Mayer, Ingrid A.

PURPOSE Systematic integration of tobacco cessation treatment within cancer centers is needed to improve smoking cessation outcomes among cancer patients and survivors. The current study characterizes baseline rates of tobacco use, use of cessation support, and changes in tobacco use over time among 756 participants diagnosed with cancer and enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS Participants completed surveys at trial enrollment and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize patient characteristics and selected items from the Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ). Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the time point effect on tobacco product use. RESULTS At baseline, 11% of participants (n = 740) currently smoked cigarettes. Among participants with data available at all time points (n = 443), prevalence of current smoking was stable over time, with 7.2% of participants (n = 32) reporting current smoking at baseline, 7.0% (n = 31) at the 3-month follow-up assessment, and 6.8% (n = 30) at the 6-month follow-up assessment. Most participants (n = 77/104) who smoked cigarettes within the year prior to their cancer diagnosis continued smoking after their diagnosis, and during (n = 44/72) and following completion (n = 30/46) of their treatment. Sixty-two percent of participants (n = 81) who were currently smoking at baseline reported using smoking cessation medication and 32.1% reported use of nonpharmacologic smoking cessation support since their cancer diagnosis. In longitudinal analyses, the odds of using cigarettes since their cancer diagnosis, 3-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up was higher than the odds of using cigarettes for the past 30 days at baseline (odds ratio [OR] = 1.97, OR = 1.62, and OR = 1.50, respectively; all p s < .01). CONCLUSION Smoking persists over time among patients with cancer enrolled in therapeutic cancer trials. Findings highlight the importance of increasing access to integrated and longitudinal smoking cessation support.

Abstract Background In 2008, bevacizumab received accelerated Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for use in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Based on the preclinical and preliminary clinical activity of the trastuzumab and bevacizumab combination, ECOG-ACRIN E1105 trial was developed to determine if the addition of bevacizumab to a chemotherapy and trastuzumab combination for first-line therapy would improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with HER2-positive MBC. Findings: 96 patients were randomized to receive standard first-line chemotherapy and trastuzumab with or without bevacizumab between November 2007 and October 2009, and 93 began protocol therapy. Induction therapy was given for 24 weeks, followed by maintenance trastuzumab with or without bevacizumab. 60% (56/93) began carboplatin and 74% (69/93) completed 6 cycles of induction therapy. Primary endpoint was PFS. Median PFS was 11.1 and 13.8 months for placebo and bevacizumab arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 95%, Confidence Interval [Cl] for bevacizumab vs. placebo: 0.73 [0.43–1.23], p = 0.24), and at a median follow-up of 70.7 months, median survival was 49.1 and 63 months (HR [95% Cl] for OS: 1.09 [0.61–1.97], p = 0.75). The most common toxicities across both arms were neutropenia and hypertension, with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, fatigue, and sensory neuropathy reported more frequently with bevacizumab. Conclusions In this trial, the addition of bevacizumab did not improve outcomes in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. Although the trial was underpowered due to smaller than anticipated sample size, these findings corroborated other clinical trials during this time.

AbstractBackgroundPatient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are a better tool for evaluating the experiences of patients who have symptomatic, treatment‐associated adverse events (AEs) compared with clinician‐rated AEs. The authors present PROs assessing health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment‐related neurotoxicity for adjuvant capecitabine versus platinum on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group‐American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG‐ACRIN) EA1131 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02445391).MethodsParticipants completed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI‐16) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Gynecologic Oncology Group neurotoxicity subscale (platinum arm only) at baseline, cycle 3 day 1 (C3D1), 6 months, and 15 months. Because of early termination, power was insufficient to test the hypothesis that HRQoL, as assessed by the NFBSI‐16 treatment side‐effect (TSE) subscale, would be better at 6 and 15 months in the capecitabine arm; all analyses were exploratory. Means were compared by using t‐tests or the Wilcoxon rank‐sum test, and proportions were compared by using the χ2 test.ResultsTwo hundred ninety‐six of 330 eligible patients provided PROs. The mean NFBSI‐16 TSE subscale score was lower for the platinum arm at baseline (p = .02; absolute difference, 0.6 points) and for the capecitabine arm at C3D1 (p = .04; absolute difference, 0.5 points), but it did not differ at other times. The mean change in TSE subscale scores differed between the arms from baseline to C3D1 (platinum arm, 0.15; capecitabine arm, −0.72; p = .03), but not from baseline to later time points. The mean decline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Gynecologic Oncology Group neurotoxicity subscale scores exceeded the minimal meaningful change (1.38 points) from baseline to each subsequent time point (all p < .05).ConclusionsDespite the similar frequency of clinician‐rated AEs, PROs identified greater on‐treatment symptom burden with capecitabine and complemented clinician‐rated AEs by characterizing patients’ experiences during chemotherapy.

AbstractBackgroundTobacco use is associated with adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Socioeconomic determinants influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment; little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among patients diagnosed with cancer.MethodsA modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C‐TUQ) was administered to patients enrolled in nine ECOG‐ACRIN clinical trials. We examined associations of NSD with (1) smoking status, (2) receiving tobacco cessation assessment and support, and (3) cessation behaviors. NSD was classified by tertiles of the Area Deprivation Index. Associations between NSD and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression.ResultsA total of 740 patients completing the C‐TUQ were 70% male, 94% White, 3% Hispanic, mean age 58.8 years. Cancer diagnoses included leukemia 263 (36%), lymphoma 141 (19%), prostate 131 (18%), breast 79 (11%), melanoma 69 (9%), myeloma 53 (7%), and head and neck 4 (0.5%). A total of 402 (54%) never smoked, 257 (35%) had formerly smoked, and 81 (11%) were currently smoking. Patients in high disadvantaged neighborhoods were approximately four times more likely to report current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 3.57; 95% CI, 1.69–7.54; p = .0009), and more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.64–10.98; p = .0029), but less likely to report receiving counseling (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02–0.58; p = .0086) versus those in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods.ConclusionsGreater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with smoking but less cessation support. Increased cessation support in cancer care is needed, particularly for patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods.

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.

Abstract Background: While cigarette smoking has declined among the U.S. general population, sale and use of non-cigarette alternative tobacco products (ATP; e.g., e-cigarettes, cigars) and dual use of cigarettes/ATPs are rising. Little is known about ATP use patterns in cancer survivors enrolled in clinical trials. We investigated prevalence of tobacco product use, and factors associated with past 30-day use, among patients with cancer in national trials. Methods: Cancer survivors (N = 756) enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials (2017–2021) completed a modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) which assessed baseline cigarette and ATP use since cancer diagnosis and in the past 30 days. Results: Patients were on average 59 years old, 70% male, and the mean time since cancer diagnosis was 26 months. Since diagnosis, cigarettes (21%) were the most common tobacco product used, followed by smokeless tobacco use (5%), cigars (4%), and e-cigarettes (2%). In the past 30 days, 12% of patients reported smoking cigarettes, 4% cigars, 4% using smokeless tobacco, and 2% e-cigarettes. Since cancer diagnosis, 5.5% of the sample reported multiple tobacco product use, and 3.0% reported multiple product use in the past 30 days. Males (vs. females; OR 4.33; P = 0 &lt; 0.01) and individuals not living with another person who smokes (vs. living with; OR, 8.07; P = 0 &lt; 0.01) were more likely to use ATPs only versus cigarettes only in the past 30 days. Conclusions: Among patients with cancer, cigarettes were the most prevalent tobacco product reported. Impact: Regardless, ATPs and multiple tobacco product use should be routinely assessed in cancer care settings.

LBA520 Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter trial using response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes including MammaPrint (MP) risk to evaluate novel neoadjuvant agents in high-risk breast cancer. Oral paclitaxel and encequidar (OPE) is an oral combination of paclitaxel (P) with a p-glycoprotein pump inhibitor, encequidar, to enhance gastrointestinal (GI) absorption. Dostarlimab (D) is an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm and MP high-risk cancers were screened and treated starting Oct 5, 2020. Treatment included Oral Paclitaxel 205mg/m2 and encequidar 12.9 mg on days 1-3, Carboplatin (Cb) AUC 1.5 on day 1 weekly x 12, and Dostarlimab (D) 500 mg every 3 weeks x 4, followed by doxorubicin/ cyclophosphamide (AC) every 2-3 weeks x 4. The control arm was IV P weekly x 12 followed by AC every 2-3 weeks x 4. For patients with HER2+ disease, weekly Trastuzumab (T) was administered during the first 12 weeks. The arm was eligible for graduation [> 85% chance of success in a 300-person phase 3 neoadjuvant trial with a pathologic complete response (pCR) endpoint] in 10 predefined signatures. Results: 106 patients (44 HR+HER2-, 56 HR-HER2- (TN), 6 HER2+) received OPE/Cb/D ± T. The control arm included 388 historical controls (201 HR+HER2-, 156 TN, 31 HER2+). 22 patients (20 HR+, 2 HR-) in OPE/Cb/D were MP1 (MP high) and 84 patients (29 HR+, 55 HR-) were MP2 (MP ultra-high). OPE/Cb/D graduated in the TN signature and accrual was stopped. Conclusions: OPE/Cb/D graduated in the TN signature with a higher predicted pCR rate compared to control. OPE and D have been, individually, shown to have efficacy in other settings. The lower-than-expected pCR rate and lower irAEs with triplet therapy (taxane, platinum, immune checkpoint inhibitor [ICI]) in TN compared to prior IV chemo + ICI arms on I-SPY 2 suggests a possible interference of OPE with ICI. Changes in gut microbiome is being investigated as an explanation. Clinical trial information: NCT01042379 . [Table: see text]

ImportanceAurora A kinase (AURKA) activation, related in part to AURKA amplification and variants, is associated with downregulation of estrogen receptor (ER) α expression, endocrine resistance, and implicated in cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK 4/6i) resistance. Alisertib, a selective AURKA inhibitor, upregulates ERα and restores endocrine sensitivity in preclinical metastatic breast cancer (MBC) models. The safety and preliminary efficacy of alisertib was demonstrated in early-phase trials; however, its activity in CDK 4/6i–resistant MBC is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of adding fulvestrant to alisertib on objective tumor response rates (ORRs) in endocrine-resistant MBC.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis phase 2 randomized clinical trial was conducted through the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, which enrolled participants from July 2017 to November 2019. Postmenopausal women with endocrine-resistant, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)–negative MBC who were previously treated with fulvestrant were eligible. Stratification factors included prior treatment with CDK 4/6i, baseline metastatic tumor ERα level measurement (&amp;lt;10%, ≥10%), and primary or secondary endocrine resistance. Among 114 preregistered patients, 96 (84.2%) registered and 91 (79.8%) were evaluable for the primary end point. Data analysis began after January 10, 2022.InterventionsAlisertib, 50 mg, oral, daily on days 1 to 3, 8 to 10, and 15 to 17 of a 28-day cycle (arm 1) or alisertib same dose/schedule with standard-dose fulvestrant (arm 2).Main Outcomes and MeasuresImprovement in ORR in arm 2 of at least 20% greater than arm 1 when the expected ORR for arm 1 was 20%.ResultsAll 91 evaluable patients (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [11.3] years; 1 American Indian/Alaskan Native [1.1%], 2 Asian [2.2%], 6 Black/African American [6.6%], 5 Hispanic [5.5%], and 79 [86.8%] White individuals; arm 1, 46 [50.5%]; arm 2, 45 [49.5%]) had received prior treatment with CDK 4/6i. The ORR was 19.6%; (90% CI, 10.6%-31.7%) for arm 1 and 20.0% (90% CI, 10.9%-32.3%) for arm 2. In arm 1, the 24-week clinical benefit rate and median progression-free survival time were 41.3% (90% CI, 29.0%-54.5%) and 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.9-10.0), respectively, and in arm 2 they were 28.9% (90% CI, 18.0%-42.0%) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.9-7.8), respectively. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events attributed to alisertib were neutropenia (41.8%) and anemia (13.2%). Reasons for discontinuing treatment were disease progression (arm 1, 38 [82.6%]; arm 2, 31 [68.9%]) and toxic effects or refusal (arm 1, 5 [10.9%]; arm 2, 12 [26.7%]).Conclusions and RelevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that adding fulvestrant to treatment with alisertib did not increase ORR or PFS; however, promising clinical activity was observed with alisertib monotherapy among patients with endocrine-resistant and CDK 4/6i–resistant MBC. The overall safety profile was tolerable.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02860000

6514 Background: Tobacco use is a modifiable risk factor for adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Despite ASCO’s recommendation for assessment and treatment of tobacco use, integration into cancer care is suboptimal. Socioeconomic contexts influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment, but little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials. Methods: The NCI Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) was centrally administered to participants enrolled in 10 ECOG ACRIN clinical trials (9 therapeutic, 1 imaging). We examined associations of NSD with patient-reported rates of receiving brief tobacco cessation support (i.e., Ask, Assist (counseling)) and cessation (past 30d quit attempts and duration). NSD was measured using the national Area Deprivation Index (ADI) based on participant’s zip code. Associations between ADI (low, intermediate, and high) and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression and ANOVA. Results: 740 patients, completing the C-TUQ between June 2017-October 2021, can be classified as 402 (54%) never smokers, 81 (11%) current smokers, and 257 (35%) former smokers. Patients were 70% male; 94% white; 3% Hispanic; mean age 58.8 (SD 9.0). Cancer diagnoses were 36% leukemia; 19% lymphoma, 18% prostate, 11% breast; 9% melanoma, 7% myeloma, and 0.5% head and neck. Patients were categorized into high (33%), intermediate (34%) and low (33%) disadvantaged neighborhoods. Patients in high (vs. low) disadvantaged neighborhoods were more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR = 3.90; 95% CI (confidence interval), 1.61 to 9.46; p = 0.0062) but less likely to report receiving counseling to help quit smoking (OR = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.73; p = 0.0234). Patients from high disadvantaged neighborhoods had the shortest quit duration, followed by patients from intermediate and low disadvantaged neighborhoods (mean = 145.78, 187.66, and 210.98 months, respectively, p = 0.0372). Conclusions: Greater socioeconomic neighborhood disadvantage was associated with increased assessment of tobacco use but decreased tobacco treatment referral, and the shortest quit duration. More research is needed to promote increased referral to tobacco treatment for individuals with cancer from disadvantaged neighborhoods to promote and sustain cessation.