Woodward, Wendy A

PURPOSE For patients with breast cancer undergoing breast conservation, escalating the dose (boost) of radiation to the lumpectomy cavity after whole-breast irradiation (WBI) reduces ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) but extends treatment duration. This phase III trial investigated whether boost delivery during WBI versus after WBI provides noninferior IBR and preserves cosmetic appearance. METHODS NRG/RTOG 1005 randomly assigned patients at higher risk for IBR after lumpectomy and axillary surgery to either a sequential boost of 12 Gy in six fractions(F) or 14 Gy in 7F after WBI of 50 Gy in 25F or 42.7 Gy in 16F (sequential arm) or a concurrent boost of 8 Gy in 15F of 0.53 Gy per day with WBI of 40 Gy in 15F (concurrent arm) using 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (RT) or intensity-modulated RT. Based on 1.59% 5-year IBR for the sequential arm, defining the noninferiority margin as a hazard ratio upper limit on the 90% CI of 2.12, 2,312 patients provide 80% power for noninferiority of IBR as first recurrence for the concurrent arm. Secondary end points included disease-free survival and overall survival, adverse events (AEs), and cosmetic outcomes. RESULTS Between May 24, 2011, and June 20, 2014, 2,354 patients were randomly assigned, with 2,255 eligible for analysis (sequential arm, n = 1,118; concurrent arm, n = 1,137). With median follow-up of 7.3 years, there were 56 IBR events; 5- and 7-year IBR were 2.1% and 2.2% on the sequential arm and 1.9% and 2.6% on the concurrent arm, respectively. The noninferiority criterion was met: HR (90% CI): 1.31 (0.84 to 2.04), P = .037. No differences were observed in AEs, cosmetic outcomes, or survival between arms. CONCLUSION Concurrent boost during WBI results in noninferior IBR compared with sequential boost without worsening toxicity or cosmetic outcomes and reduces overall treatment time.

Abstract IBC Clear: A decentralized multi-center MRD Registry for Inflammatory Breast CancerInflammatory breast cancer is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer with distinct clinical phenotypes, including early recurrence post-tri-modal care (neoadjuvant systemic therapy, surgery, adjuvant radiation). Preliminary data from MDACC have shown a high rate of baseline and serial MRD positivity in IBC patients (35-40% at 6-12 months post-surgery), suggesting that newly diagnosed IBC is an ideal population to test MRD as a standard of care and design adjuvant interventional trials. However, to date, our understanding of the optimal monitoring cadence and interventions following MRD positivity remains limited. IBC Clear is a decentralized protocol developed to collect real-world data from patients treated amongst our IBC Connect network of 19 US-based and three international institutions (7 of whom have expressed interest in participating). Patients who have had, or plan to have Signatera® ordered at the post-chemo/pre-surgery timepoint can self-enroll from the community by emailing IBCClear@mdanderson.org for information on the consent process. Study Design: Eligibility criteria include English-speaking patients > 18 years of age with a clinical diagnosis of IBC, with Signatera testing ordered or planned. The post-chemo/pre-surgery timepoint is the only study-mandated timepoint; however, any additional serial testing conducted before or after this timepoint will also be collected. Patients who have at least one Signatera test ordered and plan to have a pre-surgery/post-chemo collection as standard of care will be enrolled in a central REDCap database. Physicians enrolling patients may act on the results according to their clinical judgment, including imaging assessments and treatment changes. These interventions will be captured in the database. An electronic EORTC QLQ C30 survey will also be administered prior to and after receiving Signatera results to gather information about the impact of testing on the patient's quality of life. A total of 200 patients from all sites will be enrolled over a period of two years. Patients will be followed remotely for up to 2 years from the first Signatera test or until clinical recurrence, whichever comes first. Endpoints: Data collected will include the feasibility of decentralized data collection studies, as well as Signatera and recurrence information. The goals are to gather real-world data regarding the association of MRD positivity with pathologic response in IBC, patient-reported QOL for worry about recurrence, median lead time between the first MRD-positive result and clinical recurrence, and, if possible, whether the adjuvant therapies decrease the amount of MRD in IBC patients (pending optional longitudinal testing). Status of the study: The study was activated in June 2025. As of abstract submission, 2 patients have been enrolled at the lead site. Collaborating sites are being added. Sponsor: The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Clinicaltrials.gov Accession number: NCT06966050 Citation Format: A. Alexander, M. Kai, K. A. Abou-Hussein, S. Ali, C. Anderson, S. W. Bahadur, Y. C. Cheng, N. T. Ueno, X. Wang, A. Lucci, W. A. Woodward, S. Saleem, MDACC Inflammatory Breast Cancer Team. PS2-02-05: Ibc clear: a decentralized multi-center mrd registry for inflammatory breast cancer [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 PS2-02-05.

PURPOSE The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007 and updated in 2021 (STEEP 2.0), provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer (BC) end points. STEEP 2.0 identified a need to separately address end points for neoadjuvant clinical trials. The multidisciplinary NeoSTEEP working group of experts was convened to critically evaluate and align neoadjuvant BC trial end points. METHODS The NeoSTEEP working group concentrated on neoadjuvant systemic therapy end points in clinical trials with efficacy outcomes—both pathologic and time-to-event survival end points—particularly for registrational intent. Special considerations for subtypes and therapeutic approaches, imaging, nodal staging at surgery, bilateral and multifocal diseases, correlative tissue collection, and US Food and Drug Administration regulatory considerations were contemplated. RESULTS The working group recommends a preferred definition of pathologic complete response (pCR) as the absence of residual invasive cancer in the complete resected breast specimen and all sampled regional lymph nodes (ypT0/Tis ypN0 per AJCC staging). Residual cancer burden should be a secondary end point to facilitate future assessment of its utility. Alternative end points are needed for hormone receptor–positive disease. Time-to-event survival end point definitions should pay particular attention to the measurement starting point. Trials should include end points originating at random assignment (event-free survival and overall survival) to capture presurgery progression and deaths as events. Secondary end points adapted from STEEP 2.0, which are defined from starting at curative-intent surgery, may also be appropriate. Specification and standardization of biopsy protocols, imaging, and pathologic nodal evaluation are also crucial. CONCLUSION End points in addition to pCR should be selected on the basis of clinical and biologic aspects of the tumor and the therapeutic agent investigated. Consistent prespecified definitions and interventions are paramount for clinically meaningful trial results and cross-trial comparison.

ImportanceLittle is known about regional nodal irradiation (RNI) practice patterns or rates of locoregional recurrence (LRR) with and without RNI in patients with limited nodal disease and favorable biology treated with modern surgical and systemic therapy, including approaches that de-escalate those latter treatments.ObjectiveTo investigate how often patients with low–recurrence score breast cancer with 1 to 3 nodes involved receive RNI, incidence and predictors of LRR, and associations between locoregional therapy and disease-free survival.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsIn this secondary analysis of the SWOG S1007 trial, patients with hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative breast cancer, and a Oncotype DX 21-gene Breast Recurrence Score assay result of no more than 25, were randomized to endocrine therapy alone vs chemotherapy then endocrine therapy. Prospectively collected radiotherapy information was collected from 4871 patients treated in diverse settings. Data were analyzed June 2022 to April 2023.ExposureReceipt of RNI (targeting at least the supraclavicular region).Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s)Cumulative incidence of LRR was calculated by locoregional treatment received. Analyses were assessed for associations between invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and locoregional therapy, adjusted for menopausal status, treatment group, recurrence score, tumor size, nodes involved, and axillary surgery. Radiotherapy information was recorded in the first year after randomization, so survival analyses were landmarked as starting at 1 year among those still at risk.ResultsOf 4871 female patients (median [range] age, 57 [18-87] years) with radiotherapy forms, 3947 (81.0%) reported radiotherapy receipt. Of 3852 patients who received radiotherapy and had complete information on targets, 2274 (59.0%) received RNI. With a median follow-up of 6.1 years, the cumulative incidence of LRR by 5 years was 0.85% among patients who received breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy with RNI; 0.55% after breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy without RNI; 0.11% after mastectomy with postmastectomy radiotherapy; and 1.7% after mastectomy without radiotherapy. Similarly low LRR was observed within the group assigned to endocrine therapy without chemotherapy. The rate of IDFS did not differ by RNI receipt (premenopausal: hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.74-1.43; P = .87; postmenopausal: HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.68-1.07; P = .16).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this secondary analysis of a clinical trial, RNI use was divided in the setting of biologically favorable N1 disease, and rates of LRR were low even in patients who did not receive RNI. Disease-free survival was not associated with RNI receipt; omission of chemotherapy among patients similar to those enrolled in the S1007 trial is not an independent indication for use of RNI.