Baker, Emily

9508 Background: Chemotherapy-related amenorrhea (CRA) is associated with infertility and may impact treatment decision-making. We investigated whether anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) levels before chemotherapy predict likelihood of CRA. Methods: 591 patients enrolled on the quality of life substudy of ECOG5103, which randomized breast cancer patients to doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel: 1) alone; 2) with concurrent bevacizumab; or 3) with prolonged bevacizumab. 144 of the 195 women who reported a period <12 months before enrollment consented to serum collection prior to chemotherapy. AMH was measured in 143 with available serum. Participants self-reported menstrual frequency at 12 and 18 months after enrollment. 12-month CRA was defined as no menses for 6 months before the 12-month survey, and 18-month CRA as no menses for 6 months before the 18-month survey. Fisher’s exact test was used to identify associations with CRA. Results: Of the 143, 16 were excluded due to bilateral oophorectomy or initiation of ovarian function suppression within 12 months, and 2 due to missing data at 12 months. In the remaining 125, median age at enrollment was 45 (range 25-55). 103 (82%) had CRA at 12 months, including 68% of patients </= 45 (43/63) and 97% of patients >45 (60/62). Median pre-chemotherapy AMH was 0.11 (range 0.01-8.63). 12-month CRA was more likely in women who received bevacizumab (p<0.01), were >45 (p<0.01), and had AMH </=0.11 (p<0.01) pre-treatment. Hormonal tx was not associated with 12-month CRA (p=0.63). 100 patients were eligible for 18-month CRA analysis: 81 (81%) had CRA, including 63% of patients </= 45 (33/52) and 100% (48/48) of patients >45. 18-month CRA was more likely in women >45 (p<0.01) and with AMH </=0.11 (p<0.01) pre-treatment. Bevacizumab (p=0.15) and hormonal tx (p=0.07) were not statistically significant predictors of 18-month CRA. Conclusions: Pre-chemotherapy AMH predicts risk of CRA at 12 and 18 months, and is a promising biomarker of ovarian reserve in young breast cancer survivors. Longer studies will be needed to ascertain whether lower pre-treatment AMH is associated with increased risk of later infertility. Clinical trial information: NCT00433511.

6527 Background: Biomarker information can risk stratify patients based on potential for benefits/toxicity from therapy. Ideally, a biomarker will identify those who benefit with limited toxicity. However, the impact of biomarkers is unclear when indicting individuals with greatest benefit are also at increased risk for toxicity. Methods: We surveyed participants at 18 month follow-up in the Decision-Making/Quality of Life (DM-QOL) component of ECOG5103, a RCT where patients were randomized to receive adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer with either placebo or bevacizumab (in 2 schedules). We asked patients for the preferred treatment in two hypothetical scenarios: 1) preference for chemo A or chemo A + B without biomarker information; 2) preference for chemo A or chemo A+B when participants tested positive for a “B-receptor” which increased both the benefit and toxicity of chemo A+B. McNemar’s test was used to examine changes in preferences. Results: 439 patients completed both scenarios on 18-month survey. The Table shows the treatment preferences in each scenario. The positive biomarker information in scenario 2 led 60/439 (14%) participants to switch their preference. The main reason for treatment preference in scenario 2 was greater benefits of chemo A+B (64%), the lower risks with chemo A (20%) and positive biomarker (10%). Among participants who changed preference, those randomized to receive bevacizumab were more likely to switch to chemo A in scenario 2. Conclusions: Information about a positive biomarker, indicating increased benefit and increased risk from additional chemo, did not significantly change participants’ preferred treatment. All participants were involved in a large placebo controlled double blind trial and the majority (70%) preferred the most aggressive course of treatment in both scenarios. Whether patients not enrolled in the trial would be more sensitive to the increased risk information is unclear. [Table: see text]

Background The authors conducted a cluster randomized study to determine the effect of an exportable educational intervention for young women with breast cancer (YWI) on improving care. Methods Sites were randomized 1:1 to the YWI or a contact time control physical activity intervention (PAI) stratified by academic or community site. Up to 15 women aged ≤45 years with newly diagnosed breast cancer were enrolled at each of 14 academic sites and 10 were enrolled at each of 40 community sites. The primary endpoint, attention to fertility, was ascertained by medical record review. Statistical inferences concerning the effect of the intervention used general estimating equations for clustered data. Results A total of 467 patients across 54 sites were enrolled between July 2012 and December 2013. The median age of the patients at the time of diagnosis was 40 years (range, 22‐45 years). Attention to fertility by 3 months was observed in 55% of patients in the YWI and 58% of patients in the PAI ( P = .88). Rates were found to be strongly correlated with age ( P < .0001), and were highest in patients aged <30 years. Attention to genetics was similar (80% in the YWI and 81% in the PAI), whereas attention to emotional health was higher in patients in the YWI (87% vs 76%; estimated odds ratio, 2.63 [95% confidence interval, 1.20‐5.76; P = .016]). Patients rated both interventions as valuable in providing education (64% in the YWI and 63% in the PAI). Conclusions The current study failed to demonstrate differences in attention to fertility with an intervention to improve care for women with breast cancer, although attention to fertility was found to be higher than expected in both groups and emotional health was improved in the YWI group. Greater attention to young women with breast cancer in general may promote more comprehensive care for this population.

BACKGROUNDPublished studies have suggested that most patients with early stage breast cancer are willing, for modest survival benefits, to receive 6 months of adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5‐fluorouracil, an older regimen that is used infrequently today. We examined preferences regarding the survival benefit needed to justify 6 months of a contemporary chemotherapy regimen.METHODSThe Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Protocol 5103 was a phase 3 trial that randomized breast cancer patients to receive standard adjuvant doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel with either bevacizumab or placebo. Serial surveys to assess quality of life were administered to patients enrolled between January 1, 2010, and June 8, 2010. Survival benefit needed to justify 6 months of chemotherapy by patients was collected at the 18‐month assessment. A parallel survey was sent to physicians who had enrolled patients in the study.RESULTSOf 519 patients who had not withdrawn at a time point earlier than 18 months, 87.8% responded to this survey. A total of 175 physicians participated. We found considerable variation in patient preferences, particularly for modest survival benefits: for 2 months of benefit, 57% would consider 6 months of chemotherapy, whereas 96% of patients would consider 6 months of chemotherapy for 24 months. Race and education were associated with the choices. Physicians who responded were less likely to accept chemotherapy for modest benefit.CONCLUSIONSAmong patients who received contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy in a randomized controlled trial, we found substantial variation in preferences regarding benefits that justified undergoing chemotherapy. Differences between patients' and physicians' choices were also apparent. Eliciting preferences regarding risks and benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy is critical. Cancer 2017;123:2821–28. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUNDPrevious research has demonstrated that cancer survivors often fail to receive recommended care and also undergo unnecessary care; this reduces care quality and increases costs.METHODSThis phase 2 trial randomized 100 stage 0 to IIIa breast cancer patients who had primary care providers within a large Massachusetts‐based hospital network (with accessible online records) to either coordinated follow‐up care (CC), which entailed a tailored survivorship care plan (SCP) and patient navigator calls every 3 months, or standard care (SC), which did not include an SCP or patient navigation, for 1 year after the completion of their last chemotherapy, surgery, or radiation treatment. The primary endpoint was the frequency of redundant examinations (>1 breast/chest wall examination per patient within any 30‐day period in the absence of a new breast or chest wall complaint) over the year of follow‐up. The total number of non–plastic surgery visits in the year of follow‐up was a secondary endpoint.RESULTSTwo patients (both on CC) were ineligible, and 2 patients (1 per arm) had a recurrence or died during follow‐up; this left 96 for analysis (47 in the CC arm and 49 in the SC arm). Twenty‐two of the 47 CC patients (47%; 95% confidence interval, 32%‐62%) and 19 of the 49 SC patients (39%; 95% confidence interval, 25%‐54%) had 1 or more redundant breast/chest wall examinations during the year. The median number of non–plastic surgery visits was 12 for CC patients and 8 for SC patients.CONCLUSIONSEarly‐stage breast cancer patients visit health care providers very frequently during their first year of follow‐up and often receive unnecessary breast/chest wall examinations. An SCP and patient navigator calls did not reduce this surrogate for redundant care. Cancer 2016;122:3546–3554. © 2016 American Cancer Society