB2−), age (<50, 50 to <65, and ≥65 years), and BMI (<18.5, 18.5 to <25.0, 25.0 to <30.0, and ≥30.0).Main Outcomes and MeasuresRecurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).ResultsOf 9479 participants, 436 (4.4%) were Hispanic, 871 (8.8%) non-Hispanic Black, and 7889 (79.5%) non-Hispanic White. The median (range) age was 52 (19.0-89.7) years. Among participants with HR+/ERBB2− tumors, non-Hispanic Black individuals had worse RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.12; 5-year RFS, 88.5% vs 93.2%) than non-Hispanic White individuals, although the global test for association of race and ethnicity with RFS was not significant within any tumor subtype. There were no OS differences by race and ethnicity in any subtype. Race and ethnicity were associated with OS in young participants (age <50 years; globalP = .008); young non-Hispanic Black participants (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.04-1.71; 5-year OS, 86.6% vs 92.0%) and Hispanic participants (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.16-2.29; 5-year OS, 86.2% vs 92.0%) had worse OS than young non-Hispanic White participants. Race and ethnicity were associated with RFS in participants with BMIs of 25 to less than 30, with Hispanic participants having worse RFS (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.23-2.68; 5-year RFS, 83.2% vs 87.3%) than non-Hispanic White participants.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, racial and ethnic survival disparities were identified in patients with eBC receiving standardized initial care, and potentially at-risk subgroups, for whom focused interventions may improve outcomes, were found.

Abstract Background: Previous studies have demonstrated poorer survival of Black women with breast cancer. We assessed whether race/ethnicity was associated with disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) among women with breast cancer enrolled in clinical trials for early-stage breast cancer according to tumor subtype, age, and body mass index (BMI). Methods: 10,011 women enrolled in one of four adjuvant chemotherapy trials: CALGB 9741, CALGB 49907, CALGB 40101, or NCCTG N9831. 9918 participants had available DFS and/or OS data and were included in the analysis. Cox models were used to estimate multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between race/ethnicity and DFS and OS. We compared Non-Hispanic (NH) Black (n=871), Hispanic (n=436), and other race participants (n=283) to NH Whites (n=7889). We assessed associations within strata of age group (<50, 50-<65, or ≥65), tumor subtype (hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2-, HR-/HER2+, or HR-/HER2-), and BMI (<25, 25-<30, or ≥30). Results: In multivariable-adjusted models, NH Black patients under 50 years of age had worse DFS compared to NH White patients (HR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.10-1.62) and worse OS (HR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.30-2.07). The differences in DFS and OS persisted in patients ages 50 to <65, though there were no significant differences in DFS or OS between NH Black and NH White patients ages ≥65. Among Hispanic and NH White participants, younger age at diagnosis was associated with greater DFS compared with older age overall while this was not true for NH Black patients. Among patients with HR+/HER2- tumors, NH Black patients when compared to NH White patients had worse DFS (HR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.04-1.70) but there was not a significant difference in OS (HR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.00-1.83). DFS and OS for other tumor subtypes did not significantly differ by race. Among patients with BMI <25, NH Black patients had significantly worse DFS (HR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.25-2.30) and OS (HR:1.76, 95% CI:1.20-2.58) compared to NH White patients. There was no difference in survival between different race/ethnicity groups among individuals with BMI ≥25. Conclusions: Our results identified subgroups that may contribute to the observed disparities in survival between NH Black and NH White women with early-stage breast cancer. The greatest disparities are among individuals <50 years of age, those with HR+/HER2-, and those with BMI <25. These differences exist even within clinical trial populations with similar initial therapy, suggesting that disparities may be influenced by inequities in survivorship care and long-term treatment, such as endocrine therapy adherence and persistence, and/or differences in tumor or host biology. Support: U10CA180821 and U10CA180882; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00003088, NCT00005970, NCT00024102, NCT00041119; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Citation Format: Marla Lipsyc-Sharf, Karla V. Ballman, Jordan D. Campbell, Hyman B. Muss, Edith A. Perez, Lawrence N. Shulman, Lisa A. Carey, Ann H. Partridge, Erica T. Warner. Role of age, BMI, and tumor subtype in racial/ethnic disparities in breast cancer survival: A pooled analysis of four Alliance adjuvant clinical trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 494.

2022 Background: Studies have suggested superior outcomes for patients with cancer treated at National Cancer Institute (NCI) and academic hospitals, leading some to advocate for complex cancer care to be delivered at regional referral centers. However, growing demand at such centers may exceed their capacity to provide timely treatment, which could be detrimental to patient outcomes. We evaluated the relationship between hospital type, the average annual growth rate in patient volume (PV), and time to treatment initiation (TTI) trends. Methods: We used the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing initial treatment for a new diagnosis of cancer (breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, melanoma, bladder, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, renal, uterine or pancreatic) in 2007-2016. The exposure was hospital type (NCI, academic, community or integrated network). The primary outcome was TTI over time. We estimated both the average annual growth rate for PV and adjusted TTI trends by hospital type using linear mixed effects models, including a hospital type-by-time interaction and, when modeling TTI, a patient volume-by-time interaction. Results: We identified 4,218,577 patients treated at 1351 hospitals (49% at 897 community, 23% at 177 academic, 14% at 50 NCI and 14% at 227 integrated network hospitals). Over the study period, PV grew by 40% at NCI and 25% at academic hospitals, compared to 8% at community hospitals (p-value for trend both < 0.001). Meanwhile, mean TTI increased by 3.2 days at community, remained stable at academic (+0.3 days) and decreased by 4.3 days at NCI hospitals (p-value for trend both < 0.001 vs community). A higher annual PV growth rate was associated with a statistically but not clinically significant TTI increase (0.05 days for each 100 patient/year increase in the growth rate, p = 0.001). Conclusions: Patients with newly diagnosed cancer are increasingly receiving treatment at NCI and academic hospitals. While TTI at NCI and academic hospitals is longer than in the community, PV growth has been possible without delaying cancer treatment. Further study is needed to determine whether continued growth at this rate is sustainable. [Table: see text]

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, was first detected as a respiratory illness in December 2019 in Wuhan City, China. Since then, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has impacted every aspect of our lives worldwide. In a time when terms such as social distancing and flattening the curve have become a part of our vernacular, it is essential that we understand what measures can be implemented to protect our patients and healthcare workers. Undoubtedly, healthcare providers have had to rapidly alter care delivery models while simultaneously acknowledging the crucial unknowns of how these changes may affect clinical outcomes. This special feature reviews strategies on how to mitigate transmission of COVID-19 in an effort to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with the disease for patients with cancer without infection, for patients with cancer with COVID-19 infection, and for the healthcare workers caring for them, while continuing to provide the best possible cancer care. [Editor’s Note: This article includes the most current information available at time of publication; however, recommendations regarding public safety and practice may change rapidly in this situation. Individuals should get the most up to date information from the CDC website.]

1007 Background: Determining optimal adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer depends on efficacy and toxicity. We sought to determine if T is equivalent to AC but with reduced toxicity. Methods: Pts with operable breast cancer with 0-3 positive nodes were enrolled on a 2x2 factorial design study which addressed (1) superiority of 6 vs. 4 cycles of therapy (previously reported, Shulman, JCO 2012) and (2) equivalence of single-agent T to standard AC, defined as upper bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) of hazard ratio (HR) of T vs. AC < 1.30 for the primary endpoint of relapse-free survival (RFS). A planned target of 567 RFS events required 4,646 pts with 4 yrs FU. At activation in 2002, T (80mg/m2) was q1wk for 12 or 18 wks and AC (60/600 mg/m2) was q3wk for 4 or 6 cycles. In 2003 (570 pts enrolled) schedules were revised to 4 or 6 cycles q2wk for both T (175 mg/m2) and AC. The 6-cycle arms were dropped in 2008 (3,171 pts enrolled) due to slow accrual. Relative effectiveness of T to AC is shown by hazard ratio (HR). Logrank p-values are measures of discordance but are not relevant for the equivalence question and are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Results: After enrolling 3,871 pts, the study closed in 2010 due to slowing accrual. With a median follow-up of 6.1 yrs there are 437 RFS events. The HR of 1.26 (95% CI: 1.05-1.53; p = 0.02) does not allow a conclusion of equivalence of T with AC. With 266 deaths the HR for overall survival (OS) is 1.27 (95% CI=1.00-1.62; p = 0.05), favoring AC. The estimated absolute advantage of AC at 5 yrs is 3% (91 vs. 88%) for RFS and 1% (95 vs. 94%) for OS. All 9 treatment-related deaths were in pts receiving AC and are included in the survival analysis. The incidence of Grade 3+ toxicity for AC vs T was 33% vs. 4% for hematologic toxicity and 36% vs 22% for non-hematologic toxicity. Conclusions: This trial did not show equivalence of T to AC, a conclusion that is very unlikely to change with additional follow-up. T was less toxic than AC. Clinical trial information: CDR0000069444/NCT00041119.

1021 Background: At 5 years, AT did not improve disease free survival or overall survival and RS was a more accurate predictor of relapse than standard clinicopathologic characteristics for patients with hormone receptor (HR) positive tumors. Methods: A Phase III Intergroup trial tested adjuvant AT vs. AC. Women with 1-3 N + or N - and T-size > 1cm were randomized to 4 cycles of AT (60 mg/m2/60 mg/ m2) or AC (60 mg/m2/600 mg/m2) q 3 wk x 4. Patients(pts) with ER + and/ or PR + tumors received tam for 5 yrs. Pts were stratified by nodal, HR (ER+ PR+, ER+PR-, ER-PR+, ER-PR-, ER/PR unk) and menopausal status. The primary endpoint was DFS. A sample of 465 pts with HR + breast cancer with 0 to 3 positive axillary nodes who did (N =116) or did not have a recurrence had tumor tissue evaluated using the 21- gene assay. Grade and HR expression were evaluated locally and centrally. Results: 2952 pts were randomized between 7/30/98 and 1/21/00. 2883 were eligible and analyzable. Arms were balanced for age, HR, menopause, nodes, surgery, grade and T-size: median age 51; 64% ER +; 65% LN-; grade: 10% low, 38% int., 46% high; and median T-size - 2.0 cm. At a median follow-up of 11.5 years the DFS/OS results are shown in the table below. RS was a highly significant predictor of recurrence including node negative and node positive disease (P < .0001) and predicted recurrence more accurately than clinical variables. Conclusions: At 11.5 yrs. median follow-up, there remains no difference in DFS or OS, although there continue to be fewer events in the AT arm in the prespecified ER/PR negative subgroup. At 10 years, the RS continues to be a more accurate predictor of relapse than standard clinical features. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background Less than 3% of older patients with cancer are enrolled in clinical trials. To reverse this underrepresentation, we compared older patients enrolled with older-patient-specific trials, defined as those designed for older patients with cancer, with those enrolled in age-unspecified trials. Materials and Methods We focused on individual patient data from those ≥65 years (younger patients excluded) and included all Alliance phase III adjuvant breast cancer trials from 1985–2012. Results Among 2,277 patients, 1,014 had been enrolled to older-patient-specific and 1,263 to age-unspecified trials. The median age (range) in the older-patient-specific trials was 72 (65–89) years compared with 68 (65–84) years in the cohort of older patients in age-unspecified trials; p &lt; .0001. A greater percentage of patients 75 years or older had enrolled in older-patient-specific trials compared with the cohort of age-unspecified trials: 26% versus 6% (p &lt; .0001). Median overall survival (OS) was 12.8 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9–13.7) and 13.5 years (95% CI, 12.9–14.1) for older-patient-specific and age-unspecified trials, respectively. OS was comparable (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92–1.28; p = .34; referent: age-unspecified trials), after adjusting for age, estrogen receptor status, tumor size, and lymph node status. Similar findings were reached for recurrence-free survival. A lower rate of grade 3–5 adverse events (hematologic and nonhematologic) was reported in older-patient-specific trials (43% vs. 58%; p &lt; .0001). Sensitivity analysis with chemotherapy only trials and subset analysis, adjusted for performance score, yielded similar OS results. Conclusion Older-patient-specific trials appear to address this underrepresentation of older patients with ostensibly comparable outcomes. Clinical trial identification numbers. NCT00003088 (CALGB 9741); NCT00024102 (CALGB 49907); NCT00068601 (CALGB 40401); NCT00005970 (NCCTG N9831)

Abstract Purpose A few previous studies report a direct relationship between older age and chemotherapy-induced neuropathy. This study further evaluated this adverse event's age-based risk. Methods CALGB 40101 investigated adjuvant paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 once per week or 175 mg/m2 every 2 weeks) in patients with breast cancer and served as a platform for the current study that investigated age-based differences in neuropathy. Grade 2 or worse neuropathy, as per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4, was the primary endpoint; patients were assessed at baseline, every 6 months for 2 years, and then annually for 15 years. Results Among these 1,881 patients, 230 were 65 years of age or older, 556 were 55–64 years, and 1,095 were younger than 55; 1,226 neuropathy events (commonly grade 1 or 2) were reported in 65% of the cohort. The number of grade 2 or worse events was 63 (27%), 155 (28%), and 266 (24%) within respective age groups (p = .14). In univariate analysis, only motor neuropathy had a higher age-based incidence: 19 (8%), 43 (8%), and 60 (5%), respectively (p = .04); in multivariate analyses, this association was no longer statistically significant. Other endpoints, such as time to onset of neuropathy (time from trial enrollment to neuropathy development) and time to improvement (time from maximal grade sensory neuropathy to a one-category improvement), showed no statistically significant age-based differences. In contrast, obesity was associated with neuropathy, and every 2-week paclitaxel was associated with trends toward neuropathy. Conclusion Although paclitaxel-induced neuropathy is common, older age is not an independent risk factor. Clinical trial identification number. NCT00041119 (CALGB 40101).