Citations

ImportancePatients should have an active role in decisions about pursuing or forgoing specific therapies in treatment de-escalation trials.ObjectiveTo evaluate longitudinal patient-reported outcomes (PROs) encompassing decisional comfort and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among patients who elected to enroll in a clinical trial evaluating radiotherapy alone, without breast surgery, for invasive breast cancers with exceptional response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST).Design, Setting, and ParticipantsProspective, single-group, phase 2 clinical trial at 7 US medical centers. Women aged 40 years or older with invasive cT1-2 N0-1 M0 triple-negative or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2)–positive breast cancer with no pathologic evidence of residual disease following standard NST enrolled from March 6, 2017, to November 9, 2021. Validated PRO measures were administered at baseline and 6, 12, and 36 months post-radiotherapy. Data were analyzed from January to February 2023.InterventionsPRO measures included the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Lymphedema (FACT-B+4), and Breast Cancer Treatment Outcomes Scale (BCTOS).Main Outcomes and MeasuresChanges in PRO measure scores and subscores over time.ResultsAmong 31 patients, the median (IQR) age was 61 (56-66) years, 26 (84%) were White, and 26 (84%) were non-Hispanic. A total of 15 (48%) had triple-negative disease and 16 (52%) had ERBB2-positive disease. Decisional comfort was high at baseline (median [IQR] DRS score 10 [0-25] on a 0-100 scale, with higher scores indicating higher decisional regret) and significantly increased over time (median [IQR] DRS score at 36 months, 0 [0-20]; P < .001). HRQOL was relatively high at baseline (median [IQR] FACT-B composite score 121 [111-134] on a 0-148 scale, with higher scores indicating higher HRQOL) and significantly increased over time (median [IQR] FACT-B score at 36 months, 128 [116-137]; P = .04). Perceived differences between the affected breast and contralateral breast were minimal at baseline (median [IQR] BCTOS score 1.05 [1.00-1.23] on a 1-4 scale, with higher scores indicating greater differences) and increased significantly over time (median [IQR] BCTOS score at 36 months, 1.36 [1.18-1.64]; P < .001). At 36 months postradiotherapy, the cosmetic subscore was 0.45 points higher than baseline (95% CI, 0.16-0.74; P = .001), whereas function, pain, and edema subscores were not significantly different than baseline.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this nonrandomized phase 2 clinical trial, analysis of PROs demonstrated an overall positive experience for trial participants, with longitudinal improvements in decisional comfort and overall HRQOL over time and minimal lasting adverse effects of therapy.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02945579

Background/Objectives The COVID-19 pandemic motivated telemedicine care to decrease potential exposures for both patients and staff. We hypothesized that select breast surgical patients can be successfully evaluated pre-operatively with telemedicine. Methods With institutional review board approval, patients with telemedicine surgical consults between 1 March 2020 and 31 August 2020 were identified retrospectively from our prospective breast surgical registry. The frequency of successful pre-operative evaluation using telemedicine alone was assessed, defined as cases in which surgery was completed on the planned day without changes to the surgical plan after physical examination in the pre-operative area. Differences in disease presentation, patient characteristics, and complications were evaluated by whether the first in-person visit occurred on the day of surgery versus the prior. Results A total of 374 patients underwent breast surgery between 1 March 2020 and 31 August 2020, of which 96 (25.7%) had a telemedicine consultation. After the telemedicine visit, 38 patients (39.6%) had additional in-person visits with the breast surgeon prior to their operative date, and 58 patients (60.4%) did not. Forty-five patients underwent breast-conserving therapies, 41 mastectomies (25 with reconstruction), two axillary dissections, and eight excisional biopsies. All surgeries were completed on the planned operative day, with no changes in surgical plans. Patients with telemedicine only prior to surgery were more likely to speak English (100% vs. 92.1%, p = 0.02) and have lower body mass index (median 24.9 vs. 29.2, p = 0.01). The frequency of in-person pre-operative visits varied significantly by surgeon ( p < 0.001). Age, American Society of Anaesthesiologists score, distance from facility, clinical T/N category, surgery type, and complications did not differ between groups. Conclusions Telemedicine can be utilized successfully for select breast surgical patients, with the ability to proceed to surgery in the majority of patients without additional in-person visits.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007 and updated in 2021 (STEEP 2.0), provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer (BC) end points. STEEP 2.0 identified a need to separately address end points for neoadjuvant clinical trials. The multidisciplinary NeoSTEEP working group of experts was convened to critically evaluate and align neoadjuvant BC trial end points. METHODS The NeoSTEEP working group concentrated on neoadjuvant systemic therapy end points in clinical trials with efficacy outcomes—both pathologic and time-to-event survival end points—particularly for registrational intent. Special considerations for subtypes and therapeutic approaches, imaging, nodal staging at surgery, bilateral and multifocal diseases, correlative tissue collection, and US Food and Drug Administration regulatory considerations were contemplated. RESULTS The working group recommends a preferred definition of pathologic complete response (pCR) as the absence of residual invasive cancer in the complete resected breast specimen and all sampled regional lymph nodes (ypT0/Tis ypN0 per AJCC staging). Residual cancer burden should be a secondary end point to facilitate future assessment of its utility. Alternative end points are needed for hormone receptor–positive disease. Time-to-event survival end point definitions should pay particular attention to the measurement starting point. Trials should include end points originating at random assignment (event-free survival and overall survival) to capture presurgery progression and deaths as events. Secondary end points adapted from STEEP 2.0, which are defined from starting at curative-intent surgery, may also be appropriate. Specification and standardization of biopsy protocols, imaging, and pathologic nodal evaluation are also crucial. CONCLUSION End points in addition to pCR should be selected on the basis of clinical and biologic aspects of the tumor and the therapeutic agent investigated. Consistent prespecified definitions and interventions are paramount for clinically meaningful trial results and cross-trial comparison.

Importance Lensectomy with primary intraocular lens (IOL) implantation is often used in the management of nontraumatic pediatric cataract, but long-term data evaluating the association of age and IOL location with the incidence of complications are limited. Objective To describe the incidence of complications and additional eye surgeries through 5 years following pediatric lensectomy with primary IOL implantation and association with age at surgery and IOL location. Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective cohort study used Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group cataract registry data from 61 institution- and community-based practices over 3 years (June 2012 to July 2015). Participants were children younger than 13 years without baseline glaucoma who had primary IOL implantation (345 bilateral and 264 unilateral) for nontraumatic cataract. Data analysis was performed between September 2021 and January 2023. Exposures Lensectomy with primary IOL implantation. Main Outcome and Measures Five-year cumulative incidence of complications by age at surgery (&amp;lt;2 years, 2 to &amp;lt;4 years, 4 to &amp;lt;7 years, and 7 to &amp;lt;13 years) and by IOL location (sulcus vs capsular bag) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. Results The cohort included 609 eyes from 491 children (mean [SD] age, 5.6 [3.3] years; 261 [53%] male and 230 [47%] female). Following cataract extraction with primary IOL implantation, a frequent complication was surgery for visual axis opacification (VAO) (cumulative incidence, 32%; 95% CI, 27%-36%). Cumulative incidence was lower with anterior vitrectomy at the time of IOL placement (12%; 95% CI, 8%-16%) vs without (58%; 95% CI, 50%-65%), and the risk of undergoing surgery for VAO was associated with not performing anterior vitrectomy (hazard ratio [HR], 6.19; 95% CI, 3.70-10.34; P &amp;lt; .001). After adjusting for anterior vitrectomy at lens surgery, there were no differences in incidence of surgery for VAO by age at surgery (&amp;lt;2 years, HR, 1.35 [95% CI, 0.63-2.87], 2 to &amp;lt;4 years, HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.44-1.68], 4 to &amp;lt;7 years, HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.72-1.56]; P = .74) or by capsular bag vs sulcus IOL fixation (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.36-4.17; P = .75). Cumulative incidence of glaucoma plus glaucoma suspect by 5 years was 7% (95% CI, 4%-9%), which did not differ by age after controlling for IOL location and laterality. Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study, a frequent complication following pediatric lensectomy with primary IOL was surgery for VAO, which was associated with primary anterior vitrectomy not being performed but was not associated with age at surgery or IOL location. The risk of glaucoma development across all ages at surgery suggests a need for long-term monitoring.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Multiple Myeloma (MM) is an incurable disease with no known germline high penetrant risk gene. The higher risk of MM among affected relatives suggests a genetic contribution to the etiology. To date, 24 common risk variants with low effect sizes were identified using genome-wide association studies, which account for 17% of heritability. However, a systematic analysis of the known rare alleles in cancer predisposition genes has not been undertaken so far in MM. We collaborated with six other academic centers across the United States to identify and select cases for analysis of germline predisposition of MM. METHODS: We performed whole exome, next-generation sequencing of 2,387 familial or early onset germline MM cases from the myeloma sequencing consortium (MMSEQ). We called 1.5 million variants and performed standard quality control of the data. We also obtained exome data on 1,285 cases from UK Biobank (UKBB) and 344,513 non-cancer controls (total=3,672 cases). We analyzed the ultra-rare, coding variants in 90 clinically relevant or putative candidates for cancer predisposition. We then used the automated variant curator PathoMAN to annotate and assert pathogenicity of each variant. We contrasted our results with assertions of pathogenicity from ClinVar and tested for gene association with MM. RESULTS: Overall, we observed several pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, both singleton and recurrent founder mutations. In the MMSEQ, 8.7% of MM cases harbored a pathogenic variant in these known/putative cancer predisposition genes. Predominant group of pathogenic variants were observed within CHEK2 (19%), TP53 (8%), and ATM (5%). A case-control analysis revealed strong association with TP53 and weakly with ATM. In the familial/early onset MMSEQ cases, TP53 mutations were enriched 68 times more than in the UKBB controls. Our preliminary results suggest that known genes of cancer susceptibility such as TP53 and ATM may also play a role in myeloma risk. CONCLUSION: In a large study of multi-center MM cases, we identified a significant proportion of individuals who are carriers of known (solid) cancer predisposition genes. This study suggests that these known cancer predisposition genes may be relevant in a subset of MM cases. Citation Format: Michael T. Conry, Nicola Camp, Celine Vachon, Michelle Hildebrandt, Elizabeth E. Brown, Steven M. Lipkin, Judy Garber, Susan L. Slager, Samantha Stokes, Aaron D. Norman, Aalin Izhar, Sita Dandiker, Kylee Maclachlan, Kenneth Offit, Saad Usmani, Vijai Joseph. Pathogenic germline mutations and risk of multiple myeloma. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 5229.

LBA612 Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes including MammaPrint (MP) status to evaluate novel neoadjuvant agents in high-risk breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR). Oral Paclitaxel and encequidar (OPE) is an oral combination of paclitaxel (P) with a p-glycoprotein pump inhibitor, encequidar. Dostarlimab (D) is an intravenous (IV) PD-1 inhibitor. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm and MP high risk cancers (MP1 = MP high; MP2 = MP ultra-high) were treated starting Oct 5, 2020. Treatment included OPE (Oral P 205mg/m2 + encequidar 12.9mg) on days 1-3 weekly x 12 and D 500 mg IV given q 3 weeks x 4, followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) q 2-3 weeks x 4. Patients with HER2+ disease received IV weekly trastuzumab (T) during the first 12 weeks. The control arm was weekly IV P x 12 with or without trastuzumab followed by AC q 2-3 weeks x 4. OPE + D was eligible to graduate [85% chance of success in a 300-person phase 3 neoadjuvant trial with a pCR endpoint] in any of the pre-defined signatures. Results: 113 (78 HR+HER2-, 17 HR-HER2- and 18 HER2+ patients) received OPE + D +/- T. The control arm included 388 historical controls (201 HR+Her2-, 156 HR-HER2-, 31 HER2+). 77 patients (70 HR+ and 7 HR-) were MP1 and 36 patients (24 HR+ and 12 HR-) were MP2. Safety events of note for OPE + D versus IV P include increased rates of nausea (85% vs. 72%) diarrhea (77% vs. 41%). There was no significant difference in rates of neutropenia (23% vs.17%). Peripheral neuropathy (37% vs. 64%) and alopecia (59% vs. 66%) were significantly decreased. Immune related adverse events (irAEs) were lower than expected. Conclusions: Although both OPE and D have both been shown to have efficacy in other settings, combination therapy with OPE + D did not graduate in any of the predefined subtypes. In the HR+ signature where we would not expect a benefit of D, we see equal response to OPE with decreased rates of peripheral neuropathy and alopecia, which suggest this oral agent may be an attractive alternative to IV P in this subgroup and is under consideration in ISPY 2.2. We did not observe the expected improvement in pCR rates seen with PD-1 inhibitors in the HR- or MP2 subtypes (over P alone historic control). In addition, the irAEs were less than expected. Together these findings suggest interference of OPE with D. A potential mechanism of interference could be change in microbiome with the use of OPE vs. IV P, as the microbiome is known to influence the efficacy of immunotherapy. The source of interference is being investigated. Clinical trial information: NCT01042379 . [Table: see text]

LBA520 Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter trial using response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes including MammaPrint (MP) risk to evaluate novel neoadjuvant agents in high-risk breast cancer. Oral paclitaxel and encequidar (OPE) is an oral combination of paclitaxel (P) with a p-glycoprotein pump inhibitor, encequidar, to enhance gastrointestinal (GI) absorption. Dostarlimab (D) is an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm and MP high-risk cancers were screened and treated starting Oct 5, 2020. Treatment included Oral Paclitaxel 205mg/m2 and encequidar 12.9 mg on days 1-3, Carboplatin (Cb) AUC 1.5 on day 1 weekly x 12, and Dostarlimab (D) 500 mg every 3 weeks x 4, followed by doxorubicin/ cyclophosphamide (AC) every 2-3 weeks x 4. The control arm was IV P weekly x 12 followed by AC every 2-3 weeks x 4. For patients with HER2+ disease, weekly Trastuzumab (T) was administered during the first 12 weeks. The arm was eligible for graduation [> 85% chance of success in a 300-person phase 3 neoadjuvant trial with a pathologic complete response (pCR) endpoint] in 10 predefined signatures. Results: 106 patients (44 HR+HER2-, 56 HR-HER2- (TN), 6 HER2+) received OPE/Cb/D ± T. The control arm included 388 historical controls (201 HR+HER2-, 156 TN, 31 HER2+). 22 patients (20 HR+, 2 HR-) in OPE/Cb/D were MP1 (MP high) and 84 patients (29 HR+, 55 HR-) were MP2 (MP ultra-high). OPE/Cb/D graduated in the TN signature and accrual was stopped. Conclusions: OPE/Cb/D graduated in the TN signature with a higher predicted pCR rate compared to control. OPE and D have been, individually, shown to have efficacy in other settings. The lower-than-expected pCR rate and lower irAEs with triplet therapy (taxane, platinum, immune checkpoint inhibitor [ICI]) in TN compared to prior IV chemo + ICI arms on I-SPY 2 suggests a possible interference of OPE with ICI. Changes in gut microbiome is being investigated as an explanation. Clinical trial information: NCT01042379 . [Table: see text]