Meric-Bernstam, Funda

Abstract Background The phase III RxPONDER trial has affected treatment for node-positive (1-3), hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer with a 21-gene recurrence score (RS) less than 26. We investigated how these findings apply to different racial and ethnic groups within the trial. Methods The trial randomly assigned women to endocrine therapy (ET) or to chemotherapy plus ET. The primary clinical outcome was invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), with distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) as a secondary outcome. Multivariable Cox models were used to evaluate the association between race/ethnicity and survival outcomes, adjusting for clinicopathological characteristics, RS, and treatment. Results A total of 4048 women with self-reported race/ethnicity were included: Hispanic (15.1%), non-Hispanic Black (NHB) (6.1%), Native American/Pacific Islander (0.8%), Asian (8.0%), and non-Hispanic White (NHW) (70%). No differences in RS distribution, tumor size, or number of positive nodes were observed by race/ethnicity. Relative to NHWs, IDFS was worse for NHB participants (5-year IDFS 91.6% vs 87.1%, HR = 1.37; 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.81) and better for Asians (91.6% vs 93.9%, HR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.91). Relative to NHW, DRFS was worse for NHB participants (5-year DRFS 95.8% vs 91.0%, HR = 1.65; 95% CI = 1.17 to 2.32) and better for Asians (95.8% vs 96.7%, HR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.37 to 0.95). Adjusting for clinical characteristics, particularly body mass index, diminished the effect of race on outcomes. Chemotherapy treatment efficacy did not differ by race/ethnicity. Conclusions NHB women had worse clinical outcomes compared with NHWs in the RxPONDER trial despite similar RS and comparable treatment. Our study emphasizes the persistent racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes while highlighting complex interactions among contributing factors. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01272037.

Abstract Basket, umbrella, and platform trial designs (master protocols) have emerged over the last decade to study precision medicine approaches in oncology. First-generation trials like NCI-MATCH (Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice) have proven the principle that studying targeted therapies on a large scale is feasible both from the laboratory and clinical perspectives. However, single-agent targeted therapies have shown limited ability to control metastatic disease, despite careful matching of drug to target. As such, newer approaches employing combinations of targeted therapy, or targeted therapy with standard therapies, need to be considered. The NCI has recently embarked on three second-generation precision medicine trials to address this need: ComboMATCH, iMATCH, and myeloMATCH. The design of these trials and necessary infrastructure are discussed in the following perspective.

PURPOSEAn ASCO provisional clinical opinion offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This provisional clinical opinion addresses the appropriate use of tumor genomic testing in patients with metastatic or advanced solid tumors.CLINICAL CONTEXTAn increasing number of therapies are approved to treat cancers harboring specific genomic biomarkers. However, there is a lack of clarity as to when tumor genomic sequencing should be ordered, what type of assays should be performed, and how to interpret the results for treatment selection.PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINIONPatients with metastatic or advanced cancer should undergo genomic sequencing in a certified laboratory if the presence of one or more specific genomic alterations has regulatory approval as biomarkers to guide the use of or exclusion from certain treatments for their disease. Multigene panel–based assays should be used if more than one biomarker-linked therapy is approved for the patient's disease. Site-agnostic approvals for any cancer with a high tumor mutation burden, mismatch repair deficiency, or neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase ( NTRK) fusions provide a rationale for genomic testing for all solid tumors. Multigene testing may also assist in treatment selection by identifying additional targets when there are few or no genotype-based therapy approvals for the patient's disease. For treatment planning, the clinician should consider the functional impact of the targeted alteration and expected efficacy of genomic biomarker–linked options relative to other approved or investigational treatments. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/assays-and-predictive-markers-guidelines .