Citations

PURPOSEThe phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin is a key pathway of survival and therapeutic resistance in breast cancer. We evaluated the pan-Akt inhibitor MK-2206 in combination with standard therapy in patients with high-risk early-stage breast cancer.PATIENTS AND METHODSI-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase II, open-label, adaptively randomized neoadjuvant platform trial that screens experimental therapies and efficiently identifies potential predictive biomarker signatures. Patients are categorized by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), hormone receptor (HR), and MammaPrint statuses in a 2 × 2 × 2 layout. Patients within each of these 8 biomarker subtypes are adaptively randomly assigned to one of several experimental therapies, including MK-2206, or control. Therapies are evaluated for 10 biomarker signatures, each of which is a combination of these subtypes. The primary end point is pathologic complete response (pCR). A therapy graduates with one or more of these signatures if and when it has an 85% Bayesian predictive probability of success in a hypothetical phase III trial, adjusting for biomarker covariates. Patients in the current report received standard taxane- and anthracycline-based neoadjuvant therapy without (control) or with oral MK-2206 135 mg/week.RESULTSMK-2206 graduated with 94 patients and 57 concurrently randomly assigned controls in 3 graduation signatures: HR-negative/HER2-positive, HR-negative, and HER2-positive. Respective Bayesian mean covariate-adjusted pCR rates and percentage probability that MK-2206 is superior to control were 0.48:0.29 (97%), 0.62:0.36 (99%), and 0.46:0.26 (94%). In exploratory analyses, MK-2206 evinced a numerical improvement in event-free survival in its graduating signatures. The most significant grade 3-4 toxicity was rash (14% maculopapular, 8.6% acneiform).CONCLUSIONThe Akt inhibitor MK-2206 combined with standard neoadjuvant therapy resulted in higher estimated pCR rates in HR-negative and HER2-positive breast cancer. Although MK-2206 is not being further developed at this time, this class of agents remains of clinical interest.

TPS779 Background: 4-10% of PDAC patients harbor pathogenic germline variants in cancer susceptibility genes, including APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDKN2A, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, PMS2, STK11, and TP53. For families with such pathogenic variants, the greatest potential impact of germline testing is to identify relatives with the same variant (cascade testing), thereby providing the opportunity for early detection and interception of PDAC and other associated cancers. Numerous factors limit cascade testing in real-world practice, including family dynamics, widespread geographic distribution of relatives, access to genetic services, and misconceptions about the importance of germline testing, such that the preventive benefits of cascade testing are often not fully realized. The primary aim of this study is to analyze two alternative strategies for cascade testing in families with inherited PDAC risk. Methods: 1000 individuals with a confirmed pathogenic germline variant in any of the above genes in a 1st/2nd degree relative and a 1st/2nd degree relative with PDAC will be remotely enrolled through the study website (www.GENERATEstudy.org) and randomized between two methods of cascade testing (individuals with prior genetic testing will be ineligible): Arm 1 will undergo pre-test genetic education with a pre-recorded video and live interactive session with a genetic counselor via a web-based telemedicine platform (Doxy.me), followed by germline testing through Color Genomics; Arm 2 will undergo germline testing through Color Genomics without dedicated pre-test genetic education. Color Genomics will disclose results to study personnel and directly to participants in both arms. All participants will have the option of pursuing additional telephone-based genetic counseling through Color Genomics. The primary outcome will be uptake of cascade testing. Secondary outcomes will include self-reported genetic knowledge, cancer worry, distress, decisional preparedness, familial communication, and screening uptake, which will be measured via longitudinal surveys. Enrollment is underway nationwide as of May, 2019. Clinical trial information: NCT03762590.

Background: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has gained popularity because of advantages over the subpectoral technique. Acellular dermal matrix use with implant-based breast reconstruction has become common because of its perceived superior aesthetic outcome. Matrices are expensive, however, and recent evidence has pointed to several potential complications. This article reports a series of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstructions with and without acellular dermal matrix and compared their outcomes. Methods: This is a single-surgeon retrospective review of patients who underwent staged prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy over two periods. Patients with well-perfused mastectomy skin flaps with a homogeneous thickness underwent reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix initially. On evolution of the practice, it was not used. Patient demographics, operative data, and complications were analyzed. Aesthetic outcome was measured by the BREAST-Q survey and the Aesthetic Item Scale. A cost analysis was also performed. Results: Forty patients were included (acellular dermal matrix group, n = 19; non–acellular dermal matrix group, n = 21). The nonmatrix group had one case (5 percent) of seroma and one case (5 percent) with hematoma; there were none in the acellular dermal matrix group. Average BREAST-Q and Aesthetic Item Scale scores were 82.3 versus 81.6 (p = 0.954) and 20.98 versus 20.43 (p = 0.640) for the matrix and nonmatrix groups, respectively. The direct cost savings for the authors’ institution over 1 year if matrix was not used in all cases of implant-based breast reconstruction would be estimated at $3,105,960 to $6,211,920 for unilateral and bilateral cases, respectively, for Medicare reimbursement. Conclusions: With adequate patient selection, acellular dermal matrix is not always required during two-stage prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction for good aesthetic outcomes. The economic burden on patients and the health care system could be lessened with selective matrix use. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Background: The authors compared long-term health care use and cost in women undergoing immediate autologous breast reconstruction and implant-based breast reconstruction. Methods: This study was conducted using the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, which contains deidentified retrospective administrative claims data, including medical claims and eligibility information from a large U.S. health insurance plan. Women who underwent autologous or implant-based breast reconstruction between January of 2004 and December of 2014 were included. The authors compared 2-year use rates and predicted costs of care. Comparisons were tested using the t test. Results: Overall, 12,296 women with immediate breast reconstruction were identified; 4257 with autologous (35 percent) and 8039 with implant-based (65 percent) breast reconstruction. The proportion of autologous breast reconstruction decreased from 47.2 percent in 2004 to 32.7 percent in 2014. The mean predicted reconstruction cost of autologous reconstruction was higher than that of implant-based reconstruction in both unilateral and bilateral surgery. Similar results for mean predicted 2-year cost of care were seen in bilateral procedures. However, in unilateral procedures, the 2-year total costs were higher for implant-based than for autologous reconstruction. Two-year health care use rates were higher for implant-based reconstruction than for autologous reconstruction for both unilateral and bilateral procedures. Women undergoing unilateral implant-based reconstruction had higher rates of hospital admissions (30.3 versus 23.1 per 100; p < 0.01) and office visits (2445.1 versus 2283.6 per 100; p < 0.01) than those who underwent autologous reconstruction. Emergency room visit rates were similar between the two methods. Bilateral procedures yielded similar results. Conclusion: Although implant-based breast reconstruction is a less expensive index operation than autologous breast reconstruction, it was associated with higher health care use, resulting in similar total cost of care over 2 years.

We investigated the mechanisms involved in the development of airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) following exposure of mice to halogens. Male mice (C57BL/6; 20–25 g) exposed to either bromine (Br2) or Cl2(600 or 400 ppm, respectively, for 30 min) developed AHR 24 h after exposure. Nifedipine (5 mg/kg body wt; an L-type calcium channel blocker), administered subcutaneously after Br2or Cl2exposure, produced higher AHR compared with Br2or Cl2alone. In contrast, diltiazem (5 mg/kg body wt; a nondihydropyridine L-type calcium channel blocker) decreased AHR to control (air) values. Exposure of immortalized human airway smooth muscle cells (hASMC) to Br2resulted in membrane potential depolarization ( VmAir: 62 ± 3 mV; 3 h post Br2:−45 ± 5 mV; means ± 1 SE; P < 0.001), increased intracellular [Ca2+]i, and increased expression of the calcium-sensing receptor (Ca-SR) protein. Treatment of hASMC with a siRNA against Ca-SR significantly inhibited the Br2and nifedipine-induced Vmdepolarization and [Ca2+]iincrease. Intranasal administration of an antagonist to Ca-SR in mice postexposure to Br2reversed the effects of Br2and nifedipine on AHR. Incubation of hASMC with low-molecular-weight hyaluronan (LMW-HA), generated by exposing high-molecular-weight hyaluronan (HMW-HA) to Br2, caused Vmdepolarization, [Ca2+]iincrease, and Ca-SR expression to a similar extent as exposure to Br2and Cl2. The addition of HMW-HA to cells or mice exposed to Br2, Cl2, or LMW-HA reversed these effects in vitro and improved AHR in vivo. We conclude that detrimental effects of halogen exposure on AHR are mediated via activation of the Ca-SR by LMW-HA.

PURPOSETo estimate age-specific relative and absolute cancer risks of breast cancer and to estimate risks of ovarian, pancreatic, male breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers associated with germline PALB2 pathogenic variants (PVs) because these risks have not been extensively characterized.METHODSWe analyzed data from 524 families with PALB2 PVs from 21 countries. Complex segregation analysis was used to estimate relative risks (RRs; relative to country-specific population incidences) and absolute risks of cancers. The models allowed for residual familial aggregation of breast and ovarian cancer and were adjusted for the family-specific ascertainment schemes.RESULTSWe found associations between PALB2 PVs and risk of female breast cancer (RR, 7.18; 95% CI, 5.82 to 8.85; P = 6.5 × 10−76), ovarian cancer (RR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.40 to 6.04; P = 4.1 × 10−3), pancreatic cancer (RR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.24 to 4.50; P = 8.7 × 10−3), and male breast cancer (RR, 7.34; 95% CI, 1.28 to 42.18; P = 2.6 × 10−2). There was no evidence for increased risks of prostate or colorectal cancer. The breast cancer RRs declined with age ( P for trend = 2.0 × 10−3). After adjusting for family ascertainment, breast cancer risk estimates on the basis of multiple case families were similar to the estimates from families ascertained through population-based studies ( P for difference = .41). On the basis of the combined data, the estimated risks to age 80 years were 53% (95% CI, 44% to 63%) for female breast cancer, 5% (95% CI, 2% to 10%) for ovarian cancer, 2%-3% (95% CI females, 1% to 4%; 95% CI males, 2% to 5%) for pancreatic cancer, and 1% (95% CI, 0.2% to 5%) for male breast cancer.CONCLUSIONThese results confirm PALB2 as a major breast cancer susceptibility gene and establish substantial associations between germline PALB2 PVs and ovarian, pancreatic, and male breast cancers. These findings will facilitate incorporation of PALB2 into risk prediction models and optimize the clinical cancer risk management of PALB2 PV carriers.

Background National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend accurate clinical staging, perioperative therapy, and complete lymphadenectomy for patients with stage II to III gastric cancer. However, national compliance remains low. It was hypothesized that integrated cancer networks might improve compliance and outcomes within the community. Methods Patients with stage II to III gastric adenocarcinoma undergoing curative‐intent resection (National Cancer Data Base, 2006‐2015) were examined. Guideline compliance was defined as any perioperative adjunctive therapy, complete lymphadenectomy, complete clinical staging, and complete compliance (all measures). Univariate comparisons and multivariable regression were used to assess factors associated with compliance, and Kaplan‐Meier analysis was used to assess survival. Results There were 27,210 patients identified: 7235 (26.6%) underwent surgery alone, whereas 19,975 (73.4%) received additional therapy. Half (53.1%) had complete lymphadenectomies, whereas complete clinical staging was available for 65.5%. Overall compliance with all 3 measures was 30.1%. Compliance improved by approximately 20% for each measure across the 10‐year study period. Although patients treated at academic programs were most likely to receive concordant care in an adjusted analysis, those treated at integrated care networks were more likely to receive guideline‐concordant care (odds ratio [OR], 0.69) than those treated at comprehensive community programs (OR, 0.48) or community programs (OR, 0.45; all P values <.001). The median overall survival was 45.5 months for patients who received guideline‐concordant care and 32.0 months for those who did not ( P < .001, reference for all ORs: academic programs). Conclusions Compliance with guidelines was associated with improved outcomes. Although the rate of compliance with NCCN guidelines is improving, integrated care networks may be an important way of improving the quality of gastric cancer care within the community.

Abstract Background Cranial radiotherapy (RT) is associated with risk for cognitive and adaptive dysfunction. Proton RT (PRT) is a technique hypothesized to spare cognition by reducing exposure to nontarget brain tissue. However, little is known regarding functional outcomes in survivors of pediatric brain tumor (BT) treated with PRT. The present study examined the relationship between cognitive and adaptive outcomes in pediatric BT survivors post‐PRT. Methods Survivors treated with either focal (n = 33) or craniospinal irradiation (CSI; n = 37) PRT completed neurocognitive evaluations approximately 5 years post‐treatment. Results of intelligence testing and ratings of adaptive functioning are reported. Mediation models examined the relationship among radiation field, cognition, and adaptive functioning. Results The PRT CSI group demonstrated worse cognitive outcomes than the PRT Focal group across each cognitive index (Cohen's d = 0.56–0.70). Parent ratings of adaptive functioning were also worse in the PRT CSI group than the PRT Focal group (Global Adaptive Composite, d = 0.53; conceptual skills, d = 0.67). Cognitive performance fully mediated the relationship between radiation field and adaptive outcomes, while controlling for group differences in tumor histology and RT dose. Conclusions Focal PRT survivors demonstrated generally positive outcomes with weaknesses in processing speed and aspects of adaptive functioning. CSI exposure was associated with more consistently poor cognitive and adaptive outcomes. The increased risk for adaptive dysfunction in the PRT CSI group appeared due to the effects of CSI on cognition. Efforts to reduce the volume of tissue exposure to RT remain important.

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.