Nahleh, Zeina

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the https://www.asco.org/practice-patients/guidelines/guideline-methodology . ASCO Guidelines follow the https://www.asco.org/about-asco/legal/conflict-interest-coi . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE To offer clinicians recommendations concerning breast cancer follow-up and surveillance after primary treatment. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and a formal consensus process. RESULTS One randomized controlled trial (RCT) was identified and formed the evidentiary basis for the surveillance mammography guideline recommendation. No RCTs were identified that evaluated different follow-up approaches by risk of relapse in patients treated for early-stage breast cancer. Given the dearth of evidence identified in the systematic review of the literature, formal modified Delphi consensus-based recommendations were generated. RECOMMENDATIONS The guideline offers recommendations on the role of a risk-based approach to the frequency and intensity of follow-up among patients with breast cancer in the adjuvant setting. Regular history, physical examination, and mammography are recommended for breast cancer follow-up. Either virtual or in-person visits can be offered. Certain patients at a high risk of cancer recurrence warrant closer surveillance, such as those patients with locally advanced disease or residual disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Recommendations on the use of blood-based biomarkers and supplemental imaging are provided. Guideline recommendations will be updated once additional evidence-based tools become available to better individualize surveillance. Additional information is available at www.ascopubs.org/topics/asco-guidelines/breast-cancer .

While the associations of common metabolic conditions with ethnicity have been previously described, disparity among Hispanic individuals based on country of origin is understudied. This multi-institutional analysis explored the prevalence of metabolic conditions and their association with cancer subtypes among Mexican and non-Mexican Hispanics. After IRB approval, we conducted a cross-sectional study at two academic medical centers with a significant Hispanic patient population (Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, TX (TTUHSC-EP) and Cleveland Clinic Florida in Weston, FL (CCF)). A total of n = 1020 self-identified Hispanic patients with breast cancer consecutively diagnosed between 2005 and 2014 were selected from the two institutional databases. Comparisons between Mexican and Non-Mexican Hispanics revealed variations in tumor types and metabolic conditions. Mexican Hispanics were found to have a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (27.8% vs. 14.2%, p < 0.001), obesity (51.0% vs. 32.5%, p < 0.001), and ductal carcinoma type (86.6 vs. 73.4%, p < 0.001). On the other hand, hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer was more common in non-Mexicans, while Mexicans had more triple-negative breast cancer, especially in premenopausal women. In addition to highlighting these variations among Hispanic patients with breast cancer, this study supports a more focused approach to addressing obesity and other metabolic conditions prevalent in the Hispanic population with breast cancer. Moreover, Hispanic individuals with breast cancer are diverse and should not be lumped under one category without reference to their country of origin regarding the impact of race and ethnicity.

Abstract BackgroundRe-allocation of resources during the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in delays in care delivery to patients with cardiovascular disease and cancer. The ability of health care providers to provide optimal care in this setting has not been formally evaluated.ObjectivesTo assess the impact of COVID-19 resource re-allocation on scheduling, testing, elective procedures, telemedicine access, use of new COVID-19 therapies, and providers’ opinions on healthcare policies among oncology and cardiology practitioners.MethodsAn electronic survey was conducted by a cardio-oncology collaborative network through regional and state chapters of the American College of Cardiology , American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the International Cardio-Oncology Society. Descriptive statistics were reported by frequency and proportion for analyses, and stratified categorically by geographic region and specialty.Results1,415 providers (43 countries) participated: 986 cardiologists, 306 oncologists, and 118 trainees/internal medicine. 63% (195/306) of oncologists vs 92% (896/976) of cardiologists reported cancellations of treatments/elective procedures (p=0.01). 46% (442/970) of cardiologists and 25% (76/303) of oncologists modified the scope of their practice (p=<0.001). Academic physicians (74.5%) felt better supplied with personal protective equipment (PPE) vs non-academic (74.5% vs 67.2%; p=0.018). Telemedicine was less common in Europe 81% (74/91), and Latin America 64% (101/158), than the United States, 88% (950/1,097) (p=<0.001). 95% of all groups supported more active leadership from medical professional societies.ConclusionsThese results support initiatives to promote expanded coverage for telemedicine, increased access to PPE, better testing availability and involvement of medical professional societies to help with preparedness for future health care crisis.Appendix: Link to the Survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/C8ZDYNW

Abstract Background. Locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) and inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) remain difficult challenges despite progress in multimodality treatment. The SWOG trial S0800 (clinicaltrial.gov NCT00856492) compared bevacizumab in combination with weekly nab-paclitaxel followed by dose-dense AC to nab-paclitaxel followed or preceded by AC as neoadjuvant treatment for HER2-negative IBC/LABC. The rationale was based on the proposed role of angiogenesis, potential role of improved flow and oxygenation in enhancing the delivery of chemotherapy agents, and the proapoptotic effect with certain chemotherapeutic agents, particularly taxanes. Methods. This was a randomized open-label Phase II trial with an accrual goal of 200 patients equally allocated to either bevacizumab (Arm 1) or no bevacizumab.Two patients were ineligible and five withdrew consent leaving 208 for analysis. The no bevacizumab group was further randomized to two sequences (Arm 2: nab-paclitaxel - AC+PEG-G versus Arm 3: AC+PEG-G- nab-paclitaxel) with 50 patients expected in each sequence. The primary endpoint of this study was pathologic complete response (pCR) defined as no evidence of invasive tumor at the primary site and axillary lymph nodes in the surgical specimen. The power for the primary comparison of bevacizumab (bev) versus no bevacizumab (no bev) ignoring sequence was 80% with a 1-sided α = 0.10. Randomization was stratified by hormone receptor status and type of disease (IBC or LABC). Results 215 patients were accrued May 2010 - September 2012. Most had LABC (88%) versus IBC (12%) and most tumors were hormone-receptor (HR) positive (67%). Fourteen (7%) patients had no definitive surgery (included as no pCR); 135 (65%) had residual disease (no pCR) and 59 (28%) had pCR. The bevacizumab pCR rate was higher (35/96; 38%) than that in the non-bevacizumab arms (24/112; 21%) (exact p=0.021; stratified p=0.015). In HR-positive disease there was slight improvement that was not statistically significant (bev 25% vs. non-bev 18%; p=0.41) while the difference was larger in HR-negative disease (bev 59% vs. non-bev 28%; p=0.014). In LABC the overall pCR rate was 29% with a higher rate in the bevacizumab patients (37% vs. 22%; p=0.035). For IBC there was improvement (30% vs. 14%), but not statistically significant (p=0.61) in a small sample. Overall, Grade 3 and 4 events were common in both (bev 67%; non-bev 65%), but did not differ by treatment. There were 21 deaths with 3-year overall survival (OS) of 87% and 83% for bevacizumab and non-bevacizumab, respectively (log-rank p=0.57). Conclusion Compared with combination anthracycline-taxane neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the Bev-Nab-paclitaxel-AC regimen significantly improved pCR rate overall, primarily for triple negative (TNBC) patients. This neoadjuvant regimen could be a good choice for TNBC/IBC . The observed pCR rate in ER negative disease (59%) suggests that the addition of bevacizumab to a standard chemotherapy backbone may improve outcome in this subset, and justifies further testing of such an approach. Correlative science studies to further delineate the biology of TNBC and the effects of bevacizumab are ongoing. Citation Format: Zeina A Nahleh, William E Barlow, Daniel F Hayes, Anne F Schott, Julie R Gralow, Edith A Perez, William M Sikov, Sudhathi Chennuru, Hamid Mirshahidi, Sarah Vidito, Danika L Lew, Lajos Pusztai, Robert B Livingston, Gabriel N Hortobagyi. S0800: Nab-paclitaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and pegfilgrastim with or without bevacizumab in treating women with inflammatory or locally advanced breast cancer (NCI CDR0000636131) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-11-16.