Seaward, Samantha A.

PURPOSE For patients with breast cancer undergoing breast conservation, escalating the dose (boost) of radiation to the lumpectomy cavity after whole-breast irradiation (WBI) reduces ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) but extends treatment duration. This phase III trial investigated whether boost delivery during WBI versus after WBI provides noninferior IBR and preserves cosmetic appearance. METHODS NRG/RTOG 1005 randomly assigned patients at higher risk for IBR after lumpectomy and axillary surgery to either a sequential boost of 12 Gy in six fractions(F) or 14 Gy in 7F after WBI of 50 Gy in 25F or 42.7 Gy in 16F (sequential arm) or a concurrent boost of 8 Gy in 15F of 0.53 Gy per day with WBI of 40 Gy in 15F (concurrent arm) using 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (RT) or intensity-modulated RT. Based on 1.59% 5-year IBR for the sequential arm, defining the noninferiority margin as a hazard ratio upper limit on the 90% CI of 2.12, 2,312 patients provide 80% power for noninferiority of IBR as first recurrence for the concurrent arm. Secondary end points included disease-free survival and overall survival, adverse events (AEs), and cosmetic outcomes. RESULTS Between May 24, 2011, and June 20, 2014, 2,354 patients were randomly assigned, with 2,255 eligible for analysis (sequential arm, n = 1,118; concurrent arm, n = 1,137). With median follow-up of 7.3 years, there were 56 IBR events; 5- and 7-year IBR were 2.1% and 2.2% on the sequential arm and 1.9% and 2.6% on the concurrent arm, respectively. The noninferiority criterion was met: HR (90% CI): 1.31 (0.84 to 2.04), P = .037. No differences were observed in AEs, cosmetic outcomes, or survival between arms. CONCLUSION Concurrent boost during WBI results in noninferior IBR compared with sequential boost without worsening toxicity or cosmetic outcomes and reduces overall treatment time.

Abstract Background NRG/RTOG 1010 evaluated trastuzumab added to trimodality therapy for HER2+ localized esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) management. Secondary PRO objectives assessed improvement in the FACT‐Esophageal Cancer Subscale (ECS), version 4, with trastuzumab, and if improved ECS correlated with pathologic complete response (pCR). Methods Patients were randomized to weekly paclitaxel/carboplatin/radiation (chemoradiation, CRT) followed by surgery ± trastuzumab (CRT + Tras). Disease‐free survival (DFS) was the primary end point. The projected PRO sample size of 158 patients, based on an 80% participation rate of the DFS primary endpoint sample size of 197 HER2+ patients, would provide ≥ 89% power to detect ≥25% increase in the proportion of CRT + Tras patients with ECS improvement from baseline to 6–8 weeks post‐CRT; one‐sided α = 0.05, using a χ 2 test. Improvement in ECS and its swallowing index (SI) and eating index (EI) was defined as 5‐, 2‐, and 2‐point increases, respectively, from baseline to 6–8 weeks post‐CRT. Univariate logistic regression was assessed if pCR was associated with improved ECS. Results From 2010 to 2015, 203 HER2+ patients were randomized and 194 were eligible. Of 171 PRO consenting patients, the ECS was completed by 162 (95%) at baseline, 108 (64%) 6–8 weeks, 82 (49%) 1 year, and 55 (33%) at 2 years. The proportion of patients with an improvement in 6–8 weeks ECS was higher on the CRT + Tras arm (46% vs. 38%), although not significantly different ( p = .39). There was no correlation between pCR and ECS scores at 1 year, with 39% and 37% of pCR and non‐pCR patients, respectively, having improved 1‐year ECS scores. Conclusions The addition of trastuzumab to CRT for localized HER2+ EAC did not improve PROs.

Importance Use of modern neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) regimens has markedly increased rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) in breast cancer, raising the question of whether surgical removal of the primary tumor is required for patients with pCR. For surgery to be omitted, one must be able to accurately predict pCR before surgery. Objective To investigate if adding post-NAC core needle biopsy of the tumor bed to trimodality imaging in patients who have clinical complete response (cCR) will predict pCR (resolution of both invasive disease and ductal carcinoma in situ) in 90% or more cases. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a phase 2, prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial. Patients were enrolled from August 2017 to June 2019. This is the final analysis, which was completed in December 2023. The setting included academic and community hospital center members of NRG (ie, the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, and the Gynecologic Oncology Group) in the US and Canada. Patients with operable (T1-T3, stage I-III) invasive ductal carcinoma who completed NAC and achieved cCR and radiological complete response (rCR) or near rCR by mammography (mass ≤1 cm and no malignant microcalcifications), ultrasound (mass ≤2 cm), and magnetic resonance imaging (no mass with rapid rise or washout kinetics). Interventions Patients underwent marker-directed stereotactic multiple-core needle biopsy of the tumor bed with marker placement before breast-conservation surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures End points were negative predictive value (NPV) and sensitivity of the biopsy. Results A total of 105 patients were enrolled with 101 evaluable (mean [SD] age, 52.8 [10.5] years); 77 patients (76.2%) were younger than 60 years, and all breast cancer subtypes were represented with 32 (31.7%) triple-negative breast cancer, 21 (20.8%) hormone receptor–positive/epidermal growth factor receptor 2 ( ERBB2 ; formerly HER2 )–negative ( ERBB2 −) breast cancer, and 46 (45.5%) ERBB2 -positive ( ERBB2 +) breast cancer. In 101 evaluable patients, 36 had residual disease at surgery (pCR = 64%). With imaging criteria, NPV of the biopsy was 78.3% (95% CI, 67.9%-86.6%), and the sensitivity of the biopsy was 50% (95% CI, 32.9%-67.1%). In an exploratory subset analysis, the NPV in patients with ERBB2 + breast cancer was 90% (95% CI, 76.3%-97.2%). On retrospective central review, 62 of 101 enrolled patients met imaging eligibility criteria. In this exploratory post hoc analysis, NPV in these patients was 86.8% (95% CI, 74.7%-94.5%). Conclusions and Relevance These findings do not support breast conservation treatment without surgery based on the study criteria for cCR and rCR/near rCR by trimodality imaging and negative tumor-bed biopsy. Strict adherence to imaging criteria may be required to achieve acceptable predictive values. TRIAL Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03188393

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 co-primary 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. NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 is a randomized phase III noninferiority (NI) clinical trial comparing conventional fractionation (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions) radiotherapy (C-RT) with hypofractionation (H-RT; 70 Gy in 28) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. The study included 1,092 protocol-eligible patients initially reported in 2016 with a median follow-up of 5.8 years. Updated results with median follow-up of 12.8 years are now presented. The estimated 12-year disease-free survival (DFS) is 56.1% (95% CI, 51.5 to 60.5) for C-RT and 61.8% (95% CI, 57.2 to 66.0) for H-RT. The DFS hazard ratio (H-RT/C-RT) is 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.03), confirming NI ( P < .001). Twelve-year cumulative incidence of biochemical failure (BF) was 17.0% (95% CI, 13.8 to 20.5) for C-RT and 9.9% (95% CI, 7.5 to 12.6) for H-RT. The HR (H-RT/C-RT) comparing biochemical recurrence between the two arms was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.78). Late grade ≥3 GI adverse event (AE) incidence is 3.2% (C-RT) versus 4.4% (H-RT), with relative risk (RR) for H-RT versus C-RT 1.39 (95% CI, 0.75 to 2.55). Late grade ≥3 genitourinary (GU) AE incidence is 3.4% (C-RT) versus 4.2% (H-RT), RR 1.26 (95% CI, 0.69 to 2.30). Long-term DFS is noninferior with H-RT compared with C-RT. BF is less with H-RT. No significant differences in late grade ≥3 GI/GU AEs were observed between assignments (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773 ).

Abstract Background: The benefit of adjuvant regional nodal irradiation including the chest wall after mastectomy (CWI+RNI) and with whole breast irradiation (WBI+RNI) after breast conserving surgery (BCS) is well established in pts with pathologically positive axillary nodes (pN+). Pts who present with axillary node involvement (cN+), receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC), and are found to be pathologically node-negative at surgery (ypN0), have lower loco-regional recurrence (LRR) rates compared to those who remain pathologically node-positive (ypN+). This phase III, randomized trial aimed to evaluate whether CWI+RNI after mastectomy or addition of RNI to WBI after BCS significantly improves invasive breast cancer recurrence-free interval (IBC-RFI) in cN+ pts found to be ypN0 after NC. Methods: Eligible pts had clinical cT1-3, N1, M0 invasive breast cancer (biopsy-proven N+ by FNA/core needle bx), completed ≥8 wks of NC (and anti-HER2 therapy if HER2+), and were ypN0 after mastectomy or BCS and sentinel node biopsy (SLNB, ≥2 nodes), axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), or both. Pts were randomized to “No RNI” (i.e., observation after mastectomy or WBI after BCS) vs. “RNI” (i.e., CWI+RNI after mastectomy or WBI+RNI after BCS). Primary endpoint was IBC-RFI. Secondary endpoints reported here: LRR-free interval (LRRFI), distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Study was designed to have 80% power to detect 35% reduction in annual rate of IBC-RFI for an absolute risk reduction of 4.6% (5-yr cumulative rate). Per protocol, final analysis was to occur after 172 events or 10 yrs after study initiation.Here we report the time-driven analysis prespecified in the protocol. Results: From 9/13-12/20, 1,641 pts were enrolled; 1,556 pts were available for primary event analysis; median f/u time 59.5 mos (IQR 40.7-74.1). Pt/tumor characteristics were well balanced between groups. Median age 52 yrs (range 21-84); 31% non-white; 21% cT1, 60% cT2, 19% cT3; 23% triple-negative, 21% HR+/HER2-, 56% HER2+; 58% BCS; 55% SLNB, 45% ALND+/-SLNB; and 78% had breast pathologic complete response. At the time of the analysis, 109 IBC-RFI events (63% of the planned 172) were confirmed (“No RNI”: 59, “RNI”: 50). There was no statistically significant difference between groups for IBC-RFI (HR=0.88, 95%CI 0.60-1.29; p=0.51), 5-yr point estimates: 91.8% for “No RNI” and 92.7% for “RNI.” There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups for secondary endpoints. There were no study-related deaths and no unexpected toxicities.Grade 4 toxicity was rare (0.1% with “No RNI”, 0.5% with “RNI”); 6.5% of pts developed grade 3 toxicity in “No RNI” and 10% in “RNI” group. Most common grade 3 toxicity was radiation dermatitis (3.3% in “No RNI,” 5.7% in “RNI”). Conclusion: In pts who present with biopsy-proven axillary node involvement and convert their axillary nodes to ypN0 after NC, CWI+RNI after mastectomy, or WBI+RNI after BCS, did not significantly improve IBC-RFI, LRRFI, DRFI, DFS, or OS. These findings suggest that downstaging involved axillary nodes with NC can result in optimization of adjuvant radiotherapy without adversely affecting oncologic outcomes. Follow-up of pts for long-term outcomes continues. NCT01872975 *EPM and JW are co-first authors. Table 1 Citation Format: Eleftherios Mamounas, Hanna Bandos, Julia White, Thomas Julian, Atif Khan, Simona Shaitelman, Mylin Torres, Frank Vicini, Patricia Ganz, Susan McCloskey, Nilendu Gupta, X. Allen Li, Peter Lucas, Nadeem Abu-Rustum, Saumil Gandhi, Rahul Tendulkar, Robert Coleman, Keiichi Fujiwara, Samantha Seaward, William Irvin, Kristin Higgins, Robert Mutter, Jean-Francois Boileau, Andrew Muskovitz, Reshma Jagsi, Anna Weiss, Curran Walter Jr., Norman Wolmark. Loco-Regional Irradiation in Patients with Biopsy-proven Axillary Node Involvement at Presentation Who Become Pathologically Node-negative After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Primary Outcomes of NRG Oncology/NSABP B-51/RTOG 1304 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr GS02-07.

Abstract Background: Despite evidence of substantial breast cancer risk reduction, few high-risk women adopt chemopreventive medications such as selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) or aromatase inhibitors (AIs). Women with benign breast disease, such as atypical hyperplasia (AH) or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), have an increased risk of developing breast cancer and derive a greater benefit from antiestrogens compared to other high-risk women. Reasons for low uptake of chemoprevention include insufficient patient and clinician knowledge about antiestrogens, time constraints during the clinical encounter, and concerns about side effects. To address these barriers, we have developed patient and provider web-based decision support tools to improve informed choice about breast cancer chemoprevention among women with AH or LCIS. Study design: We are conducting a cluster-randomized controlled trial of clinical decision support to improve chemoprevention informed choice among women with AH or LCIS and their treating providers. Twenty-six U.S. sites through the SWOG Cancer Research Network were randomly assigned 1:1 to standard educational materials alone or in combination with the patient-centered decision aid (RealRisks) and provider decision support tool (BNAV). A total of 415 patients and 200 healthcare providers will be recruited from these sites. RealRisks consists of interactive modules to calculate personalized breast cancer risk and elicit preferences on chemoprevention. The modules are available in English and Spanish. BNAV is comprised of self-directed case-based learning modules on breast cancer risk assessment and chemoprevention. Patients complete questionnaires at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Providers complete surveys at baseline and after their enrolled patient’s 6-month clinical encounter. The primary endpoint is chemoprevention informed choice at 6 months, using a measure combining knowledge, attitude, and intention scales. Secondary endpoints include perceived breast cancer risk/worry, chemoprevention knowledge/intention, decision conflict/regret, shared decision-making, and chemoprevention uptake. For patients who begin chemoprevention, adherence and reasons for discontinuation are assessed annually for up to 5 years. Barriers and facilitators to implementing RealRisks and BNAV into clinic workflow will be assessed by conducting patient and provider interviews at baseline and mid-implementation. Eligibility criteria: Eligible patients include women, age 35-74 years, with AH or LCIS, no history of breast cancer, no prior use of SERMs or AIs, no bilateral mastectomies, English or Spanish-speaking, and access to the internet. Eligible providers include breast surgeons, medical oncologists, primary care providers, and physician extenders who see patients with AH or LCIS. Statistical methods: We have 90% power to detect a 15% increase in the frequency of chemoprevention informed choice with a 1-sided 0.025 level test, assuming an intraclass correlation (ICC) of 0.02 to account for clustering, roughly equal accrual at each site, 10% loss to follow-up, and ≤10% event rate in the control arm. Current/target accrual: The trial was activated on 9/1/2020. As of 7/7/2022, all 26 sites have been randomized, 157/200 providers and 184/415 patients have been enrolled. Discussion: Our hybrid effectiveness/implementation study seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-level intervention in promoting informed decision-making about breast cancer chemoprevention. Study results will provide valuable insights on how the decision support tools are integrated in diverse clinical settings. Citation Format: Katherine D. Crew, Garnet Anderson, Kathryn Arnold, Andrew Stieb, Jacquelyn N. Amenta, Cynthia Law, Ana Sandoval-Leon, Sarah Colonna, Tari King, Debra Mangino, Sandhya Pruthi, Maria Grosse Perdekamp, Christa Braun-Inglis, Stacy Krisher, Lisa Yee, Danielle Bertoni, Samantha Seaward, Kari B. Wisinski, Justin Floyd, Corrine Zarwan, Tarah J. Ballinger, Lindi VanderWalde, Masey M. Ross, Preston Steen, Shelly Lo, Alison Conlin, Kathleen Yost, John Ellerton, Erin Lin, Holly J. Pederson, Sagar Sardesai, Cheryl Jernigan, Dawn Hershman, Marian L. Neuhouser, Banu K. Arun, Rita Kukafka. SWOG 1904: Cluster-randomized controlled trial of patient and provider decision support to increase chemoprevention informed choice among women with atypical hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ (MiCHOICE) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-15-01.

PURPOSE To compare the predictive ability of mapping algorithms derived using cross-sectional and longitudinal data. METHODS This methodological assessment used data from a randomized controlled noninferiority trial of patients with low-risk prostate cancer, conducted by NRG Oncology (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773 ), which examined the efficacy of conventional schedule versus hypofractionated radiation therapy (three-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy/IMRT). Health-related quality-of-life data were collected using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), and health utilities were obtained using EuroQOL-5D-3L (EQ-5D) at baseline and 6, 12, 24, and 60 months postintervention. Mapping algorithms were estimated using ordinary least squares regression models through five-fold cross-validation in baseline cross-sectional data and combined longitudinal data from all assessment periods; random effects specifications were also estimated in longitudinal data. Predictive performance was compared using root mean square error. Longitudinal predictive ability of models obtained using baseline data was examined using mean absolute differences in the reported and predicted utilities. RESULTS A total of 267 (and 199) patients in the estimation sample had complete EQ-5D and EPIC domain (and subdomain) data at baseline and at all subsequent assessments. Ordinary least squares models using combined data showed better predictive ability (lowest root mean square error) in the validation phase for algorithms with EPIC domain/subdomain data alone, whereas models using baseline data outperformed other specifications in the validation phase when patient covariates were also modeled. The mean absolute differences were lower for models using EPIC subdomain data compared with EPIC domain data and generally decreased as the time of assessment increased. CONCLUSION Overall, mapping algorithms obtained using baseline cross-sectional data showed the best predictive performance. Furthermore, these models demonstrated satisfactory longitudinal predictive ability.

60 Background: Mapping algorithms informing economic evaluations are often derived using baseline data from clinical trials. It is unclear if these algorithms can predict health utilities accurately in post-intervention data. Thus, this study examines the longitudinal predictive ability of mapping algorithms derived from baseline trial data and explores the factors associated with prediction errors. Methods: This methodological study utilized data from an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial of patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PC), conducted by NRG Oncology (NCT00331773). In addition to patient demographic and clinical data, this study utilized PRO data collected at baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months post-intervention. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire measures health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and has four domains (urinary, sexual, hormonal, and bowel) and two subdomains per domain (function and bother); EuroQOL-5D-3L (EQ5D) captures health utilities. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models were used to map EPIC scores to EQ5D utilities in the baseline data through 5-fold cross-validation. Predictive performance was tested in the post-intervention data; predicted and reported utilities were compared using t-tests, and the absolute prediction error was modeled using fixed effects, as a function of baseline demographic and clinical covariates, as well as observed and predicted EQ5D utilities. Results: A total of 267 (199) patients had complete EQ5D and EPIC domain (or subdomain) data at baseline and all subsequent assessments. In the EPIC domain sample, mean ± standard deviation observed EQ5D utility was 0.90±0.13 at baseline, 0.92±0.11 at 6 months, 0.90±0.13 at 12 months and 0.89±0.14 at 24 months. Mean absolute differences (MDs) between reported and predicted were lower for models using EPIC subdomain data compared to EPIC domain data, and generally decreased as the time of assessment increased. The mapping functions over-predicted utilities for patients in perfect health while the prediction errors were increasingly negative for lower reported EQ5D scores. According to the fixed effects model for EPIC domain data, lower observed and predicted baseline EQ5D scores, and time of assessment were significant predictors of the absolute prediction error; for EPIC subdomain data, lower observed and predicted baseline EQ5D scores, hormonal bother and function, and bowel function significantly predicted the absolute prediction error. Conclusions: This study is the first to demonstrate the longitudinal validity of EPIC questionnaire, and builds upon existing research on longitudinal validity of mapping functions. The low MDs in prediction errors in post-intervention data indicate that the mapping functions are sensitive to treatment effect, thereby increasing confidence in their use in economic evaluations in PC.

Purpose: NRG/RTOG 0848 was designed to determine whether adjuvant radiation with fluoropyrimidine sensitization improved survival following gemcitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with resected pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. In step 1 of this protocol, patients were randomized to adjuvant gemcitabine versus the combination of gemcitabine and erlotinib. This manuscript reports the final analysis of these step 1 data. Methods: Eligibility—within 10 weeks of curative intent pancreaticoduodenectomy with postoperative CA19-9<180. Gemcitabine arm—6 cycles of gemcitabine. Gemcitabine+erlotinib arm—gemcitabine and erlotinib 100 mg/d. Two hundred deaths provided 90% power (1-sided α=0.15) to detect the hypothesized OS signal (hazard ratio=0.72) in favor of the arm 2. Results: From November 17, 2009 to February 28, 2014, 163 patients were randomized and evaluable for arm 1 and 159 for arm 2. Median age was 63 (39 to 86) years. CA19-9 ≤90 in 93%. Arm 1: 32 patients (20%) grade 4 and 2 (1%) grade 5 adverse events; arm 2, 27 (17%) grade 4 and 3 (2%) grade 5. GI adverse events, arm 1: 22% grade ≥3 and arm 2: 28%, ( P =0.22). The median follow-up (surviving patients) was 42.5 months (min-max: <1 to 75). With 203 deaths, the median and 3-year OS (95% confidence interval) are 29.9 months (21.7, 33.4) and 39% (30, 45) for arm 1 and 28.1 months (20.7, 30.9) and 39% (31, 47) for arm 2 (log-rank P =0.62). Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) comparing OS of arm 2 to arm 1 is 1.04 (0.79, 1.38). Conclusions: The addition of adjuvant erlotinib to gemcitabine did not provide a signal for increased OS in this trial.