Citations

Background: The association between obesity and prognosis in HER2-positive early breast cancer remains unclear, with limited data available. This study aimed to determine the impact of body mass index (BMI) at baseline and weight change after 2 years on outcomes of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. Methods: ALTTO was a randomized phase III trial in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. BMI was collected at randomization and 2 years after. WHO BMI categories were used: underweight, <18.5 kg/m2; normal weight, 18.5 to <25 kg/m2; overweight, ≥25 to <30 kg/m2; and obese ≥30 kg/m2. A weight change from baseline of ≥5.0% and ≤5.0% was categorized as weight gain and weight loss. The impact of BMI at randomization and of weight change on disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and overall survival (OS) were investigated with multivariate analyses, adjusting for baseline patients and tumor characteristics. Results: A total of 8,381 patients were included: 187 (2.2%), 3,797 (45.3%), 2,690 (32.1%), and 1,707 (20.4%) were underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese at baseline, respectively. Compared with normal weight, being obese at randomization was associated with a significantly worse DDFS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04–1.50) and OS (aHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01–1.60), but no significant difference in DFS (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.97–1.32). Weight loss ≥5.0% at 2 years after randomization was associated with significantly poorer DFS (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.05–1.71), DDFS (aHR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.07–1.98), and OS (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.18–2.84). Hormone receptor and menopausal status but not anti-HER2 treatment type influenced outcomes. Toxicities were more frequent in obese patients. Conclusions: In patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer, obesity at baseline is a poor prognostic factor. Weight loss during treatment and follow-up negatively impacts clinical outcomes. Dietary counseling should be part of survivorship care programs.

Abstract Purpose The high-value pharmacy enterprise (HVPE) framework and constituent best practice consensus statements are presented, and the methods used to develop the framework’s 8 domains are described. Summary A panel of pharmacy leaders used an evidence- and expert opinion–based approach to define core and aspirational elements of practice that should be established within contemporary health-system pharmacy enterprises by calendar year 2025. Eight domains of an HVPE were identified: Patient Care Services; Business Services; Ambulatory and Specialty Pharmacy Services; Inpatient Operations; Safety and Quality; Pharmacy Workforce; Information Technology, Data, and Information Management; and Leadership. Phase 1 of the project consisted of the development of draft practice statements, performance elements, and supporting evidence for each domain by panelists, followed by a phase 2 in-person meeting for review and development of consensus for statements and performance elements in each domain. During phase 3, the project cochairs and panelists finalized the domain drafts and incorporated them into a full technical report and this summary report. Conclusion The HVPE framework is a strategic roadmap to advance pharmacy practice by ensuring safe, effective, and patient-centered medication management and business practices throughout the health-system pharmacy enterprise. Grounded in evidence and expert recommendations, the statements and associated performance elements can be used to identify strategic priorities to improve patient outcomes and add value within health systems.

Background Panobinostat (Pano), a pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (FVd) in patients who have received ≥2 prior lines of therapy, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD). The pivotal phase 3 PANORAMA 1 trial, which used intravenous (i.v.) bortezomib, demonstrated significant progression-free survival benefit with FVd compared with placebo-Vd; however, adverse events (AEs) were also more frequent (San-Miguel J. et al., Lancet Oncol. 2014). The randomized phase 2 PANORAMA 3 study was conducted to optimize FVd by comparing three regimens with varying dose and schedule of Pano and by incorporating subcutaneous (s.c.) bortezomib. Methods PANORAMA 3 (NCT02654990) was a randomized, open-label, international, multicenter phase 2 study conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Eligible patients were ≥18 years old with 1‒4 prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD. Patients refractory to bortezomib were excluded. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to Pano 20 mg three times weekly (TIW; the currently approved dosing regimen; Days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12), Pano 20 mg twice weekly (BIW; Days 1, 4, 8, 11), or Pano 10 mg TIW (Days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12), all administered in 21-day cycles. Randomization was stratified by number of prior treatment lines (1 vs 2 vs 3 or 4) and by age at screening (≤75 vs &gt;75 years). For Cycles 1-4, all patients ≤75 years old received s.c. bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 BIW (Days 1, 4, 8, 11) and oral dexamethasone 20 mg (Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12). Patients aged ≤75 years from Cycle 5 onwards, and patients &gt;75 years for all cycles, received bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 weekly (Days 1 and 8) and dexamethasone 20 mg on Days 1, 2, 8, and 9. Patients were treated until progressive disease or death, or until discontinuation due to toxicity or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR; IMWG 2011 criteria) after up to 8 treatment cycles by Independent Review Committee assessment. Secondary endpoints included best response, time to response (TTR), duration of response (DOR) and safety. Results In total, 248 patients were randomized (Pano: 20 mg TIW, N=82; 20 mg BIW, N=83; 10 mg TIW, N=83) and 241 patients received treatment (Pano: 20 mg TIW, N=79; 20 mg BIW, N=82; 10 mg TIW, N=80). Mean (SD) age was 65 (9) years; 55% of patients were male. Overall, patients had a median (range) time since diagnosis of 49 months (7‒242) and a median (range) of 2 (1-4) prior lines of therapy; 17% and 2% of patients were refractory to lenalidomide and pomalidomide, respectively. In total, 68% of patients had relapsed and 32% had relapsed/refractory disease. High-risk molecular findings were present in 15% of patients, with either del(17p) or t (4;14) at screening by fluorescence in situ hybridization. For the Pano 20 mg TIW, 20 mg BIW, and 10 mg TIW arms, respectively, median (range) number of treatment cycles completed was 9 (1; 50), 8 (1; 40) and 7 (1; 39); ORR (95% CI) after up to 8 treatment cycles was 62% (51; 73), 65% (54; 75), and 51% (39; 62); median TTR was 1, 2, and 3 months, with a median (95% CI) DOR of 22 (14, not estimable), 12 (9, 21), and 11 (6, 14.5) months. Best responses are presented in Table 1. In the Pano 20 mg TIW, 20 mg BIW, and 10 mg TIW arms, respectively, treatment-related AEs Grade ≥3 were reported in 78%, 72%, and 54% of patients; serious AEs were reported in 54%, 48%, and 44% of patients; and discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 29.5%, 28%, and 15% of patients, respectively. Most common treatment-emergent AEs (≥20% patients) are presented in Table 2. Grade ≥3 diarrhea occurred in 11.5%, 10%, and 5% of patients, respectively. There were 14 (6%) on-treatment deaths during the study (20 mg TIW, n=5; 20 mg BIW, n=3; 10 mg TIW, n=6), with none causally related to therapy and with 12 of 14 directly attributable to progressive disease. Conclusion In patients with RRMM, the 20 mg TIW and 20 mg BIW dosing regimens provided favorable outcomes, with most durable and deepest responses observed in the 20 mg TIW arm. The rate of AEs, including diarrhea, with Pano 20 mg TIW was lower than those observed with the same dosing regimen in PANORAMA 1, suggesting s.c. administration of bortezomib improves tolerability compared with i.v. administration. Moreover, all three regimens of FVd proved generally manageable; Pano 20 mg TIW had greatest efficacy, while 10mg TIW proved best tolerated. Disclosures Schjesvold: Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Oncopeptides: Research Funding; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, SkyliteDX, Takeda: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees. Lech-Marańda:Roche, Amgen, Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, Gilead, AbbVie, Sanofi: Consultancy. Spicka:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hajek:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; PharmaMar: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Wróbel:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda, Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, AbbVie, Teva, Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sureda Balari:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Beksac:Janssen&janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Deva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Goncalves:Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Celgene, GSK, BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Bladé Creixenti:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Chari:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Glaxo Smith Kline: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; The Binding Site: Honoraria. Lonial:JUNO Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Abbvie: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Onyx: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spencer:Haemalogix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmamar: Other; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; TheraMyc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Other: Grant/Research Support; Takeda: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Antegene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Maison-Blanche:Chiesi Pharmaceutical, Sanofi, Novartis: Honoraria. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding. San-Miguel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi, Roche, Abbvie, GlaxoSmithKline and Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction Immune-mediated hematologic disorders are relatively rare but potentially life-threatening immune-related adverse events (irAE) with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy (Shiuan, Beckermann et al 2017). The management strategy often relies on systemic corticosteroids and other immunosuppressant agents in steroid-refractory cases (Brahmer, Lacchetti et al 2018). We hereby describe our institution's experience in diagnosing and managing immune-related hematologic adverse events (ir-h-AE). Methods We retrospectively searched the electronic health record for all ir-h-AE diagnosed by treating providers and confirmed by study authors between 2015 and 2020. The search included patients on ICI and the following conditions: immune-related neutropenia (IRN), autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA), cold agglutinin disease (CAD), immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), immune-related pancytopenia, aplastic anemia (AA), and pure red cell aplasia (PRCA). For AIHA, PRCA, and CAD, partial response (PR) was defined as hemoglobin greater than 10 g/dL but &lt; 12 g/dL and 2 g/dL above the nadir without blood product transfusion. Complete response (CR) was defined as hemoglobin of ≥ 12 g/dL and 2 g/dL above the nadir without blood product transfusion (Peñalver, Alvarez-Larrán et al. 2010). For ITP, CR was defined as platelet count ≥ 100 × 109/L and absence of bleeding. PR was defined as platelet count ≥ 30 × 109/L and ≥ two-fold increase from the baseline count and absence of bleeding (Gómez-Almaguer, Tarín-Arzaga et al. 2013). For IRN, CR was defined as absolute neutrophil count (ANC) ≥ 1500/ mm3 on 2 consecutive measurements separated by 7 days; PR was defined as ANC ≥ 500/ mm3 sustained over 7 days. JMP® 14.1 was used for data analysis. Results Seventeen patients were identified, 9 (52.9%) of whom were female (table 1). Median age was 68 years (range 26-78). The most common pre-existing malignancies were melanoma (6 patients, 35.3%), non-small cell lung cancer (4 patients, 23.5%), and gastrointestinal cancer (3 patients, 17.6%). The ir-h-AE included 7 patients (41.2%) with warm AIHA, 4 (23.5%) with ITP (1 had immune-related pancytopenia that resolved with ITP persisting), 3 (17.6%) with IRN, 1 with AA, 1 with CAD, and 1 with PRCA and mild ITP. All patients had received an ICI dose within 60 days of diagnosis (range 3-52 days, median 18 days). Only 1 patient had a concomitant chronic autoimmune disorder (antinuclear antibody-positive arthritis). Four patients (23.5%) were receiving chemotherapy. Sixteen patients (94.1%) required treatment and received corticosteroids. Eight out of 15 evaluable patients (53.3%) responded to corticosteroids only. Another 4 responders (26.7%) required additional therapies including intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) (4, 23.5%) and/or rituximab (4, 23.5%). Overall response rate was 71.4% for AIHA and 100% for IRN. ITP was likely underrepresented in our cohort, and the response rate of 66.7% is likely lower than the response rate in clinical practice. This could be related to the fact that many mild thrombocytopenia cases are not further evaluated in clinical practice. None of our patients died from the sequelae of an ir-h-AE. Two patients (11.8%) died within 30 days of ir-h-AE diagnosis (disseminated intravascular coagulation likely due to the underlying malignancy and sepsis from bacterial pneumonia). At the time of ir-h-AE diagnosis, the malignancy was showing evidence of response in 9 patients (52.9%), progression in 6 patients (35.3%), and stability in 2 patients (11.8%). ICI therapy was permanently discontinued in 9 patients (52.9%) and temporarily held in 6 patients (35.3%). Three of the 5 patients (60%), who were rechallenged with ICI therapy, had recurrence of the same ir-h-AE (AIHA) with adequate response to therapy. Non-hematologic irAE (7 patients, 41.2%) included 3 patients with hepatitis, 2 with thyroiditis, 2 with pneumonitis, 1 with colitis, and 1 with dermatitis. Conclusion Our clinical experience with ir-h-AE highlights the importance of exercising vigilance in assessing the hematologic parameters of patients receiving ICI therapy. While relatively rare, ir-h-AE may impact the clinical course of patients with cancer and their eligibility for therapies that have the potential of offering durable control of the underlying malignancy. ir-h-AE respond to classical therapies including corticosteroids, IVIG, and rituximab. Disclosures Block: Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Marker Therapeutics: Research Funding; Transgene: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding. Kottschade:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding.

The diagnostic criteria for cirrhotic cardiomyopathy (CCM) were recently revised to reflect the contemporary advancements in echocardiographic technology. This study evaluates the prevalence of CCM, according to the new criteria, and its impact on posttransplant cardiovascular disease (CVD). This is a single‐center retrospective matched cohort study of liver transplantation (LT) recipients who underwent LT between January 1, 2008 and November 30, 2017. A total of 3 cohorts with decompensated cirrhosis (nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, alcohol‐related liver disease, or other etiologies) were matched based on age, sex, and year of transplant after excluding patients listed without evidence of hepatic decompensation. CCM was defined, according to 2020 criteria, as having diastolic dysfunction, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤50%, and/or a global longitudinal strain (GLS) absolute value <18%. The study echocardiographers were blinded to the clinical data. Posttransplant CVD included new coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, atrial and ventricular arrhythmia, and stroke. The study included 141 patients of whom 59 were women. The mean age at LT was 57.8 (±7.6) years. A total of 49 patients (34.8%) had CCM. Patients with CCM were at an increased risk for post‐LT CVD (hazard ratio, 2.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.2‐5.5; P = 0.016). Changes in CCM individual parameters pretransplant, such as GLS, early diastolic transmitral flow to early diastolic mitral annular velocity, and left atrial volume index were associated with an increased risk for posttransplant CVD. CCM, defined by the new diagnostic criteria, affects approximately one‐third of decompensated LT candidates. CCM predicts an increased risk for new CVD following LT. Studies into addressing and follow‐up to mitigate these risks are needed.

Transcription factor E3-rearranged renal cell carcinoma (TFE3-RCC) has heterogenous morphologic and immunohistochemical (IHC) features. 131 pathologists with genitourinary expertise were invited in an online survey containing 23 questions assessing their experience on TFE3-RCC diagnostic work-up. Fifty (38%) participants completed the survey. 46 of 50 participants reported multiple patterns, most commonly papillary pattern (almost always 9/46, 19.5%; frequently 29/46, 63%). Large epithelioid cells with abundant cytoplasm were the most encountered cytologic feature, with either clear (almost always 10/50, 20%; frequently 34/50, 68%) or eosinophilic (almost always 4/49, 8%; frequently 28/49, 57%) cytology. Strong (3+) or diffuse (>75% of tumour cells) nuclear TFE3 IHC expression was considered diagnostic by 13/46 (28%) and 12/47 (26%) participants, respectively. Main TFE3 IHC issues were the low specificity (16/42, 38%), unreliable staining performance (15/42, 36%) and background staining (12/42, 29%). Most preferred IHC assays other than TFE3, cathepsin K and pancytokeratin were melan A (44/50, 88%), HMB45 (43/50, 86%), carbonic anhydrase IX (41/50, 82%) and CK7 (32/50, 64%). Cut-off for positive TFE3 fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) was preferably 10% (9/50, 18%), although significant variation in cut-off values was present. 23/48 (48%) participants required TFE3 FISH testing to confirm TFE3-RCC regardless of the histomorphologic and IHC assessment. 28/50 (56%) participants would request additional molecular studies other than FISH assay in selected cases, whereas 3/50 participants use additional molecular cases in all cases when TFE3-RCC is in the differential. Optimal diagnostic approach on TFE3-RCC is impacted by IHC and/or FISH assay preferences as well as their conflicting interpretation methods.

Abstract Background: Evidence for aspirin's chemopreventative properties on colorectal cancer (CRC) is substantial, but its mechanism of action is not well-understood. We combined a proteomic approach with Mendelian randomization (MR) to identify possible new aspirin targets that decrease CRC risk. Methods: Human colorectal adenoma cells (RG/C2) were treated with aspirin (24 hours) and a stable isotope labeling with amino acids in cell culture (SILAC) based proteomics approach identified altered protein expression. Protein quantitative trait loci (pQTLs) from INTERVAL (N = 3,301) and expression QTLs (eQTLs) from the eQTLGen Consortium (N = 31,684) were used as genetic proxies for protein and mRNA expression levels. Two-sample MR of mRNA/protein expression on CRC risk was performed using eQTL/pQTL data combined with CRC genetic summary data from the Colon Cancer Family Registry (CCFR), Colorectal Transdisciplinary (CORECT), Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer (GECCO) consortia and UK Biobank (55,168 cases and 65,160 controls). Results: Altered expression was detected for 125/5886 proteins. Of these, aspirin decreased MCM6, RRM2, and ARFIP2 expression, and MR analysis showed that a standard deviation increase in mRNA/protein expression was associated with increased CRC risk (OR: 1.08, 95% CI, 1.03–1.13; OR: 3.33, 95% CI, 2.46–4.50; and OR: 1.15, 95% CI, 1.02–1.29, respectively). Conclusions: MCM6 and RRM2 are involved in DNA repair whereby reduced expression may lead to increased DNA aberrations and ultimately cancer cell death, whereas ARFIP2 is involved in actin cytoskeletal regulation, indicating a possible role in aspirin's reduction of metastasis. Impact: Our approach has shown how laboratory experiments and population-based approaches can combine to identify aspirin-targeted proteins possibly affecting CRC risk.

Background: Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), women are less likely to receive catheter ablation and may have more complications and less durable results. Most information about sex-specific differences after ablation comes from observational data. We prespecified an examination of outcomes by sex in the 2204-patient CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation). Methods: CABANA randomized patients with AF age ≥65 years or <65 years with ≥1 risk factor for stroke to a strategy of catheter ablation with pulmonary vein isolation versus drug therapy with rate/rhythm control agents. The primary composite outcome was death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest, and key secondary outcomes included AF recurrence. Results: CABANA randomized 819 (37%) women (ablation 413, drug 406) and 1385 men (ablation 695, drug 690). Compared with men, women were older (median age, 69 years versus 67 years for men), were more symptomatic (48% Canadian Cardiovascular Society AF Severity Class 3 or 4 versus 39% for men), had more symptomatic heart failure (42% with New York Heart Association Class ≥II versus 32% for men), and more often had a paroxysmal AF pattern at enrollment (50% versus 39% for men) ( P <0.0001 for all). Women were less likely to have ancillary (nonpulmonary vein) ablation procedures performed during the index procedure (55.7% versus 62.2% in men, P =0.043), and complications from treatment were infrequent in both sexes. For the primary outcome, the hazard ratio for those who underwent ablation versus drug therapy was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.62–1.65) in women and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.51–1.05) in men (interaction P value=0.299). The risk of recurrent AF was significantly reduced in patients undergoing ablation compared with those receiving drug therapy regardless of sex, but the effect was greater in men (hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.51–0.82] for women versus hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.40–0.58] for men; interaction P value=0.060). Conclusions: Clinically relevant treatment-related strategy differences in the primary and secondary clinical outcomes of CABANA were not seen between men and women, and there were no sex differences in adverse events. The CABANA trial results support catheter ablation as an effective treatment strategy for both women and men. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT00911508.

Abstract Background: It is not known whether modifiable lifestyle factors that predict survival after invasive breast cancer differ by subtype. Methods: We analyzed data for 121,435 women diagnosed with breast cancer from 67 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium with 16,890 deaths (8,554 breast cancer specific) over 10 years. Cox regression was used to estimate associations between risk factors and 10-year all-cause mortality and breast cancer–specific mortality overall, by estrogen receptor (ER) status, and by intrinsic-like subtype. Results: There was no evidence of heterogeneous associations between risk factors and mortality by subtype (Padj &gt; 0.30). The strongest associations were between all-cause mortality and BMI ≥30 versus 18.5–25 kg/m2 [HR (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19 (1.06–1.34)]; current versus never smoking [1.37 (1.27–1.47)], high versus low physical activity [0.43 (0.21–0.86)], age ≥30 years versus &lt;20 years at first pregnancy [0.79 (0.72–0.86)]; &gt;0–&lt;5 years versus ≥10 years since last full-term birth [1.31 (1.11–1.55)]; ever versus never use of oral contraceptives [0.91 (0.87–0.96)]; ever versus never use of menopausal hormone therapy, including current estrogen–progestin therapy [0.61 (0.54–0.69)]. Similar associations with breast cancer mortality were weaker; for example, 1.11 (1.02–1.21) for current versus never smoking. Conclusions: We confirm associations between modifiable lifestyle factors and 10-year all-cause mortality. There was no strong evidence that associations differed by ER status or intrinsic-like subtype. Impact: Given the large dataset and lack of evidence that associations between modifiable risk factors and 10-year mortality differed by subtype, these associations could be cautiously used in prognostication models to inform patient-centered care.