Zarwan, Corrine

Abstract Background Breast cancer chemoprevention is underutilized among high-risk women. We examined whether decision support could increase informed decision making. Methods We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of a patient-facing decision aid (RealRisks) and provider tool (BNAV) compared with standard education on the number of women with high-risk breast lesions making informed choices. Questionnaires were administered at baseline and 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was chemoprevention informed choice (defined as adequate knowledge and attitudes congruent with decision) at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included breast cancer risk perceptions, worry, chemoprevention knowledge, decision conflict, and chemoprevention decision. Results Across 31 randomized sites, we enrolled 210 providers, who were primarily breast health specialists. Of these, 24 sites (14 intervention, 10 control) enrolled 412 patients. Among 287 patients evaluable for the primary outcome, there were no statistically significant differences in informed choice between the intervention and control arms at 6 months (35% vs 27%, respectively; P = .20) and 12 months (37% vs 25%, respectively; P = .05). At 6 months, women in the intervention compared with control arm were more likely to have accurate breast cancer risk perceptions (31% vs 21%, respectively; P = .03) and adequate chemoprevention knowledge (33% vs 23%, respectively; P = .04). At 12 months, 52% of women in the control and 50% in the intervention arm self-reported initiating chemoprevention. Conclusion Decision support led to modest improvements in accurate risk perceptions and chemoprevention knowledge but not informed choice. Relatively high chemoprevention uptake was achieved among women with high-risk breast lesions managed mainly by breast health specialists. Trial Registration NCT04496739, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04496739?cond=NCT04496739&viewType=Card&rank=1

Abstract Background: Breast cancer (BC) chemoprevention with selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) and aromatase inhibitors (AIs) remains underutilized among high-risk women. Improving knowledge about BC risk and chemoprevention among high-risk patients and their healthcare providers may enhance informed decision-making about this BC risk reduction strategy. Methods: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of web-based patient and provider decision support, RealRisks and BNAV, to improve chemoprevention informed choice among women with atypical hyperplasia (AH) or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). Thirty-one sites, including academic and community practices across the U.S., were randomized to standard patient educational materials alone or combined with RealRisks and BNAV. A total of 412 patients and 210 healthcare providers were enrolled. Patient surveys were administered at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome at 6 months was chemoprevention informed choice, defined as adequate chemoprevention knowledge and attitudes congruent with decision. Secondary endpoints included BC risk perceptions, worry, chemoprevention knowledge, decision conflict and chemoprevention decision. Assuming 10% loss to follow up (LTFU), roughly equal accrual across sites, and an intraclass coefficient (ICC) of 0.02, we had 90% power to detect a 15% absolute difference in informed choice if the event rate in the control arm was 10%. Results: Among 24 evaluable sites, 14 were randomized to the intervention arm and 10 to the control arm. Among 210 enrolled providers, median age was 46 (range, 28-83) and 78% were female; 75% physicians and 25% advanced practice providers/nurses; 53% medical oncologists, 29% surgeons, and 10% gynecologists/family practitioners/internists; and 83% had previously prescribed chemoprevention. Among 412 enrolled patients, median age was 53 (range, 35-74), including 77% White, 8% Black, and 10% Asian race, and 14% Hispanic ethnicity. In terms of BC risk factors, 77% had AH and 23% LCIS, 34% had a first-degree family history of BC, and 65% had heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts on mammography. Thirty percent were unevaluable for the primary endpoint (1% ineligible, 26% LTFU, 3% missing data). Among 288 evaluable patients (148 at intervention sites, 140 at control sites), the proportion of patients exercising informed choice at 6 months in the intervention and control arms was 35% vs. 27%, respectively (odds ratio [OR]=1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.84-2.46, p=0.19; observed ICC=0.006). Compared to patients in the control arm at 6 months, those in the intervention arm were more likely to have accurate BC risk perceptions (OR=1.80, 95% CI=1.11-2.91) and adequate chemoprevention knowledge (OR=1.62, 95% CI=1.00-2.61). We observed no significant differences in BC worry, decision conflict, or chemoprevention decision between study arms. At 6 months, 49% of women in the control arm and 51% in the intervention arm decided to take a SERM or AI for BC chemoprevention (p=0.58), a rate higher than anticipated. Conclusions: We did not observe a significant increase in informed choice among patients and providers assigned to chemoprevention decision support compared to standard educational materials alone. Among women with AH or LCIS seen mainly by breast specialists who prescribed chemoprevention, about half decided to take a SERM or AI. Therefore, relatively high chemoprevention uptake may be achieved among women with high-risk breast lesions managed by breast specialists. Chemoprevention decision support may improve decision antecedents, such as accurate BC risk perceptions and chemoprevention knowledge, but may have a limited role in changing health behaviors. Citation Format: K. D. Crew, G. L. Anderson, K. B. Arnold, A. Michel, M. T. DeLucie, C. W. Law, S. Pruthi, A. C. Sandoval Leon, R. Shirley, M. T. Grosse Perdekamp, S. V. Colonna, S. L. Krisher, T. King, L. D. Yee, T. J. Ballinger, C. Braun-Inglis, D. A. Mangino, K. B. Wisinski, C. A. DeYoung, M. Ross, J. D. Floyd, A. Kaster, L. VanderWalde, T. Saphner, C. Zarwan, S. Lo, C. Graham, A. K. Conlin, K. J. Yost, D. M. Agnese, C. Jernigan, D. L. Hershman, M. L. Neuhouser, J. A. Zell, B. Arun, R. Kukafka. Making informed choices on incorporating chemoprevention into care (MiCHOICE): Cluster randomized controlled trial of decision support for breast cancer chemoprevention, SWOG 1904 [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 PS3-01-15.

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.

Abstract Background: PARP inhibitor (PARPi) monotherapy has previously demonstrated clinical activity only in patients with a germline BRCA mutation (BRCAmut), while single-agent anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) therapy has achieved response rates of only 5–20% in advanced triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). In preclinical studies, PARP inhibition enhanced anti-tumor immunity, increased infiltration of proliferating CD8+ T cells, and synergized with anti-PD-1 agents in BRCA wildtype (wt) tumors. TOPACIO is a fully enrolled, phase I/II trial of niraparib + pembrolizumab (pembro) in advanced TNBC. This combination achieved 28% objective response rate (ORR) and 50% disease control rate (DCR) in evaluable patients. Although activity was highest in patients with BRCAmut (ORR=60%; DCR=80%), durable clinical benefit was also observed in patients without BRCA mutations. In this study, we conducted exploratory biomarker analyses to evaluate their potential correlation with durable clinical benefit (any complete response [CR] or partial response [PR] regardless of duration or stable disease [SD] for ≥16 weeks) beyond BRCA mutations. Method: ORR was assessed by RECIST v1.1. Duration of disease control (DDC) was defined as time from first dose of study treatment to radiologic disease progression or death. Tumor mutational status of homologous recombination repair (HRR) and other DNA damage repair (DDR) pathway genes was determined using an NGS panel. Immunoprofiling was conducted using NanoString IO360 panel complimented with 30 DNA repair spike-ins. Tumor immune micro-environment was characterized using multiplex immuno-fluorescence (CycIF). PD-L1 status was determined using the Agilent/DAKO 22C3 IHC clinical trial assay. Results: Of 46 evaluable patients, 20 achieved durable clinical benefit (any CR/PR or SD≥16 weeks) with niraparib + pembro combination, of which 8 were tumor BRCA wild type (wt), and 1 was BRCA unknown. Of the 9 BRCAwt/unknown patients, 5 had deleterious mutations in HRR/DDR pathway genes, whereas the remaining 4 had no mutations (HRR/DDR wt). Mutations that were associated with response include CHEK1 (CR; DDC=10.3 mos), ATR (CR; DDC=6.4 mos), PALB2 (PR; DDC=3.5 mos), BLM (SD; DDC=8.1 mos), and NBN/RAD51C (SD; DDC=3.7 mos). Of 4 patients that had no identified mutations (HRR/DDR wt), 1 patient had CR; DDC=10.3 mos, and the remaining 3 patients had SD with DDC ranging from ∼4-8 mos. Of note, all 4 HRR/DDR wt patients were also PD-L1-negative. Table:Durable clinical benefit in BRCAwt/unknown patientsHRR/DRR MutationsPD-L1 StatusBest ResponseDDC (Months)CHEK1+CR10.3†ATR+CR6.4PALB2*UnknownPR3.5BLM-SD8.1NBN/RAD51C+SD3.7None-CR10.3†None-SD8.2None-SD4.2None-SD3.9*BRCA status unknown; †Treatment is ongoing. Conclusion: Patients with mutations beyond BRCA achieved durable clinical benefit with niraparib + pembro treatment; five of these patients had DDC >6 mos. Mutations in genes that are associated with the HRR/DDR pathway appear to confer sensitivity to niraparib + anti-PD1. Additional translational analyses, including immunoprofiling and CycIF, will be presented. Funding: TESARO, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA sponsored the study. Citation Format: Vinayak S, Tolaney SM, Schwartzberg L, Mita M, McCann G, Tan AR, Wahner Hendrickson A, Forero A, Anders C, Wulf G, Dillon P, Lynce F, Zarwan C, Erban J, Färkkilä A, Zhou Y, Buerstatte N, Graham JR, Arora S, Dezube B, Telli ML. Durability of clinical benefit with niraparib + pembrolizumab in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer beyond BRCA: (TOPACIO/Keynote-162) [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 PD5-02.