Citron, Marc L.

1032 Background: Obesity is a predictor of poor outcomes in women with early-stage breast cancer (BC). Some reports suggest that obesity is associated with aggressive tumor histology. We examined the relationship between BMI at diagnosis and PAM50 subtype, and explored the interaction between BMI and subtype on prognosis in early BC. Methods: CALGB 9741 evaluated dose-density and sequence in node-positive BC. All patients received doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and paclitaxel dosed by actual body weight without cap or dose adjustment. The primary endpoint was RFS. Height and weight at diagnosis were abstracted from patient records; the PAM50 assay was performed using the Nanostring platform. Association between PAM50 and BMI was assessed by a chi-squared test. The prognostic value of BMI conditional on PAM50 was tested as a continuous variable using Cox models for RFS adjusted for number of involved nodes, tumor size, menopausal status, drug sequence, and dose density. Results: Baseline height and weight were available for 1909 of 2005 enrolled patients; 1272 also had subtype determination by PAM50. Distribution of subtypes differed significantly by BMI (p=0.03), with all weight groups having similar proportions of Basal and HER-2 Enriched subtypes and with obese patients having lower rates of Luminal A (30 vs 35%) and higher rates of Luminal B (39 vs 26%) tumors as compared to normal-weight individuals. In multivariate analyses, BMI and subtype were independent predictors of RFS (p=0.011 and p<0.001, respectively). Exploratory analyses did not show a significant interaction between subtype and the relationship between increased BMI and RFS (p=0.15), although largest differences were seen among Luminal cancers (Table). Conclusions: Biologic subtypes were distributed differently in obese and non-obese individuals. The association between BMI and RFS did not differ significantly by subtype in this study. More work is needed to further explore the interaction of BMI and subtype, especially in a larger cohort of Luminal tumors. [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)

Purpose To provide evidence-based guidance on the optimum management of chronic pain in adult cancer survivors. Methods An ASCO-convened expert panel conducted a systematic literature search of studies investigating chronic pain management in cancer survivors. Outcomes of interest included symptom relief, pain intensity, quality of life, functional outcomes, adverse events, misuse or diversion, and risk assessment or mitigation. Results A total of 63 studies met eligibility criteria and compose the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. Studies tended to be heterogeneous in terms of quality, size, and populations. Primary outcomes also varied across the studies, and in most cases, were not directly comparable because of different outcomes, measurements, and instruments used at different time points. Because of a paucity of high-quality evidence, many recommendations are based on expert consensus. Recommendations Clinicians should screen for pain at each encounter. Recurrent disease, second malignancy, or late-onset treatment effects in any patient who reports new-onset pain should be evaluated, treated, and monitored. Clinicians should determine the need for other health professionals to provide comprehensive pain management care in patients with complex needs. Systemic nonopioid analgesics and adjuvant analgesics may be prescribed to relieve chronic pain and/or to improve function. Clinicians may prescribe a trial of opioids in carefully selected patients with cancer who do not respond to more conservative management and who continue to experience distress or functional impairment. Risks of adverse effects of opioids should be assessed. Clinicians should clearly understand terminology such as tolerance, dependence, abuse, and addiction as it relates to the use of opioids and should incorporate universal precautions to minimize abuse, addiction, and adverse consequences. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/chronic-pain-guideline and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .