Abrams, Jeffrey S.

Abstract Background Black race is associated with worse outcomes in early breast cancer. We evaluated clinicopathologic characteristics, the 21-gene recurrence score (RS), treatment delivered, and clinical outcomes by race and ethnicity among women who participated in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment. Methods The association between clinical outcomes and race (White, Black, Asian, other or unknown) and ethnicity (Hispanic vs non-Hispanic) was examined using proportional hazards models. All P values are 2-sided. Results Of 9719 eligible women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer, there were 8189 (84.3%) Whites, 693 (7.1%) Blacks, 405 (4.2%) Asians, and 432 (4.4%) with other or unknown race. Regarding ethnicity, 889 (9.1%) were Hispanic. There were no substantial differences in RS or ESR1, PGR, or HER2 RNA expression by race or ethnicity. After adjustment for other covariates, compared with White race, Black race was associated with higher distant recurrence rates (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.60, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.07 to 2.41) and worse overall survival in the RS 11-25 cohort (HR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.06 to 2.15) and entire population (HR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.90). Hispanic ethnicity and Asian race were associated with better outcomes. There was no evidence of chemotherapy benefit for any racial or ethnic group in those with a RS of 11-25. Conclusions Black women had worse clinical outcomes despite similar 21-gene assay RS results and comparable systemic therapy in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment. Similar to Whites, Black women did not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy if the 21-gene RS was 11-25. Further research is required to elucidate the basis for this racial disparity in prognosis.

Abstract Background The proportion of tumors of various histologies that may respond to drugs targeted to molecular alterations is unknown. NCI-MATCH, a collaboration between ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group and the National Cancer Institute, was initiated to find efficacy signals by matching patients with refractory malignancies to treatment targeted to potential tumor molecular drivers regardless of cancer histology. Methods Trial development required assumptions about molecular target prevalence, accrual rates, treatment eligibility, and enrollment rates as well as consideration of logistical requirements. Central tumor profiling was performed with an investigational next-generation DNA–targeted sequencing assay of alterations in 143 genes, and protein expression of protein expression of phosphatase and tensin homolog, mutL homolog 1, mutS homolog 2, and RB transcriptional corepressor 1. Treatments were allocated with a validated computational platform (MATCHBOX). A preplanned interim analysis evaluated assumptions and feasibility in this novel trial. Results At interim analysis, accrual was robust, tumor biopsies were safe (<1% severe events), and profiling success was 87.3%. Actionable molecular alteration frequency met expectations, but assignment and enrollment lagged due to histology exclusions and mismatch of resources to demand. To address this lag, we revised estimates of mutation frequencies, increased screening sample size, added treatments, and improved assay throughput and efficiency (93.9% completion and 14-day turnaround). Conclusions The experiences in the design and implementation of the NCI-MATCH trial suggest that profiling from fresh tumor biopsies and assigning treatment can be performed efficiently in a large national network trial. The success of such trials necessitates a broad screening approach and many treatment options easily accessible to patients.

Abstract Background Adjuvant bisphosphonates, when given in a low-estrogen environment, can decrease breast cancer recurrence and death. Treatment guidelines include recommendations for adjuvant bisphosphonates in postmenopausal patients. SWOG/Alliance/Canadian Cancer Trials Group/ECOG-ACRIN/NRG Oncology study S0307 compared the efficacy of three bisphosphonates in early-stage breast cancer. Methods Patients with stage I–III breast cancer were randomly assigned to 3 years of intravenous zoledronic acid, oral clodronate, or oral ibandronate. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) with overall survival as a secondary outcome. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results A total of 6097 patients enrolled. Median age was 52.7 years. Prior to being randomly assigned, 73.2% patients indicated preference for oral vs intravenous formulation. DFS did not differ across arms in a log-rank test (P = .49); 5-year DFS was 88.3% (zoledronic acid: 95% confidence interval [CI] = 86.9% to 89.6%), 87.6% (clodronate: 95% CI = 86.1% to 88.9%), and 87.4% (ibandronate: 95% CI = 85.6% to 88.9%). Additionally, 5-year overall survival did not differ between arms (log rank P = .50) and was 92.6% (zoledronic acid: 95% CI = 91.4% to 93.6%), 92.4% (clodronate: 95% CI = 91.2% to 93.5%), and 92.9% (ibandronate: 95% CI = 91.5% to 94.1%). Bone as first site of recurrence did not differ between arms (P = .93). Analyses based on age and tumor subtypes showed no treatment differences. Grade 3/4 toxicity was 8.8% (zoledronic acid), 8.3% (clodronate), and 10.5% (ibandronate). Osteonecrosis of the jaw was highest for zoledronic acid (1.26%) compared with clodronate (0.36%) and ibandronate (0.77%). Conclusions We found no evidence of differences in efficacy by type of bisphosphonate, either in overall analysis or subgroups. Despite an increased rate of osteonecrosis of the jaw with zoledronic acid, overall toxicity grade differed little across arms. Given that patients expressed preference for oral formulation, efforts to make oral agents available in the United States should be considered.

Abstract Background: Black race is associated with worse outcomes in localized hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer in population-based and in clinical trial cohorts, whether using self-identified race (Albain et al. JNCI 2009 [PMID: 19584328; Sparano et al. JNCI 2012 [PMID: 22250182) or genetically-identified race (Schneider et al. J Precision Oncol 2017 [PMID: 29333527]). This disparity persists after adjustment for treatment delivery parameters (Hershman et al. JCO 2009 [PMID:19307504]). We evaluated clinicopathologic characteristics, treatment delivered and clinical outcomes in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx) by race and ethnicity (Sparano et al. NEJM 2018 [PMID: 29860917]). Methods: The analysis included 9719 evaluable TAILORx participants. The association between clinical outcomes and race (white, black, Asian, other/unknown) and ethnicity (Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic) was examined, including invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), distant relapse-free interval (DRFI), relapse-free interval (RFI), and overall survival (OS). Proportional hazards models were fit including age (5 categories), tumor size (>2 cm vs. <=2 cm), histologic grade (high vs. medium vs. low vs. unknown), continuous recurrence score (RS), race, and ethnicity in the overall population and randomized treatment arms in the RS 11-25 cohort. Results: The study population included 8189 (84%) whites, 693 (7%) blacks, 405 (4%) Asians, and 432 (4%) with other/unknown race. Regarding ethnicity, 7635 (79%) were non-Hispanic, 889 (9%) Hispanic, and 1195 (12%) unknown. There was no significant difference in RS distribution (p=0.22) in blacks compared with whites, or in median (17 vs. 17) or mean RS (19.1 vs. 18.2). There was likewise no difference in Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic ethnicity for RS distribution (p=0.72) or median (17 vs. 17) or mean RS (18.5 vs. 18.0). Black race (39% vs. 30%) and Hispanic ethnicity (39% vs. 30%) were both associated with younger age (</=50 years) at diagnosis. The use and type of adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy, and duration of endocrine therapy, were similar in black (vs. white) and Hispanic (vs. non-Hispanic) populations. In proportional hazards models, black race (compared with white race) was associated with worse clinical outcomes in the entire population and in those with a RS 11-25 (see table). Hispanic ethnicity was generally associated with better outcomes (compared with non-Hispanic ethnicity). For the cohort with a RS of 11-25, there was no evidence for chemotherapy benefit for any racial or ethnic group. Race (black vs.white) and clinical outcomes in proportional hazards modelsClinical endpointEntire Population (N=693 black) Hazard ratio for eventRS 11-25 (N=471 black) Hazard ratio for eveniDFS1.33 (p=0.005)1.49 (p=0.001)DRFI1.21 (p=0.28)1.60 (p=0.02)RFI1.39 (p=0.02)1.80 (p<0.001)OS1.52 (p=0.005)1.67 (p=0.003 Conclusions: In patients eligible and selected for participation in TAILORx, black women had worse clinical outcomes despite similar 21-gene assay RS results and comparable systemic therapy. This adds to an emerging body of evidence suggesting a biologic basis or other factors contributing to racial disparities in HR-positive breast cancer that requires further evaluation. Citation Format: Albain K, Gray RJ, Sparano JA, Makower DF, Pritchard KI, Hayes DF, Geyer, Jr. CE, Dees EC, Goetz MP, Olson, Jr. JA, Lively T, Badve SS, Saphner TJ, Wagner LI, Whelan TJ, Ellis MJ, Paik S, Wood WC, Ravdin PM, Keane MM, Gomez HL, Reddy PS, Goggins TF, Mayer IA, Brufsky AM, Toppmeyer DL, Kaklamani VG, Berenberg JL, Abrams J, Sledge, Jr. GW. Race, ethnicity and clinical outcomes in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer: results from the TAILORx trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS4-07.

Abstract The treatment of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is slowly evolving from empirical cytotoxic chemotherapy to personalized treatment based on specific molecular alterations. Despite this 10-year evolution, targeted therapies have not been studied adequately in patients with resected NSCLC who have clearly defined actionable mutations. The advent of next-generation sequencing has now made it possible to characterize genomic alterations in unprecedented detail. The efforts begun by The Cancer Genome Atlas project to understand the complexities of the genomic landscape of lung cancer will be supplemented further by studying a large number of tumor specimens. The Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trial (ALCHEMIST) is an NCI-sponsored national clinical trials network (NCTN) initiative to address the needs to refine therapy for early-stage NSCLC. This program will screen several thousand patients with operable lung adenocarcinoma to determine whether their tumors contain specific molecular alterations [epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement (ALK)], making them eligible for treatment trials that target these alterations. Patients with EGFR mutation or ALK gene rearrangement in their tumor will be randomized to placebo versus erlotinib or crizotinib, respectively, after completion of their standard adjuvant therapy. ALCHEMIST will also contain a large discovery component that will provide an opportunity to incorporate genomic studies to fully understand the clonal architecture, clonal evolution, and mechanisms of resistance to therapy. In this review, we describe the concept, rationale, and outline of ALCHEMIST and the plan for genomic studies in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res; 21(24); 5439–44. ©2015 AACR.

Purpose The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group MA.17 trial examined the efficacy of letrozole (LET) started within 3 months of 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen in postmenopausal hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer. When the trial was unblinded, patients who received placebo (PLAC) were offered LET. Patients and Methods This cohort analysis describes the outcomes of women assigned PLAC at the initial random assignment after unblinding. Efficacy outcomes of women who chose LET (PLAC-LET group) were compared with those who did not (PLAC-PLAC group) by the hazard ratios and by P values calculated from Cox models that adjusted for imbalances between the groups. Toxicity analyses included only events that occurred after unblinding. Results There were 1,579 women in the PLAC-LET group (median time from tamoxifen, 2.8 years) and 804 in the PLAC-PLAC group. Patients in the PLAC-LET group were younger; had a better performance status; and were more likely to have had node-positive disease, axillary dissection, and adjuvant chemotherapy than those in the PLAC-PLAC group. At a median follow-up of 5.3 years, disease-free survival (DFS; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.61; P < .0001) and distant DFS (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.74; P = .004) were superior in the PLAC-LET group. More self-reported new diagnoses of osteoporosis and significantly more clinical fractures occurred in the women who took LET (5.2% v 3.1%, P = .02). Conclusion Interpretation of this cohort analysis suggests that LET improves DFS and distant DFS even when there has been a substantial period of time since the discontinuation of prior adjuvant tamoxifen.

Purpose Controversy exists regarding estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptor expression on efficacy of adjuvant endocrine therapy. In the ATAC (Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination) trial, the benefit of anastrozole over tamoxifen was substantially greater in ER+/PgR–than ER+/PgR+ tumors. In BIG 1-98 (Breast International Group), the benefits of letrozole over tamoxifen were the same in ER+ tumors irrespective of PgR. MA.17 randomized postmenopausal women after 5 years of tamoxifen, to letrozole or placebo. We present outcomes according to tumor receptor status. Patients and Methods Disease-free survival (DFS) and other outcomes were assessed in subgroups by ER and PgR status using Cox's proportional hazards model, adjusting for nodal status and prior adjuvant chemotherapy. Results The DFS hazard ratio (HR) for letrozole versus placebo in ER+/PgR+ tumors (N = 3,809) was 0.49 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.67) versus 1.21 (95% CI, 0.63 to 2.34) in ER+/PgR–tumors (n = 636). ER+/PgR+ letrozole patients experienced significant benefit in distant DFS (DDFS; HR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.80) and overall survival (OS; HR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.90). A statistically significant difference in treatment effect between ER+/PgR+ and ER+/PgR–subgroups for DFS was observed (P = .02), but not for DDFS (P = .06) or OS (P = .09). Conclusion These results suggest greater benefit for letrozole in DFS, DDFS, and OS in patients with ER+/PgR+ tumors, implying greater activity of letrozole in tumors with a functional ER. However, because this is a subset analysis and receptors were not measured centrally, we caution against using these results for clinical decision making.