Hobday, Timothy J

PURPOSE Thrombocytopenia is a relatively common dose-limiting toxicity during peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) in patients with NET. Although uncommon, some patients develop persistent cytopenia and eventually therapy-related myeloid neoplasm (t-MN), which has a dismal prognosis. As the indications for PRRT are expanding, it is important to investigate factors that may predict cytopenias during/after PRRT. We prospectively evaluated the prevalence of clonal hematopoiesis (CH) and cytopenia in patients with NET undergoing PRRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with metastatic NET with plan to receive four cycles of lutetium-177 were enrolled. CH was evaluated before PRRT using a panel of 220 genes with a targeted depth of ≥1,000×. Patients were followed during PRRT and every 3 months thereafter. RESULTS Of 37 patients enrolled, the median age was 68 years and 51.4% were male. Previous treatment exposures included alkylating agents in 30%, platinum agents in 8%, and external radiation in 13%. CH was detected in 35.1% using a variant allele frequency (VAF) cutoff of ≥2% and 45.9% with a VAF of ≥1%. The most common mutations were in age-related genes ( DNMT3A, TET2). CH was not associated with anemia or neutropenia; however, it was associated with lower platelet count at baseline and more time spent in a thrombocytopenic state during/after PRRT. Five patients had bone marrow biopsies (BMBs) because of sustained hematologic dysfunction post-PRRT, and of those, diagnoses included clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) in three and idiopathic cytopenia of undetermined significance (ICUS) in two. CONCLUSION CH is present in 35.1% of patients with NET and is associated with thrombocytopenia risk during PRRT. Future studies with long-term follow-up will delineate whether CH might be a predictor for higher risk of t-MN after PRRT.

Abstract Purpose: We previously reported that postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-α–positive breast cancer receiving adjuvant anastrozole 1 mg/day (ANA1) with estrone (E1) ≥1.3 pg/mL and estradiol (E2) ≥0.5 pg/mL [inadequate estrogen suppression (IES)] had a threefold increased risk of a breast cancer event. The objective of this study was to determine if increasing anastrozole to 10 mg/day (ANA10) could result in adequate estrogen suppression (AES: E1 <1.3 pg/mL and/or E2 <0.5 pg/mL) among those with IES on ANA1. Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-α–positive breast cancer planning to receive adjuvant ANA1 were eligible. E1 and E2 were assessed pre- and post-8 to 10 weeks of ANA1. Those with IES were switched to 8- to 10-week cycles of ANA10 followed by letrozole 2.5 mg/day. E1 and E2 were assessed after each cycle. Anastrozole concentrations were measured post-ANA1 and post-ANA10. Primary analyses included patients who documented taking at least 80% of the planned treatment (adherent cohort). Results: In total, 132 (84.6%) of 156 eligible patients were ANA1 adherent. IES occurred in 40 (30.3%) adherent patients. Twenty-five (78.1%) of 32 patients who began ANA10 were adherent, and AES was achieved in 19 (76.0%; 90% confidence interval, 58.1%–89.0%) patients. Anastrozole concentrations post-ANA1 and post-ANA10 did not differ by estrogen suppression status among adherent patients. AES was maintained/attained in 21 (91.3%) of 23 letrozole-adherent patients. Conclusions: Approximately 30% of ANA1-adherent patients had IES. Among those who switched to ANA10 and were adherent, 76% had AES. Further studies are required to validate emerging data that ANA1 results in IES for some patients and to determine the clinical benefit of switching to ANA10 or an alternative aromatase inhibitor.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. Metformin has been associated with lower cancer risk in epidemiologic and preclinical research. In the MA.32 randomized adjuvant breast cancer trial, metformin ( v placebo) did not affect invasive disease-free or overall survival. Here, we report metformin effects on the risk of new cancer. Between 2010 and 2013, 3,649 patients with breast cancer younger than 75 years without diabetes with high-risk T1-3, N0-3 M0 breast cancer (any estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) were randomly assigned to metformin 850 mg orally twice a day or placebo twice a day for 5 years. New primary invasive cancers (outside the ipsilateral breast) developing as a first event were identified. Time to events was described by the competing risks method; two-sided likelihood ratio tests adjusting for age, BMI, smoking, and alcohol intake were used to compare metformin versus placebo arms. A total of 184 patients developed new invasive cancers: 102 metformin and 82 placebo, hazard ratio (HR), 1.25; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.68; P = .13. These included 48 contralateral invasive breast cancers (27 metformin v 21 placebo), HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.72 to 2.27; P = .40 and 136 new nonbreast primary cancers (75 metformin v 61 placebo), HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.74; P = .21. Metformin did not reduce the risk of new cancer development in these nondiabetic patients with breast cancer.