Edge, Stephen B.

AbstractBackgroundRisk‐stratified follow‐up guidelines that account for the absolute risk and timing of recurrence may improve the quality and efficiency of breast cancer follow‐up. The objective of this study was to assess the relationship of anatomic stage and receptor status with timing of the first recurrence for patients with local‐regional breast cancer and generate risk‐stratified follow‐up recommendations.MethodsThe authors conducted a secondary analysis of 8007 patients with stage I–III breast cancer who enrolled in nine Alliance legacy clinical trials from 1997 to 2013 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02171078). Patients who received standard‐of‐care therapy were included. Patients who were missing stage or receptor status were excluded. The primary outcome was days from the earliest treatment start date to the date of first recurrence. The primary explanatory variable was anatomic stage. The analysis was stratified by receptor type. Cox proportional‐hazards regression models produced cumulative probabilities of recurrence. A dynamic programming algorithm approach was used to optimize the timing of follow‐up intervals based on the timing of recurrence events.ResultsThe time to first recurrence varied significantly between receptor types (p < .0001). Within each receptor type, stage influenced the time to recurrence (p < .0001). The risk of recurrence was highest and occurred earliest for estrogen receptor (ER)‐negative/progesterone receptor (PR)‐negative/Her2neu‐negative tumors (stage III; 5‐year probability of recurrence, 45.5%). The risk of recurrence was lower for ER‐positive/PR‐positive/Her2neu‐positive tumors (stage III; 5‐year probability of recurrence, 15.3%), with recurrences distributed over time. Model‐generated follow‐up recommendations by stage and receptor type were created.ConclusionsThis study supports considering both anatomic stage and receptor status in follow‐up recommendations. The implementation of risk‐stratified guidelines based on these data has the potential to improve the quality and efficiency of follow‐up.

Objective: We sought to evaluate local/regional recurrence rates after breast-conserving surgery in a cohort of patients enrolled in legacy trials of the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology and to evaluate variation in recurrence rates by receptor subtype. Background: Multiple randomized controlled trials have demonstrated equivalent survival between breast conservation and mastectomy, albeit with higher local/regional recurrence rates after breast conservation. However, absolute rates of local/regional recurrence have been declining with multi-modality treatment. Methods: Data from 5 Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology legacy trials that enrolled women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1997 and 2010 were included. Women who underwent breast-conserving surgery and standard systemic therapies (n=4,404) were included. Five-year rates of local/regional recurrence were estimated from Kaplan-Meier curves. Patients were censored at the time of distant recurrence (if recorded as the first recurrence), death, or last follow-up. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify factors associated with time to local/regional recurrence, including patient age, tumor size, lymph node status, and receptor subtype. Results: Overall 5-year recurrence was 4.6% (95% CI=4.0-5.4%). Five-year recurrence rates were lowest in those with ER+ or PR+ tumors (Her2+ 3.4% [95% CI 2.0-5.7%], Her2- 4.0% [95% CI 3.2-4.9%]) and highest in the triple-negative subtype (7.1% [95% CI 5.4-9.3%]). On multivariable analysis, increasing nodal involvement and triple-negative subtype were positively associated with recurrence (P<0.0001). Conclusions: Rates of local/regional recurrence after breast conservation in women with breast cancer enrolled in legacy trials of the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology are significantly lower than historic estimates. This data can better inform patient discussions and surgical decision-making.

Abstract Background Guidelines for follow-up after locoregional breast cancer treatment recommend imaging for distant metastases only in the presence of patient signs and/or symptoms. However, guidelines have not been updated to reflect advances in imaging, systemic therapy, or the understanding of biological subtype. We assessed the association between mode of distant recurrence detection and survival. Methods In this observational study, a stage-stratified random sample of women with stage II-III breast cancer in 2006-2007 and followed through 2016 was selected, including up to 10 women from each of 1217 Commission on Cancer facilities (n = 10 076). The explanatory variable was mode of recurrence detection (asymptomatic imaging vs signs and/or symptoms). The outcome was time from initial cancer diagnosis to death. Registrars abstracted scan type, intent (cancer-related vs not, asymptomatic surveillance vs not), and recurrence. Data were merged with each patient’s National Cancer Database record. Results Surveillance imaging detected 23.3% (284 of 1220) of distant recurrences (76.7%, 936 of 1220 by signs and/or symptoms). Based on propensity-weighted multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, patients with asymptomatic imaging compared with sign and/or symptom detected recurrences had a lower risk of death if estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) negative, HER2 negative (triple negative; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54 to 0.99), or HER2 positive (HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.80). No association was observed for ER- or PR-positive, HER2-negative (HR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.44) cancers. Conclusions Recurrence detection by asymptomatic imaging compared with signs and/or symptoms was associated with lower risk of death for triple-negative and HER2-positive, but not ER- or PR-positive, HER2-negative cancers. A randomized trial is warranted to evaluate imaging surveillance for metastases results in these subgroups.

Abstract Background: Achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) has been shown on the patient level to predict excellent long-term event-free survival outcomes. Residual cancer burden (RCB) quantifies the extent of residual disease for patients who did not achieve pCR. We have previously observed in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL that while metastatic events outside the central nervous system (CNS) were dramatically reduced in the setting of pCR, the incidence of CNS metastasis remained similar across RCB classes, raising the possibility that these CNS events may be independent of response in the breast. In this study, we evaluate the type and sites of recurrences by RCB in a large pooled dataset, which allows for analysis within subtype, to validate these findings. Methods: 5161 patients pooled across 12 institutions/trials with available RCB and event-free survival (EFS) data were included in this analysis. EFS was calculated as the interval between treatment initiation, and locoregional recurrence, distant recurrence or death from any cause; patients without event are censored at time of last follow-up. The median follow-up is 4.6 years. We summarized the EFS event type, further sub-dividing the distant recurrence events (DR) by their site of relapse (CNS-only, CNS and other sites, Non-CNS). We used a competing risk (Fine-Gray) model to assess which of these site-specific relapses differ between RCB classes and estimated the cumulative incidence of CNS-only and non-CNS events at 5 years. Analyses were performed across the entire study population and within HR/HER2 defined subtypes. Results: Among the 5161 subjects, there were 1164 EFS events, including 92 (7.9%) local recurrences (without distant recurrence and/or death) and 1072 distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS) events. Among the DRFS events, 158 patients died without a distant recurrence. 914 experienced distant recurrences, including 90 (9.8%) with CNS-only, 145 (15.9%) with CNS and other sites, 664 (72.6%) with non-CNS distant recurrence; 15 (1.6%) patients had missing recurrence site information. Table 1 summarizes the cumulative incidence of CNS-only and non-CNS recurrence at 5 years and the proportion of CNS-only recurrences among DR events by RCB class overall and within each HR/HER2 subtypes. The incidence of CNS-only recurrences was low and similar across RCB classes. In contrast, the incidence of non-CNS recurrences increases with increasing RCB. As a result, CNS-only recurrences are proportionally higher within the RCB-0 and RCB-I than in the RCB-II and RCB-III groups, largely because of the low DR event rate and relative low frequency of non-CNS recurrence events within the RCB-0 and RCB-I classes. Overall, 27% of the recurrences in the setting of pCR (RCB-0) are due to CNS-only recurrences.Conclusions: Consistent with previous studies, our large pooled analysis confirmed that CNS-only recurrences are uncommon but appear similar across RCB groups, independent of response, suggesting that the CNS is a treatment sanctuary site. In contrast, non-CNS recurrence rates increase as RCB increases. These findings suggest that inclusion of CNS-only recurrences as an outcome event may impact the association between neoadjuvant therapy response and long-term outcomes in the context of current therapies. Novel therapies that cross the blood brain barrier will be needed to impact CNS recurrence rates. Table 1: Cumulative Incidence of CNS Only and non-CNS Distant Recurrences at 5 years and proportion of CNS-only events among DR eventsRCB Class0IIIIIIpOverall (5161)N16766622017806Cum. Inc. CNS Only2%2%2%1%0.627Cum. Inc. Non-CNS3%6%16%27%&lt;0.001# CNS-Only / # DR events (%)26/96 (27%)14/74 (19%)39/443 (9%)11/301 (4%)HR-HER2- (1774)N770212590202Cum. Inc. CNS Only2%3%2%4%0.298Cum. Inc. Non-CNS4%11%19%42%&lt;0.001# CNS-Only / # DR events (%)13/50 (26%)6/32 (19%)13/148 (9%)8/111 (7%)HR-HER2+ (572)N3766710029Cum. Inc. CNS Only1%5%5%0%0.022Cum. Inc. Non-CNS2%5%18%38%&lt;0.001# CNS-Only / # DR events (%)4/17 (24%)3/10 (30%)6/31 (19%)0/13 (0%)HR+HER2+ (858)N31317229182Cum. Inc. CNS Only1%1%2%0%0.37Cum. Inc. Non-CNS2%3%15%26%&lt;0.001# CNS-Only / # DR events (%)3/10 (30%)2/16 (12%)7/68 (10%)0/29 (0%)HR+HER2- (1957)N2172111036493Cum. Inc. CNS Only3%2%1%0.2%0.087Cum. Inc. Non-CNS5%4%13%20%&lt;0.001# CNS-Only / # DR events (%)6/19 (32%)3/16 (19%)13/196 (7%)3/148 (2%) Citation Format: Sonal Shad, Marieke van der Noordaa, Marie Osdoit, Diane de Croze, Anne-Sophie Hamy, Marick Lae, Fabien Reyal, Miguel Martin, María Del Monte-Millán, Sara López-Tarruella, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Judy C Boughey, Matthew P Goetz, Tanya Hoskin, Rebekah Gould, Vicente Valero, Gabe Sonke, Tessa G Steenbruggen, Maartje van Seijen, Jelle Wesseling, John Bartlett, Stephen Edge, Mi-Ok Kim, Jean Abraham, Carlos Caldas, Helena Earl, Elena Provenzano, Stephen-John Sammut, David Cameron, Ashley Graham, Peter Hall, Lorna Mackintosh, Fan Fang, Andrew K Godwin, Kelsey Schwensen, Priyanka Sharma, Angela DeMichele, Janet Dunn, Louise Hiller, Larry Hayward, Jeremy Thomas, Kimberly Cole, Lajos Pusztai, Laura Van't Veer, Fraser Symmans, Laura Esserman, Christina Yau. Site of recurrence after neoadjuvant therapy: A multi-center pooled analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD13-02.

Abstract Background: Recent studies have demonstrated independent validation of the prognostic relevance of residual cancer burden (RCB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, a pooled subject-level analysis of multiple cohorts is needed to determine estimates of long-term prognosis for each class of RCB in each phenotypic subtype of breast cancer (BC) to better inform on patient outcomes. Also, a pooled subject-level analysis allows more detailed analyses of generalizability of the prognostic meaning of RCB assessments in a broader experience of practice settings. Method: Subject-level RCB results, with relevant clinical and pathologic stage, tumor subtype and grade, demographic, treatment and follow-up data from 11 institutes/trials are being collected for combined analysis. The association between the continuous RCB index and event-free survival (EFS), and distant recurrence free survival (DRFS) were assessed using mixed effect Cox models with the incorporation of random RCB coefficients to account for between-study heterogeneity. We will also allow for differences in baseline hazard across biological BC subtypes and, if needed, across studies as well. In addition to this stratified mixed effect model, a multivariate analysis adjusting for age, T-category, nodal status and grade was performed within each subtype. In addition, mixed effect Cox models will be employed to evaluate association between RCB index with EFS and DRFS within each HR/HER2 subtype. Kaplan Meier estimates of EFS and DRFS at 5 and 10 years were computed for each RCB class within subtype. Results: We analyzed subject-level data from 9 institutes/trials representing 4077 patients currently available from an anticipated final total of 4,800 patients (to be presented at the meeting). There were 950 EFS and 876 DRFS events during follow up (median 65 months, IQR: 70 months). RCB index (continuous) was independently prognostic within each subtype: HR+/HER2- (EFS HR (per unit increase in RCB index) =1.64, 95%CI 1.48-1.82; DRFS HR=1.68, 1.51-1.87), HR+/HER2+ (EFS HR=1.80, 1.57-2.05; DRFS HR=1.93, 1.67-2.24), HR-/HER2+ (EFS HR=2.15, 1.76-2.62; DRFS HR=2.10, 1.77-2.50), and HR-/HER2- (EFS HR=2.05, 1.89-2.22; DRFS HR=2.16, 1.90-2.46); and remained prognostic in multivariate models adjusting for age, grade, and clinical T and N stage at diagnosis. Table 1 contains the response rate and estimated EFS at 5 years and 10 years for each RCB class within each HR/HER2 phenotype (DRFS results were similar). Conclusions: Long-term prognosis after pCR was similarly excellent in all phenotypic subtypes. RCB index and classification was independently and strongly prognostic in all subtypes, and generalizable to multiple practice settings. Prognostic differences by RCB class occurred within 5 years in HR- BC, but extended to 10 years in HR+ BC. RCB-I had slightly worse EFS than pCR in HR- BC and HR+/HER2+ BC (after 5 years), but the same EFS as pCR in HR+/HER2- BC. Complete analysis of all subjects, including neoadjuvant treatments, will be presented at the meeting. PhenotypeOutcomepCRRCB-IRCB-IIRCB-IIIHR+/HER2-Frequency (%)11%10%52%27%(N=1467)5 yr EFS (95% CI)91% (86-96)93% (89-98)82% (79-85)70% (65-75)10 yr EFS (95% CI)84% (75-93)88% (82-95)71% (67-75)52% (46-58)HR+/HER2+Frequency (%)38%18%35%9%(N=762)5 yr EFS (95% CI)94% (91-97)93% (88-98)78% (73-84)49% (37-65)10 yr EFS (95% CI)91% (86-96)79% (70-90)65% (59-73)42% (29-60)HR-/HER2+Frequency (%)66%11%18%5%(N=550)5 yr EFS (95% CI)93% (90-96)88% (79-97)60% (50-71)45% (30-69)10 yr EFS (95% CI)90% (86-94)84% (74-95)56% (46-68)45% (30-69)HR-/HER2-Frequency (%)41%13%33%13%(N=1293)5 yr EFS (95% CI)92% (90-94)85% (79-91)68% (63-72)28% (21-36)10 yr EFS (95% CI)87% (82-91)80% (72-88)63% (58-68)24% (18-33) Citation Format: Christina Yau, Marieke van der Noordaa, Jane Wei, Marie Osdoit, Fabien Reyal, Anne-Sophie Hamy, Marick Lae, Miguel Martin, Maria del Monte, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Judy C Boughey, Rebekah Gould, Jelle Wesseling, Tessa Steenbruggen, Maartje van Seijen, Gabe Sonke, Stephen Edge, Stephen-John Sammut, Elena Provenzano, Jean Abraham, Peter Hall, Ashley Graham, Lorna Mackintosh, David Cameron, Alice Wang, Priyanka Sharma, Kimberly Cole, Lajos Pusztai, Mi-Ok Kim, Laura van ‘t Veer, Laura Esserman, W. Fraser Symmans. Residual cancer burden after neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival outcomes in breast cancer: A multi-center pooled analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS5-01.

Although oncology care has evolved, outcome assessment remains a key challenge. Outcome measurement requires identification and adoption of a succinct list of metrics indicative of high-quality cancer care for use within and across healthcare systems. NCCN established an advisory committee, the NCCN Quality and Outcomes Committee, consisting of provider experts from NCCN Member Institutions and other stakeholders, including payers and patient advocacy, community oncology, and health information technology representatives, to review the existing quality landscape and identify contemporary, relevant cancer quality and outcomes measures by reevaluating validated measures for endorsement and proposing new measure concepts to fill crucial gaps. This manuscript reports on 22 measures and concepts; 15 that align with existing measures and 7 that are new.

6520 Background: Breast cancer follow-up guidelines recommend imaging for distant metastases only in the presence of signs/symptoms. However, data supporting this recommendation predates the current era of improved imaging and targeted therapies based on molecular subtype. The objective was to assess the relationship between mode of distant recurrence detection and survival. Methods: A stage-stratified random sample of Stage II-III breast cancer patients diagnosed in 2006-7 was selected from NCDB records from 1,217 CoC-accredited facilities (10/hospital n = 10,853). Women were categorized by subtype: 1) ER or PR+/HER2-; 2) ER and PR-/Her2- (triple negative); 3) HER2+. Medical records abstracted for 5-years post-surgery supplemented NCDB data and assessed distant recurrence and mode of detection (prompted by signs/symptoms or surveillance imaging), imaging (chest CT, abdomen/pelvis CT/MRI, head CT/MRI, bone scan, PET/CT), death date. The relationship between mode of recurrence detection and days from initial cancer diagnosis to death was assessed using propensity-weighted multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression stratified by subtype. Propensity weights, based on receipt of surveillance systemic imaging, accounted for sociodemographic and tumor/treatment factors. Results: 5-year distant recurrence was 22.3% for triple negative, 14.8% HER2+, and 11.2% for ER or PR+/ HER2- patients. Asymptomatic imaging detected recurrence in 22.9% and signs/symptoms in 77.1%. Patients with asymptomatic as compared to sign/symptom detected recurrences had reduced risk of death in 5 years if triple negative (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.50-0.93) or HER2+ (HR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.24-0.65) with no significant association for ER or PR+/HER2- (HR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.88-1.51). This translated to a between-group difference in weighted median survival of 5 months for triple negative and 13 months for HER2+ patients. Conclusions: This is the first nationally representative study to show a survival advantage with asymptomatic detection of distant metastases for patients, with the benefit limited to triple negative and HER2+ disease. Further research to confirm observational findings is warranted.

Abstract The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual has become the benchmark for classifying patients with cancer, defining prognosis, and determining the best treatment approaches. Many view the primary role of the tumor, lymph node, metastasis (TNM) system as that of a standardized classification system for evaluating cancer at a population level in terms of the extent of disease, both at initial presentation and after surgical treatment, and the overall impact of improvements in cancer treatment. The rapid evolution of knowledge in cancer biology and the discovery and validation of biologic factors that predict cancer outcome and response to treatment with better accuracy have led some cancer experts to question the utility of a TNM‐based approach in clinical care at an individualized patient level. In the Eighth Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual , the goal of including relevant, nonanatomic (including molecular) factors has been foremost, although changes are made only when there is strong evidence for inclusion. The editorial board viewed this iteration as a proactive effort to continue to build the important bridge from a “population‐based” to a more “personalized” approach to patient classification, one that forms the conceptual framework and foundation of cancer staging in the era of precision molecular oncology. The AJCC promulgates best staging practices through each new edition in an effort to provide cancer care providers with a powerful, knowledge‐based resource for the battle against cancer. In this commentary, the authors highlight the overall organizational and structural changes as well as “what's new” in the Eighth Edition. It is hoped that this information will provide the reader with a better understanding of the rationale behind the aggregate proposed changes and the exciting developments in the upcoming edition. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:93–99. © 2017 American Cancer Society.