Hwang, E. Shelley

Importance Oral tamoxifen citrate benefits women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), but concern about toxic effects has limited acceptance. Previous pilot studies have suggested transdermal 4-hydroxytamoxifen gel has equivalent antiproliferative efficacy to oral tamoxifen, with low systemic exposure. Objective To demonstrate that 4-hydroxytamoxifen gel applied to the breast skin is noninferior to oral tamoxifen in its antiproliferative effect in DCIS lesions. Design, Setting, and Participants This randomized, double-blind, phase 2 preoperative window trial was performed at multicenter breast surgery referral practices from May 31, 2017, to January 27, 2021. Among 408 women with estrogen receptor–positive DCIS who were approached, 120 consented and 100 initiated study treatment. The most common reasons for nonparticipation were surgical delay, disinterest in research, and concerns about toxic effects. Data were analyzed from January 26, 2021, to October 5, 2022. Intervention Random assignment to oral tamoxifen citrate, 20 mg/d, and gel placebo or 4-hydroxytamoxifen gel, 2 mg/d per breast, and oral placebo, for 4 to 10 weeks, followed by DCIS resection. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was absolute change in DCIS Ki-67 labeling index (Ki67-LI). Secondary end points included 12-gene DCIS Score, breast tissue tamoxifen metabolite concentrations, tamoxifen-responsive plasma protein levels, and patient-reported symptoms. Noninferiority of Ki67-LI reduction by 4-hydroxytamoxifen gel was tested using analysis of covariance; within- and between-arm comparisons were performed with paired t tests for mean values or the Wilcoxon rank sum test for medians. Results Of 90 participants completing treatment (mean [SD] age, 55 [11] years; 8 [8.9%] Asian, 16 [17.8%] Black, 8 [8.9%] Latina, and 53 [58.9%] White), 15 lacked residual DCIS in the surgical sample, leaving 75 evaluable for the primary end point analysis (40 in the oral tamoxifen group and 35 in the 4-hydroxytamoxifen gel group). Posttreatment Ki67-LI was 3.3% higher (80% CI, 2.1%-4.6%) in the 4-hydroxytamoxifen gel group compared with the oral tamoxifen group, exceeding the noninferiority margin (2.6%). The DCIS Score decreased more with oral tamoxifen treatment (−16 [95% CI, −22 to −9.4]) than with 4-hydroxytamoxifen gel (−1.8 [95% CI, −5.8 to 2.3]). The median 4-hydroxytamoxifen concentrations deep in the breast were nonsignificantly higher in the oral tamoxifen group (5.7 [IQR, 4.0-7.9] vs 3.8 [IQR, 1.3-7.9] ng/g), whereas endoxifen was abundant in the oral tamoxifen group and minimal in the 4-hydroxytamoxifen gel group (median, 13.0 [IQR, 8.9-20.6] vs 0.3 [IQR, 0-0.3] ng/g; P < .001). Oral tamoxifen caused expected adverse changes in plasma protein levels and vasomotor symptoms, with minimal changes in the transdermal group. Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial, antiproliferative noninferiority of 4-hydroxytamoxifen gel to oral tamoxifen was not confirmed, potentially owing to endoxifen exposure differences. New transdermal approaches must deliver higher drug quantities and/or include the most potent metabolites. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02993159

AbstractBackground and objectivesPrevious studies have identified racial‐ethnic differences in the diagnostic patterns and recurrence outcomes of women with phyllodes tumors (PT). However, these studies are generally limited in size and generalizability. We therefore sought to explore racial‐ethnic differences in age, tumor size, subtype, and recurrence in a large US cohort of women with PT.MethodsWe performed an 11‐institution retrospective review of women with PT from 2007 to 2017. Differences in age at diagnosis, tumor size and subtype, and recurrence‐free survival according to race‐ethnicity.ResultsWomen of non‐White race or Hispanic ethnicity were younger at the time of diagnosis with phyllodes tumor. Non‐Hispanic Other women had a larger proportion of malignant PT. There were no differences in recurrence‐free survival in our cohort.ConclusionsDifferences in age, tumor size, and subtype were small. Therefore, the workup of young women with breast masses and the treatment of women with PT should not differ according to race‐ethnicity. These conclusions are supported by our finding that there were no differences in recurrence‐free survival.

PURPOSE: Contemporary breast cancer surgery often requires hospital stays of 1 day or less, presenting challenges to delivery of high-quality care. Without sufficient time for proper education and guidance, patients may delay seeking care, experience anxiety, or seek unnecessary care, leading to poorer outcomes and increased costs. To address this, we evaluated the feasibility of a planning-, outcomes-, and analytics-based mobile health application called Manage My Surgery (MMS) for patients undergoing elective breast cancer surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing breast cancer surgery at an academic health center were invited to use MMS. Those who used the application received pre- and postoperative surveys, which recorded and reported patient satisfaction and outcomes related to the application. RESULTS: Thirty-three female patients undergoing elective breast cancer surgery used MMS. The median age was 58 years. Nineteen patients underwent lumpectomy, and 14 underwent mastectomy. Users logged on to the application an average of 3.5 times. The median number of questions viewed was 12 (range 2-35). Of 17 patients who completed the feedback survey, 100% said that MMS was helpful during preparation for surgery, 82.3% said that MMS was helpful postoperatively, and 94.1% would recommend MMS to others. Preliminary data on patient-reported outcomes collected by MMS suggest improvements in anxiety and depression over time. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a digital care navigation tool in breast cancer surgery patients is feasible. Patients found the tool helpful in both the pre- and postoperative period. Additional ongoing work will focus on patients' self-management skills, long-term outcomes, and health system costs.

BackgroundThe goal of this study was to assess the impact of trastuzumab on locoregional failure.METHODSThe analysis included 2763 patients with HER2‐positive (HER2+) breast cancer who were randomly assigned to adjuvant doxorubicin (A), cyclophosphamide (C), paclitaxel (T) and trastuzumab (H) (arm A, AC→T [n = 922]; arm B, AC→T→H [n = 988]; arm C, AC→T+H→H [n = 853]). Radiotherapy was given after AC→T concurrently with H. Radiotherapy was given after lumpectomy (L) or after mastectomy (M) with ≥4 positive lymph nodes but was optional for 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes. Locoregional failures at 10 years (LFR10) as first events were compared using competing risk analysis.ResultsThe median follow‐up was 13.0 years. The first site of failure was local‐only in 96 cases, locoregional in 16 cases, regional in 32 cases, and not specified in 2 cases; LFR10 was 4.8% (95% CI 4.1%‐5.7%). LFR10 was 5.5% (95% CI 4.3%‐7.2%), 4.9% (95% CI 3.7%‐6.4%), and 2.8% (95% CI 1.9%‐4.1%) in arms A, B, and C (B vs A: hazard ratio [HR] 0.91, P = .62; C vs A: HR 0.72, P = .12). For estrogen receptor–positive patients, LFR10 was 3.7% (95% CI 2.8%‐4.8%) and for estrogen receptor–negative patients, it was 6.1% (95% CI 5.0%‐7.4%; HR 0.61, P = .004). Local treatment included L+RT (n = 1044 [38%]), M+RT (n = 1025 [37%]), and M (n = 694 [25%]). LFR10 was 6.% (95% CI 5.0%‐7.8%), 3.0% (95% CI 2.1%‐4.3%), and 5.5% (95% CI 4.0%‐7.4%) for L+RT, M+RT, and M, respectively (M+RT vs L+RT: HR 0.43, P < .001; M vs L+RT: HR 0.88, P = .57). For 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes, LFR10 was 6.5% (95% CI 4.8%‐8.9%), 4.1% (95% CI 2.4%‐7.0%), and 4.3% (95% CI 2.9%‐6.5%) in L+RT, M+RT, and M, respectively (M vs L+RT: HR 0.68, P = .14; M vs M+RT: HR 1.2, P = .6).ConclusionLow 10‐year LFRs were seen regardless of trastuzumab use. Differences in local therapy in patients with 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes did not appear to improve local control. Local therapy studies for HER2+ and other tumor characteristics are important as the role of local therapies continues to evolve.

TPS1608 Background: Metformin may have growth inhibitory effects on many cancer types including breast cancer. NCIC MA.32 is a randomized placebo-controlled trial examining the effects of 5 years of metformin in women with breast cancer ( http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01101438 ). This trial offers us the opportunity to explore the effects of metformin on breast cancer biomarkers to gain an understanding of the potential chemo preventive effects of this drug. The primary aim of this companion to MA.32 (Alliance trial # A211201) is to examine the effects of 1 year of metformin vs placebo on breast density for women with Estrogen Receptor negative (ER-) breast cancer. Secondary aims of this study include: evaluation of breast density following 2 years of metformin use, and correlation of density with fasting insulin, glucose and Homeostasis Model Assessment (HOMA). Exploratory aims include examination of the effects of metformin on second cancer rates. Methods: Eligible women must have been enrolled on MA.32 (North America accrual completed January 23, 2013), have hormone receptor-negative breast cancer, and breast composition on mammography >25% glandular density, have a digital mammogram within 12 months of registration on MA.32 and have an intact, unaffected contralateral breast. Women enrolled on this study must provide menstrual cycle data (if premenopausal) and digital mammograms. All other study related information is gathered through participation in MA.32. Mammographic density will be calculated using Cumulus software (the Boyd method). Our accrual goal is 458 patients (229 per arm) and with an assumption of 20% drop out due to drug intolerance and another 20% due to ineligibility. Therefore, with a sample size of 274 (137 per arm) we will have at least 85% power to detect a 4% difference between study arms, i.e., 5% change from baseline to one year of treatment for metformin vs. 1% for placebo, using the two-sided two-sample t-test at a significance level of 5%. This study was activated in the United States on 8/22/2012 and 15 patients have been accrued to date. This study is sponsored by the NCI and the Alliance for clinical trials. Clinical trial information: NCT01666171.