Citations

10610 Background: The role for genetic testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCa) patients (pts) has expanded to find pts with germline pathogenic variants (PV) for therapeutic opportunities given FDA-approvals for PARP inhibitors in metastatic PCa as well as understanding familial cancer risk and opportunities for tailored screening and risk reduction. The PROMISE Registry (NCT04995198) was set up as a genetic registry to partner with PCa pts for rapid access to a new standard of care given insurance coverage and clinical implementation were initially major barriers. A second goal is to characterize disease features and treatment outcomes to inform management and provide updates about novel therapeutic clinical trials, both of which remain important to rare genetic variant carriers. Methods: PROMISE is a US decentralized prospective PCa genetic registry initiated in 2021 with initial phase to enroll and provide clinical-grade germline genetic testing (30 gene cancer-specific panel) to 5,000 PCa pts to identify ~500 PCa pts with variants of interest (pathogenic variants, PV, and variants of uncertain significance, VUS) in DNA repair genes for long-term clinical follow-up of 15 years (LTFU). Here, we report the initial phase testing results and identification of the LTFU cohort. Study design and enrollment strategy have been reported separately. Results: Between 2021-2026, 7,275 pts with any stage PCa across 50 US states self-consented to PROMISE, of which 5,674 (78%) of pts completed genetic testing, indicating feasibility of patient-directed, decentralized enrollment. We have identified 495 (8.7%) pts for LTFU. Baseline data is reported for n=367 (Table 1, will be updated at time of presentation). The most frequently observed PV/LPV variants being in CHEK2 (25%) , BRCA2 (23%) , ATM (12%) , and BRCA1 (4.6%). At the time of PCa diagnosis, the majority of LTFU pts had non-metastatic disease, with 47% of pts with Gleason>7, median PSA of 5 ng/mL, and median time from diagnosis to PROMISE GT of 25 months. Conclusions: PROMISE is a nationwide decentralized PCa genetic registry that has completed initial goal to recruit 5,000 PCa pts to offer germline genetic testing and recruit a cohort of 500 for LTFU. Data about diagnosis characteristics are reported, and analysis of ongoing disease course, treatment response/outcomes and overall survival is being collected. Clinical trial information: NCT04995198 . Long-term follow-up participant demographics. Characteristic Overall, N = 367 Age at Diagnosis (yrs) 63 (57, 69) Race N = 361 (6, nr) Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, Multiracial, Other 22 (6.0%) Black or African American 22 (6.0%) White 317 (86%) Disease State at Diagnosis N = 348 (19, nr) Metastatic 46 (13%) Non-metastatic 302 (87%) Time from Diagnosis to PROMISE GT (months) 25 (4, 82) Gleason Score N = 280 (87, nr) </= 7 148 (53%) >7 132 (47%) PSA At Diagnosis (ng/mL) 5 (0, 10) (88, nr) Subjects with baseline data entered. nr=not reported. Median (Q1, Q3); n (%).

Abstract Background: Racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes persist in the US, in which black women are more likely to die from breast cancer than white women. Despite levels of mammographic screening comparable to the US, Atlanta has a disproportionate burden of late-stage breast tumors and higher mortality rates, especially among black women. To better understand this disparity, we sought to identify tumor, treatment, and patient characteristics that may contribute to the observed differences in breast cancer mortality between black and white women in the metropolitan Atlanta area. Methods: In this study, patients were identified from the Georgia Cancer Registry. We included 4943 non-Hispanic white and 3580 non-Hispanic black women with an initial diagnosis of stage I-IV primary breast cancer between January 2010 and December 2014 in Atlanta. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare black vs. white breast cancer mortality by tumor (stage, grade, ER status, and molecular subtype), treatment (surgery type, receipt of chemotherapy, radiation, hormone therapy, and trastuzumab), and patient (insurance, marital status, SES, and location of service) characteristics. We performed a mediation analysis to evaluate the contribution of subtype, stage, and socioeconomic status (SES) as mediators on the path between race and breast cancer mortality. Results: Compared with white breast cancer patients, black women were younger with tumors that were higher stage, higher grade, and more likely to be larger, node positive and triple negative. In fully adjusted models, black women diagnosed with Luminal A subtype were 58% more likely to die of breast cancer compared to their white counterparts (HR=1.58, 95%CI 1.31-2.00). Similarly, black women with private insurance were 60% more likely to die of breast cancer (HR=1.61, 95%CI 1.25-1.98), and black women in the highest SES group were more than twice as likely to die from breast cancer (HR=2.26, 95%CI 1.26-4.06) than white women with comparable SES. The smallest disparities in breast cancer mortality by race were observed among women without insurance, in the lowest SES index, or those diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer. The mediation analysis showed 84.8% of the effect between race and breast cancer mortality was through stage, subtype, and SES. Conclusion: Our results indicate variation in racial disparities in breast cancer mortality by tumor and patient characteristics. Consistent with previous reports, our mediation results suggest that later stage and triple-negative subtype among black women are major contributors of the observed disparity. However, our results also shed new light on the disparity, suggesting that the largest disparities are observed among women with ER+ tumors amenable to adjuvant therapies and are most pronounced among women of high SES. More research is needed to understand the drivers of disparities in these treatable tumors. Citation Format: Lindsay J. Collin, Renjian Jiang, Kevin C. Ward, Keerthi Gogineni, Preeti D. Subhedar, Mark Sherman, Mia M. Gaudet, Carmen Radecki Breitkopf, Olivia D'Angelo, Sheryl Gabram-Mendola, Jolie Siegel, Rana Aneja, Anne Gaglioti, Lauren E. McCullough. Identification of factors contributing to breast cancer mortality disparities in the metropolitan Atlanta area [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2018 Nov 2-5; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(6 Suppl):Abstract nr C053.

AbstractBackgroundRacial disparities in breast cancer (BC) outcomes persist where non-Hispanic black (NHB) women are more likely to die from BC than non-Hispanic white (NHW) women, and the extent of this disparity varies geographically. We evaluated tumor, treatment, and patient characteristics that contribute to racial differences in BC mortality in Atlanta, Georgia, where the disparity was previously characterized as especially large.MethodsWe identified 4943 NHW and 3580 NHB women in the Georgia Cancer Registry with stage I–IV BC diagnoses in Atlanta (2010–2014). We used Cox proportional hazard regression to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing NHB vs NHW BC mortality by tumor, treatment, and patient characteristics on the additive and multiplicative scales. We additionally estimated the mediating effects of these characteristics on the association between race and BC mortality.ResultsAt diagnosis, NHB women were younger—with higher stage, node-positive, and triple-negative tumors relative to NHW women. In age-adjusted models, NHB women with luminal A disease had a 2.43 times higher rate of BC mortality compared to their NHW counterparts (95% CI = 1.99 to 2.97). High socioeconomic status (SES) NHB women had more than twice the mortality rates than their white counterparts (HR = 2.67, 95% CI = 1.65 to 4.33). Racial disparities among women without insurance, in the lowest SES index, or diagnosed with triple-negative BC were less pronounced.ConclusionsIn Atlanta, the largest racial disparities are observed in luminal tumors and most pronounced among women of high SES. More research is needed to understand drivers of disparities within these treatable features.

Purpose The seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for breast cancer differentiates patients with T1 tumors and lymph node micrometastases (stage IB) from patients with T1 tumors and negative nodes (stage IA). This study was undertaken to determine the utility of the stage IB designation. Patients and Methods The following two cohorts of patients with breast cancer were identified: 3,474 patients treated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center from 1993 to 2007 and 4,590 patients from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0010 trial. Clinicopathologic and outcomes data were recorded, and disease was staged according to the seventh edition AJCC staging system. Recurrence-free survival (RFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS) were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results Median follow-up times were 6.1 years and 9.0 years for the MD Anderson Cancer Center and ACOSOG cohorts, respectively. In both cohorts, there were no significant differences between patients with stage IA and stage IB disease in 5- or 10-year RFS, DSS, or OS. Estrogen receptor (ER) status and grade significantly stratified patients with stage I disease with respect to RFS, DSS, and OS. Conclusion Among patients with T1 breast cancer, individuals with micrometastases and those with negative nodes have similar survival outcomes. ER status and grade are better discriminants of survival than the presence of small-volume nodal metastases. In preparing the next edition of the AJCC staging system, consideration should be given to eliminating the stage IB designation and incorporating biologic factors.

Abstract Purpose: The stage IB designation was added to the AJCC 7th edition staging system to denote micrometastasis in patients with T1 tumors. We have previously examined this group and found that receptor status and nuclear grade were better survival discriminates than the presence of micrometastases. The current study was undertaken to validate this finding in a larger cohort from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0010 study. Methods: Clinicopathologic and outcomes data from patients enrolled on ACOSOG Z0010 were recorded. All patients underwent breast conserving surgery, sentinel lymph node biopsy and whole breast radiation for clinical T1-2, N0 breast cancer. Sentinel lymph nodes were evaluated by H&E locally and if negative, by immunohistochemistry (IHC) at a central laboratory. Patients were staged according to the 7th edition AJCC system and recurrence-free (RFS), disease-specific (DSS) and overall survival (OS) were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: There were 5210 eligible and evaluable patients enrolled on ACOSOG Z0010. AJCC stage distribution was known in 4590 and included: 2849 (62.0%) stage IA, 376 (8.2%) stage IB, 878 (19.1%) stage IIA, 322 (7.0%) stage IIB, and 170 (3.7%) stage III. Median follow-up for the cohort was 9.0 years (range 0–12.6). Five and 10-year RFS, DSS and OS rates for patients with stage IA versus IB disease are shown in table 1. There were no significant differences between groups. When all stage I patients (stage IA and IB) were evaluated by ER status (positive vs negative) or grade (grade 1 vs 2 vs 3), these biologic factors were able to significantly discriminate patients with respect to RFS, DSS and OS (table 2). Conclusion: Differentiating patients with micrometastases (stage IB) from node negative patients (stage IA) does not stratify patients well with respect to survival. Biologic factors including ER status and grade are better discriminants of survival than the presence of small volume nodal metastases in patients with early stage breast cancer. Breast cancer staging should include biologic factors from the primary tumor. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-01-06.