Julian, TB

Abstract Background: Approximately 50% of newly diagnosed invasive breast cancers are stage 1, with the majority being ER/PR-positive, HER2-negative. Genomic assays such as the Oncotype DX® have identified patients (pts) with reduced risk of distant metastasis and without benefit from chemotherapy added to endocrine therapy (ET), freeing them from excess toxicity. Genomic assays are also recognized as prognostic for in-breast recurrence (IBR) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and could similarly allow de-escalation of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). Reducing overtreatment is of interest to pts, providers, and payers. Methods: We hypothesize that BCS alone is non-inferior to BCS plus RT for IBR and breast preservation in women intending ET for stage 1 invasive breast cancer (ER and/or PR-positive, HER2-negative with an Oncotype DX Recurrence Score [RS] of ≤18). Stratification is by age (<60; ≥60), tumor size (≤1 cm; >1-2cm), and RS (≤11, >11-18/MammaPrint Low). Pts are randomized post-BCS to Arm 1 with breast RT using standard methods (moderate or ultra hypo- or conventional-fractionated whole breast RT with/without boost, or APBI) with ≥5 yrs of ET (tamoxifen or AI) or Arm 2 with ≥5 yrs of ET (tamoxifen or AI) alone. The specific regimen of ET in both arms is at the treating physician’s discretion. Eligible pts are stage 1: pT1 (≤2 cm), pN0, age ≥50 to <70 yrs, s/p BCS with negative margins (no ink on tumor), s/p axillary nodal staging (SNB or ALND), ER and/or PR-positive (ASCO/CAP), HER2-negative (ASCO/CAP), and Oncotype DX RS ≤18 (diagnostic core biopsy or resected specimen). A “low risk” MammaPrint is permissible if completed as part of usual care prior to screening. Primary endpoint is IBR (invasive breast cancer or DCIS). Secondary endpoints are breast conservation rate, invasive in-breast recurrence, relapse-free interval, distant disease-free survival, overall survival, patient-reported breast pain, patient-reported worry about recurrence, and adherence to ET. We assume a clinically acceptable difference in IBR of 4% at 10 yrs to judge omission of RT as non-inferior (10-yr event-free survival for RT group is 95.6% v 91.6% for the omission-of-RT group). BR007 is powered to detect non-inferiority with 80% power and a one-sided α=0.025, assuming that there would be a ramp-up in accrual in the first two years (leveling off in Yrs 3-5); 1,670 pts (835 per arm) are required for randomization. Conservative loss to follow-up is 1%/yr. Some T1a pts screened may have Oncotype DX scores >18, making them ineligible for the study. In the accrual process, 1,714 pts will be required to register to ensure that our final randomized cohort is 1,670 pts. As of July 9, 2025, 1,490 pts have been screened and 1,349 randomly assigned. NCT #: NCT04852887 Support: U10 CA180868, -180822, U24 CA196067, UG1 CA189867 Citation Format: J. R. White, R. S. Cecchini, E. E. Harris, E. P. Mamounas, J. G. Bazan, D. G. Stover, P. A. Ganz, R. Jagsi, S. J. Anderson, C. Bergom, V. Théberge, M. B. El-Tamer, R. C. Zellars, D. A. Shumway, G. Chen, T. B. Julian, N. Wolmark. A phase III trial evaluating De-escalation of Breast Radiation (DEBRA) following breast-conserving surgery of stage 1, HR+, HER2-, RS ≤18 breast cancer: NRG-BR007 [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 PS5-08-20.

Abstract Background: Conventional WBI after lumpectomy for early-stage breast cancer decreases ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), yielding comparable results to mastectomy. Accelerated PBI appears effective in reducing IBTR by treating only the tumor bed area. As the majority of IBTR occur at or in the vicinity of the tumor bed, we hypothesized that PBI would be as effective as WBI in controlling IBTR. The primary aim of NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413 was to determine if PBI provides equivalent local tumor control post lumpectomy compared to WBI in pts with early-stage breast cancer. The equivalency test was based on a 50% margin of increase in the hazard ratio (HR=1.5). Secondary endpoints included: overall survival (OS), recurrence-free interval (RFI), distant disease-free interval (DDFI), and toxicity. Methods: Eligible pts had lumpectomy with histologically-free margins and 0-3 positive axillary nodes. Pts were stratified by stage, menopausal status, hormone receptor status, and intent to receive chemotherapy and then randomized to PBI or WBI. PBI was 10 fractions of 3.4-3.85 Gy, given twice daily with either brachytherapy or 3D external beam radiation. WBI was 50 Gy in 2 Gy fractions given daily with a sequential boost to the surgical cavity. Follow-up was every 6 mos for 5 yrs and then annually. All analyses were by intent-to-treat. Results: From 3-21-05 to 4-16-13, 4216 pts were randomized: 2107 PBI; 2109 WBI. 61% were postmenopausal; 81% were hormone receptor-positive; 29% intended to receive chemotherapy. Stage distribution was: DCIS, 24%; invasive pN0, 65%; invasive pN1, 10%. As of 7-31-18, median follow-up was 10.2 yrs. There were 161 IBTRs as first events: 90 PBI v 71 WBI (HR 1.22; 90%CI 0.94-1.58). Per protocol-defined margin, to declare PBI and WBI equivalent regarding IBTR risk, the 90% CI for the observed HR had to lie entirely between 0.667 and 1.5. The percent of pts IBTR-free at 10 yrs was 95.2% PBI v 95.9% WBI. A statistically significant difference in the 10-yr RFI rate favored WBI (91.9% PBI v 93.4% WBI; HR 1.32; 95%CI 1.04-1.68; p=0.02). No statistically significant differences existed between PBI and WBI in DDFI (HR 1.31; 95%CI 0.91-1.91; p=0.15), OS (HR 1.10; 95%CI 0.90-1.35; p=0.35), or DFS (HR 1.12; 95%CI 0.98-1.29; p=0.11). Grade 3 toxicity was 9.6% PBI v 7.1% WBI, and grade 4-5 toxicity was 0.5% v 0.3%, respectively. Discussion: PBI did not meet the criteria for equivalence to WBI in controlling IBTR based on the upper limit of the hazard ratio confidence interval. However, the absolute difference in 10-yr rate of IBTR was <1% (4.8% PBI v 4.1% WBI). The risk of an RFI event was statistically significantly higher for PBI compared to WBI, but the absolute difference in 10-yr RFI rate was also small (8.1% PBI v 6.6% WBI). DDFI, OS, and DFS were not statistically different for PBI v WBI. Grade 3-5 toxicities, although low, were more common for PBI than WBI. The trial population was heterogeneous, ranging from Stage 0-2 breast cancer, and outcome by risk categories are being analyzed. Support: U10CA180868, -180822, UG1CA189867. Citation Format: Vicini FA, Cecchini RS, White JR, Julian TB, Arthur DW, Rabinovitch RA, Kuske RR, Parda DS, Ganz PA, Scheier MF, Winter KA, Paik S, Kuerer HM, Vallow LA, Pierce LJ, Mamounas EP, Costantino JP, Bear HD, Germaine I, Gustafson G, Grossheim L, Petersen IA, Hudes RS, Curran, Jr. WJ, Wolmark N. Primary results of NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413 (NRG Oncology): A randomized phase III study of conventional whole breast irradiation (WBI) versus partial breast irradiation (PBI) for women with stage 0, I, or II breast cancer [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 GS4-04.

Abstract Background The clinical results of NSABP B-35, phase III trial comparing 1 mg/day A to 20 mg/day tam, each given for 5 years, were reported at ASCO 2015. B-35 demonstrated a statistically significant benefit in breast cancer free interval for women assigned to A, primarily in women <60 years. A secondary endpoint of B-35 was quality of life (QOL) and symptom (SX) outcomes in the two treatment groups. The primary hypotheses of the PRO study were that there would be no differences in QOL between the two treatments, and that patients receiving A would report higher rates of hot flashes compared to patients receiving tam. Other SX comparisons were secondary endpoints. Methods QOL and SX were assessed at baseline (prior to randomization), and every 6 months thereafter for 5 years of treatment and in the following 12 months. QOL was measured with the SF-12 Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS). SX were measured with selected scales from the BCPT symptom-checklist, and other standardized instruments. Stratification was by age (<60 v ≥60) as in the main trial. Study hypotheses and endpoints were examined by comparing PROs in the two treatment arms using a mixed model for repeated measures analysis with adjustment for the baseline scores, time point and age category, using an intention-to-treat principle and including only patients who completed the baseline and at least one follow-up questionnaire. Patients with protocol events were censored. Only data through 60 months are reported here. The accrual goal for the sub-study was 1,150 consecutive patients. Results Between January 6, 2003 and June 15, 2006, a total of 3,104 patients were entered and randomly assigned to NSABP Protocol B-35. Accrual to the PRO study of B-35 closed on December 28, 2004, at which time 1,275 patients were entered, with 1,193 patients included in this analysis. There were no medical or demographic differences between patients assigned to A or tam in the PRO sub-study, and they reflected the characteristics of the parent trial. Adherence to data collection across the 60 months was 87%. There were no significant differences in QOL outcomes by treatment for the PCS (p=0.16) or the MCS (p=0.38). SX subscales: hot flash scale was greater in tam group and this difference varied over time (p=0.001); musculoskeletal pain was significantly greater in A group for time points 6-24 months (all p<.001); vaginal problems were greater in A group (p=0.03). Hot flash and vaginal problems were significantly worse in women <60 years. Additional SX outcomes (depression, fatigue, sexual function) will be reported at presentation. Conclusion In this large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing A to tam in patients with DCIS, there was no significant difference in QOL between the two treatments. However, there were important treatment differences in SX outcomes, which should be considered as part of treatment decision-making discussions, along with the clinical breast cancer outcome results. Support: CA-180868, 180822, 189867, 196067, 114732; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP. Citation Format: Ganz PA, Cecchini RS, Julian TB, Margolese RG, Costantino JP, Vallow LA, Albain KS, Whitworth PW, Cianfrocca ME, Brufsky A, Gross HM, Soori GS, Hopkins JO, Fehrenbacher L, Sturtz K, Wozniak TF, Seay TE, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) results, NRG Oncology/NSABP B-35: A clinical trial of anastrozole (A) vs tamoxifen (tam) in postmenopausal patients with DCIS undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr S6-04.

Abstract Background: The utility of sentinel lymph node (SLN) surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients presenting with node-positive breast cancer has not been determined. The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0171 trial was designed to evaluate SLN surgery after NAC in women presenting with node positive disease. Methods: ACOSOG Z1071 enrolled women with clinical T0-4, N1-2, M0 breast cancer receiving NAC. At the time of surgery, all patients were to undergo SLN surgery followed by axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). The primary endpoint was false negative rate (FNR) in women with cN1 disease with 2 or more SLNs reviewed. Positive SLNs were defined as metastases >0.2mm on H&E. The protocol encouraged dual tracer technique. A Bayesian study design with a non-informative prior was chosen to assess whether the probability that the SLN surgery FNR is greater than 10%. Results: From July 2009 to July 2011, 756 patients were enrolled from 136 institutions. Fifteen women were ineligible and 33 withdrew. Of 708 evaluable pts (668 cN1, 40 cN2), 643 had a SLN identified and an ALND (607 cN1, with indeterminate SLN results in 2); 52 pts (48 cN1) had no SLN identified and had ALND; 11 underwent ALND only (all cN1), and 2 pts had SLN only (both cN1). In patients with SLN and ALND, the SLN identification rate was 92.5% (92.7% in cN1, 90% in cN2). SLN correctly identified nodal status in 84% of the 695 pts [258 of pathologically node negative and 327 of pathologically node positive; cN1: 83.8% (549/655), cN2: 90.0% (36/40)]. Of the 643 pts with a SLN identified there was a complete pathologic response in 40.3% (40.3 % for cN1 and 50% for cN2). Of the pts with a positive SLN, the SLN was the only site of disease in 40%. For pts with cN1 disease with 2+ SLNs identified with residual nodal disease, the SLN FNR was 12.8%. In pts with dual tracer technique the FNR was 11.1%. There were no FN results among pts with cN2 disease with 2+ SLNs reviewed. Of the 40 pts with a false negative SLN of the 528 cN1 patients with 2+ SLNs examined, the number of positive nodes at ALND was 1 (50.0%); 2 (25%); 3 (10.0%) and 4–9 (15.0%). Conclusions: NAC resulted in eradication of lymph node disease in 40% of node positive breast cancer patients. SLN surgery after NAC in node positive breast cancer pts correctly identified nodal status in 84% of all patients and was associated with a FNR of 12.8%. The FNR of SLN is higher than the prespecified study endpoint of 10%. Further analysis of factors associated with FNR such as clinical response, histological findings and axillary ultrasound findings is warranted prior to widespread use of SLN in these patients. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr S2-1.