Umphrey, Heidi

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

Abstract Purpose: Low-dose tamoxifen reduces breast cancer risk, but remains untested in chest-irradiated cancer survivors—a population with breast cancer risk comparable with BRCA mutation carriers. We hypothesized that low-dose tamoxifen would be safe and efficacious in reducing radiation-related breast cancer risk. Patients and Methods: We conducted an investigator-initiated, randomized, phase IIb, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial (FDA IND107367) between 2010 and 2016 at 15 U.S. sites. Eligibility included ≥12 Gy of chest radiation by age 40 years and age at enrollment ≥25 years. Patients were randomized 1:1 to low-dose tamoxifen (5 mg/day) or identical placebo tablets for 2 years. The primary endpoint was mammographic dense area at baseline, 1 and 2 years. IGF-1 plays a role in breast carcinogenesis; circulating IGF-1 and IGF-BP3 levels at baseline, 1 and 2 years served as secondary endpoints. Results: Seventy-two participants (low-dose tamoxifen: n = 34, placebo: n = 38) enrolled at a median age of 43.8 years (35–49) were evaluable. They had received chest radiation at a median dose of 30.3 Gy. Compared with the placebo arm, the low-dose tamoxifen arm participants had significantly lower mammographic dense area (P = 0.02) and IGF1 levels (P < 0.0001), and higher IGFBP-3 levels (P = 0.02). There was no difference in toxicity biomarkers (serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, lipids, and antithrombin III; urine N-telopeptide cross-links) between the treatment arms. We did not identify any grade 3–4 adverse events related to low-dose tamoxifen. Conclusions: In this randomized trial in chest-irradiated cancer survivors, we find that low-dose tamoxifen is effective in reducing established biomarkers of breast cancer risk and could serve as a risk-reduction strategy.

Background: Lymphoma patients exposed to chest RT during adolescence/young adulthood are at increased risk for BC; the cumulative incidence exceeds 20% by age 45 and the BC risk is comparable to that in women with BRCA1 mutations. These findings present an urgent yet unmet need to reduce the risk of BC in RT-exposed lymphoma survivors. The risk of BC is 50% lower in chest RT-exposed survivors who also receive ovarian radiation, suggesting a critical role of endogenous estrogens in RT-related breast carcinogenesis, making tamoxifen (a selective estrogen receptor modulator) an attractive risk-reducing option. Tamoxifen administered at 20 mg/d is effective in BC prevention in other high risk populations, but severe adverse events (SAE: venous thromboembolism, endometrial cancer) have limited its broad use. Previous biomarker trials in the general population have shown that LDTam (5mg/d) is not inferior to tamoxifen at 20 mg/d in reducing BC risk, and is associated with a safer AE profile. Mammographic breast density (MBD) is an established biomarker of BC risk; high MBD is associated with a 4-fold higher risk of BC. We hypothesized that LDTam would be effective in reducing BC risk (using MBD as a primary endpoint) in chest RT-exposed lymphoma survivors. We used an investigator-initiated, multi-institutional, randomized phase IIb, double blind, placebo controlled trial (FDA IND 107367) to test this hypothesis. Methods: Female patients from 13 sites were ≥25y at enrollment, with a history of exposure to chest RT at ≥12 Gy by age 40 for their primary cancer, and were off therapy for ≥6 mo. Subjects with a prior history of BC/DCIS, B/L mastectomy, or baseline MBD <25% in both breasts were excluded. Tamoxifen 5mg or identical placebo tablets were provided by Sharp Clinical Services (Allentown, PA) under good manufacturing practice. Subjects were randomized 1:1 in a double-blinded fashion by a Web-based system to receive LDTam or placebo daily for 2y. MBD (in both breasts) was measured centrally on digital scans independently by 3 radiologists at baseline, 1y and 2y. Using an intention-to-treat analysis, the efficacy of LDTam in reducing MBD was compared between the LDTam and placebo arms by applying a linear mixed effects model for bivariate normally distributed data with random intercept and time*treatment arm effects. Correlations between the left and right breasts and within radiologists were accounted for in the model. Treating clinicians and all research staff were blinded to the treatment arm. Results: A total of 72 patients (LDTam: n=34; placebo: n=38) participated in the trial; primary diagnosis: Hodgkin lymphoma (86%); non-Hodgkin lymphoma (10%); other (3%); median age at diagnosis of primary cancer: 21.5y (IQR, 16-28), and at trial enrollment: 43.8y (35-49); median time from diagnosis of primary cancer to study: 17.0y (12-26). Median chest RT dose: 30.3 Gy (21-37.3); 11% had received pelvic radiation; 39% were post-menopausal at study. Participant characteristics were comparable between the two treatment arms, as was the mean baseline MBD (LDTam: 52.6% vs. placebo: 50.4%, p=0.6). The time*treatment arm effect was statistically significant (LDTam vs. placebo: estimate = -1.7, SE = 0.5, p = 0.001), indicating a significantly lower mean fitted MBD for LDTam (43.9%) vs. placebo (47.3%) at 2y (Figure). This represented a 16.5% relative reduction in MBD on the LDTam arm, corresponding to an estimated 33% lower risk of BC (assuming that reductions in MBD have the same benefit in lymphoma survivors as they do in the general population). There were no grade 3 or 4 AEs related to LDTam. Grade 2 AEs did not differ between treatment arms (LDTam: 44.1% vs. placebo: 36.8%, p=0.6). There was no difference in the prevalence of moderate-to-severe patient-reported outcomes between the treatment arms (Table). Conclusion: Low-dose tamoxifen was associated with a significantly steeper decline in MBD in chest RT-exposed lymphoma survivors, when compared with placebo, and was safe and well-tolerated. This is the first trial demonstrating efficacy of a pharmacologic intervention in reducing a biomarker strongly associated with breast cancer risk in lymphoma survivors with a past history of chest radiation. Disclosures Palomares: Covance: Other: Medical monitoring. Henderson:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: The drug is a low-dose tamoxifen, a selective estrogen receptor modulator. Tamoxifen in standard doses is used to reduce the risk of breast cancer in high risk populations. Tamoxifen in standard or low doses have not been tested before for chest-irradiated cancer survivors to reduce the risk of radiation-related breast cancer.

Background The utility of early postoperative ultrasound measurements in predicting arteriovenous fistula (AVF) clinical maturation is uncertain. Methods We investigated the relationships of ultrasound parameters with AVF clinical maturation in newly created AVF, measured at 1 day and 2 and 6 weeks, in 602 participants of a multicenter, observational cohort study. A backward elimination algorithm identified ultrasound measurements that independently predicted unassisted and overall AVF maturation. Candidate variables included AVF blood flow, diameter, and depth, upper arm arterial diameter, presence of stenosis, presence of accessory veins, seven case-mix factors (age, sex, black race, AVF location, diabetes, dialysis status, and body mass index), and clinical center. We evaluated the accuracy of the resulting models for clinical prediction. Results At each ultrasound measurement time, AVF blood flow, diameter, and depth each predicted in a statistically significant manner both unassisted and overall clinical maturation. Moreover, neither the remaining ultrasound parameters nor case-mix factors were associated with clinical AVF maturation after accounting for blood flow, diameter, and depth, although maturation probabilities differed among clinical centers before and after accounting for these parameters. The crossvalidated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for models constructed using these three ultrasound parameters was 0.69, 0.74, and 0.79 at 1 day and 2 and 6 weeks, respectively, for unassisted AVF clinical maturation and 0.69, 0.71, and 0.76, respectively, for overall AVF maturation. Conclusions AVF blood flow, diameter, and depth moderately predicted unassisted and overall AVF clinical maturation. The other factors considered did not further improve AVF maturation prediction.