Hieken, Tina J.

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesOf clinically node‐negative (cN0) cutaneous melanoma patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis, between 10% and 30% harbor additional metastases in non‐sentinel lymph nodes (NSLNs). Approximately 80% of SLN‐positive patients have a single positive SLN.MethodsTo assess whether state‐of‐the‐art clinicopathologic models predicting NSLN metastasis had adequate performance, we studied a single‐institution cohort of 143 patients with cN0 SLN‐positive primary melanoma who underwent subsequent completion lymph node dissection. We used sensitivity (SE) and positive predictive value (PPV) to characterize the ability of the models to identify patients at high risk for NSLN disease.ResultsAcross Stage III patients, all clinicopathologic models tested had comparable performances. The best performing model identified 52% of NSLN‐positive patients (SE = 52%, PPV = 37%). However, for the single SLN‐positive subgroup (78% of cohort), none of the models identified high‐risk patients (SE > 20%, PPV > 20%) irrespective of the chosen probability threshold used to define the binary risk labels. Thus, we designed a new model to identify high‐risk patients with a single positive SLN, which achieved a sensitivity of 49% (PPV = 26%).ConclusionFor the largest SLN‐positive subgroup, those with a single positive SLN, current model performance is inadequate. New approaches are needed to better estimate nodal disease burden of these patients.

BackgroundFor patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN)‐positive cutaneous melanoma, the Second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy trial demonstrated equivalent disease‐specific survival (DSS) with active surveillance using nodal ultrasound versus completion lymph node dissection (CLND). Adoption and outcomes of active surveillance in clinical practice and in adjuvant therapy recipients are unknown.MethodsIn a retrospective cohort of SLN‐positive adults treated at 21 institutions in Australia, Europe, and the United States from June 2017 to November 2019, the authors evaluated the impact of active surveillance and adjuvant therapy on all‐site recurrence‐free survival (RFS), isolated nodal RFS, distant metastasis‐free survival (DMFS), and DSS using Kaplan‐Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models.ResultsAmong 6347 SLN biopsies, 1154 (18%) were positive and had initial negative distant staging. In total, 965 patients (84%) received active surveillance, 189 (16%) underwent CLND. Four hundred thirty‐nine patients received adjuvant therapy (surveillance, 38%; CLND, 39%), with the majority (83%) receiving anti–PD‐1 immunotherapy. After a median follow‐up of 11 months, 220 patients developed recurrent disease (surveillance, 19%; CLND, 22%), and 24 died of melanoma (surveillance, 2%; CLND, 4%). Sixty‐eight patients had an isolated nodal recurrence (surveillance, 6%; CLND, 4%). In patients who received adjuvant treatment without undergoing prior CLND, all isolated nodal recurrences were resectable. On risk‐adjusted multivariable analyses, CLND was associated with improved isolated nodal RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15‐0.88), but not all‐site RFS (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.45‐1.02). Adjuvant therapy improved all‐site RFS (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.47‐0.57). DSS and DMFS did not differ by nodal management or adjuvant treatment.ConclusionsActive surveillance has been adopted for most SLN‐positive patients. At initial assessment, real‐world outcomes align with randomized trial findings, including in adjuvant therapy recipients.Lay Summary For patients with melanoma of the skin and microscopic spread to lymph nodes, monitoring with ultrasound is an alternative to surgically removing the remaining lymph nodes. The authors studied adoption and real‐world outcomes of ultrasound monitoring in over 1000 patients treated at 21 centers worldwide, finding that most patients now have ultrasounds instead of surgery. Although slightly more patients have cancer return in the lymph nodes with this strategy, typically, it can be removed with delayed surgery. Compared with up‐front surgery, ultrasound monitoring results in the same overall risk of melanoma coming back at any location or of dying from melanoma.

Abstract Background: NET is offered to postmenopausal patients (pts) with clinical stage 2/3 ER+/HER2- BC to promote breast-conserving surgery. Also limited surgical accessibility during the COVID19 pandemic has increased NET utility. Inability to identify ET-resistant disease at diagnosis risks disease progression (PD) and delays more effective treatments. Dowsett et al. recently demonstrated that baseline levels of ER, progesterone receptor (PR), Ki67 (>15% vs ≤15%), and Ki67 (>10% vs ≤10%) 2-4 weeks (wks) after starting NET may improve appropriate patient (pt) selection for NET (PMC7280290). The ER, PR and Ki67-based prediction model divides pts with primary ER+/HER2- BC into 3 groups for appropriateness for NET: (Group 1) NET is likely to be inappropriate (Allred ER <6 or ER 6 and PgR <6), (Group 2) NET may be appropriate and a biopsy for on-treatment Ki67 analysis may be considered after 2-4 wks of NET (2A: ER 7 or 8 and PgR <6 and 2B: ER 6 or 7 and PgR ≥6) given that on-treatment Ki67 >10% has been associated with worse outcome (PMC5455353), or (Group 3) NET is appropriate (ER 8 and PgR ≥6). The ALTERNATE trial (NCT01953588) randomized postmenopausal women with clinical stage II or III, ER+ (Allred score 6-8)/HER2- BC to receive anastrozole (ANA), fulvestrant (FUL), or ANA + FUL for 6 months, unless Ki67 was >10% on wk 4 or 12 biopsy, in which case pts were triaged to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) or surgery. As previously reported, the ET-sensitive disease (mPEPI 0 plus pCR) rates were similar across the treatment arms and overall 22% (286 of 1,299) pts had Ki67 >10% at wk 4 or 12. The ALTERNATE trial therefore provides a large independent data set to evaluate the NET appropriateness model. Results: Among 1,299 eligible pts randomized to receive 6 months of NET, 214 were excluded due to absent HR Allred score (n=41) or absence of pre-treatment and wk 4 Ki67 determinations (n=173). The proportions of the remaining 1,085 pts in Group 1, 2 and 3 were 1% (n=10), 43% (n= 468), and 56% (n=607), respectively. On-study Ki67 >10% prompting conversion from NET to NCT/Surgery occurred in: Group 1 90% (9 of 10), Group 2 30% (141 of 468), and Group 3 17% (104 of 607) (Table 1). Among the 1,075 pts in Groups 2 and 3, 260 (24%) pts had Ki67 ≤15% at baseline (BL), among whom only 14 (5.4%) had Ki67 >10% at wk 4, compared to 231 of the 815 (28.3%) who had BL Ki67 >15% and subsequent Ki67 >10% at wk 4. 2% of pts who remained on NET due to on-treatment Ki67 <10% had PD. Response and PEPI-0 rates by group will be reported. Conclusion: ALTERNATE trial data support a model whereby levels of ER, PR and Ki67 at diagnosis can be used for the identification of postmenopausal pts with primary ER+/HER2- BC who are appropriate for NET. When baseline ER Allred scores are >6 and Ki67 ≤15%, there is a low likelihood of ET-resistant disease. When BL Ki67 is >15%, ET sensitivity is variable, and on-treatment biopsy for Ki67 may assist in triaging regarding NET appropriateness, particularly given the extremely low local PD rates seen in ALTERNATE when on-treatment Ki67 was <10%. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, UG1CA189856, U10CA180868 (NRG); NCI BIQSFP, BCRF, Genentech, AstraZeneca. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org; Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01953588 Table 1 Baseline levels of ER, PR, and Ki67 in Relation to Wk 4 Ki67 (N=1,085)BaselineWeek 4GroupNERAllred ScorePRAllred ScoreKi67Ki67 ≤10%N (%)Ki67 >10%N (%)1N=26<6≤15%0 (0%)2 (100%)9 (90)N=86<6>15%1 (12.5%)7 (87.5%)2AN=647 or 8<6≤15%61 (95.3%)3 (4.7%)90 (30.1)N=2357 or 8<6>15%148 (63%)87 (37%)2BN=466 or 7≥6≤15%42 (91.3%)4 (8.7%)51 (30.2)N=1236 or 7≥6>15%76 (61.8%)47 (38.2%)3N=1508≥6≤15%143 (95.3%)7 (4.7%)104 (17.1)N=4578≥6>15%360 (78.8%)97 (21.2%) Citation Format: Matthew J Ellis, Vera Suman, A. Marilyn Leitch, Souzan Sanati, Kiran Vij, Gary W Unzeitig, Jeremy Hoog, Mark Watson, Olwen Hahn, Joseph Guenther, Abigail Caudle, Erika Crouch, Horacio Maluf, Mitch Dowsett, Amy Tiersten, Monica Mita, Wajeeha Razaq, Tina J Hieken, Yang Wang, Travis Dockter, Jo Anne Zujewski, Anna Weiss, Clifford Hudis, Eric P Winer, Kelly Hunt, Ann H Partridge, Cynthia X Ma, Lisa A Carey. Validation of a predictive model for potential response to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) in postmenopausal women with clinical stage II or III estrogen receptor positive (ER+) and HER2 negative (HER2-) breast cancer (BC): An ALTERNATE trial analysis (Alliance A011106) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD2-10.

Abstract Background: Ki67 values >10% 2-4 weeks (wks) after starting neoadjuvant ET (NET) indicates persistent cell proliferation, resistance to ET, and is associated with increased risk of recurrence. The ACOSOG Z1031 trial suggested that these tumors are also relatively chemotherapy (chemo) resistant with a low pathologic complete response (pCR) rate to NCT. The ALTERNATE trial (NCT01953588) is a randomized study of neoadjuvant anastrozole (ANA), fulvestrant (FUL), or ANA + FUL in postmenopausal patients (pt) with newly diagnosed clinical stage II or III ER+ (Allred score 6-8)/HER2- BC. Ki67 >10% at wk 4 or 12 after starting NET triggered triage to NCT of physician choice or weekly paclitaxel. Pts who refused protocol-directed therapy, were not candidates for NCT, or decided to undergo immediate surgery are being followed per protocol. Here we report the rates of pCR and residual cancer burden (RCB) following NCT for pts triaged to NCT due to Ki67 >10% at wk 4 or 12. Results: Of the 1,299 eligible pts randomized to receive ANA, FUL, or ANA + FUL, 286 (22%) had Ki67 >10% at wk 4 or 12. 168 of these 286 pts (58.7%) chose to switch to NCT, 32 went to surgery (11.2%), and 86 discontinued further protocol-directed therapy (30.1%). Among the 168 pts who underwent NCT, the presenting clinical T stages were cT2 (n=113; 67.26%), cT3 (n=47; 27.98%) and cT4 (n=8; 4.76%) and N stages were cN0 (n=82; 48.8%), cN1 (n=75; 44.6%), cN2/3 (n=9; 5.4%) and cNx (n=2; 1.2%). Central ER testing was performed on pre-treatment biopsies and confirmed ER Allred score 6-8 in 155 of 168 (92.2%) pts, with the rest being ER Allred score 4-5 (n=5; 3%), ER- (Allred score 0) (n=2; 1.2%), or not tested (n=6; 3.6%). Most (n=139; 82.7%) were ER+/PR+, while 17.3% (n=29) were ER+/PR-, and tumor grades were G1 (n=10; 6%), G2 (n=99; 58.9%), G3 (n=54; 32.1%), not reported (n=5; 3%). Baseline Ki67 levels prior to NET were >10% in 94% (n=158), ≤10% in 3% (n=5), and not done in 3% (n=5). NCT regimens administered included doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) followed by paclitaxel (T) (n=60; 35.71%); weekly paclitaxel (n=56; 33.33%), docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC) (n=33; 19.65%), other doxorubicin and/or taxane containing regimen (n=17; 10.12%), and cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/fluorouracil (CMF) (n=2; 1.19%). 35 (20.8%) pts did not complete planned course of NCT due to toxicity (n=27) or refusal (n=8). 154 NCT pts underwent surgery (mastectomy in 40.3%, and breast conserving surgery in 59.7%). The path ypT stages were Tis/0 (n=10; 6.5%), T1 (n=62; 40.3%), T2 (n=61; 39.6%), and T3/4 (n=21; 13.6%), and the ypN stages were N0 (n=66; 42.9%), N1 (n=57; 37%), N2/3 (n=30; 19.5%), and Nx (n=1; 0.6%). Among the 168 pts who started on NCT (intent to treat population), there were 8 pCRs (no invasive disease in the breast or lymph nodes) (4.8%; 95% CI: 2.1% to 9.2%). Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) categories include RCB 0 (n=8; 4.8%), RCB 1 (n=15; 8.9%), RCB 2 (n=82; 48.8%), RCB 3 (n=42; 25.0%), and not determined (n=21; 12.5%). Correlations of baseline pt and tumor characteristics with pathology response to NCT will also be presented. Conclusion: In pts with NET-resistant ER+/HER2- BC, salvage NCT is not likely to induce a complete or near complete response. More effective treatments are needed for this high-risk ER+/HER2- pt population. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, UG1CA189856, U10CA180868 (NRG); NCI BIQSFP, BCRF, Genentech, AstraZeneca. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01953588 Citation Format: Cynthia X Ma, Vera Suman, A. Marilyn Leitch, Souzan Sanati, Kiran Vij, Gary W Unzeitig, Jeremy Hoog, Mark Watson, Olwen Hahn, Joseph Guenther, Abigail Caudle, Erika Crouch, Horacio Maluf, Amy Tiersten, Monica Mita, Wajeeha Razaq, Tina J Hieken, Yang Wang, Travis Dockter, Jo Anne Zujewski, Anna Weiss, Kelly Hunt, Clifford Hudis, Eric P Winer, Matthew J Ellis, Lisa A Carey, Ann H Partridge. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) response in postmenopausal women with clinical stage II or III estrogen receptor positive (ER+) and HER2 negative (HER2-) breast cancer (BC) resistant to endocrine therapy (ET) in the ALTERNATE trial (Alliance A011106) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS4-05.

PURPOSE Phyllodes tumors (PTs) are rare breast neoplasms, which have little granular data on margins. Current guidelines recommend ≥ 1 cm margins; however, recent data suggest narrower margins are sufficient, and for benign PT, a negative margin may not be necessary. METHODS We performed an 11-institution contemporary (2007-2017) review of PT practices. Demographics, surgical, and histopathologic data were captured. Logistic regression was used to estimate the association of select covariates with local recurrence (LR). RESULTS Of 550 PT patients, the majority underwent excisional biopsy (55.3%, n = 302/546) or lumpectomy (wide excision) (38.5%, n = 210/546). Median tumor size was 30 mm, 68.9% (n = 379) were benign, 19.6% (n = 108) borderline, and 10.5% (n = 58) malignant. Surgical margins were positive in 42% (n = 231) and negative in 57.3% (n = 311). A second operation was performed in 38.0% (n = 209) of the total cohort, including 51 patients with an initial negative margin (82.4% with < 2 mm), and 157 with an initial positive margin, with residual disease only found in six (2.9%). Notably, 32.0% (n = 74) of those with an initial positive margin did not undergo a second operation, among whom only 2.7% (n = 2) recurred. Recurrence occurred in 3.3% (n = 18) of the total cohort (n = 15 LR, n = 3 distant), at median follow-up of 36.7 months. LR (all PT grades) was not reduced with wider negative margin width (≥ 2 mm v < 2 mm: odds ratio [OR] = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.07 to 2.10; P = .27) or final margin status (positive v negative: OR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.26 to 3.52; P = .96). CONCLUSION In current practice, many patients are managed outside of current guidelines. For the entire cohort, a wider margin width was not associated with a reduced risk of LR. We do not recommend re-excision of a negative margin for benign PT, regardless of margin width, as a progressively wider surgical margin is unlikely to reduce LR.

For patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), sentinel lymph node (SLN) surgery is generally reserved for patients at high risk of being upstaged to invasive disease. The use of frozen section (FS) pathologic analysis of the primary tumor may allow for selective surgical nodal staging within one procedure. We sought to define the reliability of FS for detection of upstaging. Eight hundred and twenty-seven patients were identified with DCIS on core needle biopsy that underwent 834 operations at our institution between January 2004 and October 2014. We calculated the rate of upstage from DCIS to invasive cancer on both intraoperative FS and final pathology to determine the performance of FS. Upstage rate on final pathology was 118/834 (14.1%) 95 per cent confidence interval 11.8 to 16.7 per cent. FS identified 88/118 (74.6%) of the upstages. Specificity was 99.3 per cent (711/716). Overall accuracy was 95.8 per cent (799/834) and the positive predictive value was 96.0 per cent (711/741 patients). Mean size of invasive cancers identifiedon FS was 5.6 mm, versus 3.5 mm for those identified only on permanent section, P = 0.11. Intraoperative FS analysis of DCIS is useful for identification of upstage to invasive disease. This may facilitate a selective approach to SLN surgery that both decreases unnecessary SLN surgery and the need for a second operation.

PURPOSEMore than 80% of patients who undergo sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy have no nodal metastasis. Here, we describe a model that combines clinicopathologic and molecular variables to identify patients with thin- and intermediate-thickness melanomas who may forgo the SLN biopsy procedure because of their low risk of nodal metastasis.PATIENTS AND METHODSGenes with functional roles in melanoma metastasis were discovered by analysis of next-generation sequencing data and case-control studies. We then used polymerase chain reaction to quantify gene expression in diagnostic biopsy tissue across a prospectively designed archival cohort of 754 consecutive thin- and intermediate-thickness primary cutaneous melanomas. Outcome of interest was SLN biopsy metastasis within 90 days of melanoma diagnosis. A penalized maximum likelihood estimation algorithm was used to train logistic regression models in a repeated cross-validation scheme to predict the presence of SLN metastasis from molecular, clinical, and histologic variables.RESULTSExpression of genes with roles in epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (glia-derived nexin, growth differentiation factor 15, integrin-β3, interleukin 8, lysyl oxidase homolog 4, transforming growth factor-β receptor type 1, and tissue-type plasminogen activator) and melanosome function (melanoma antigen recognized by T cells 1) were associated with SLN metastasis. The predictive ability of a model that only considered clinicopathologic or gene expression variables was outperformed by a model that included molecular variables in combination with the clinicopathologic predictors Breslow thickness and patient age (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.86; SLN biopsy reduction rate, 42%; negative predictive value, 96%).CONCLUSIONA combined model that included clinicopathologic and gene expression variables improved the identification of patients with melanoma who may forgo the SLN biopsy procedure because of their low risk of nodal metastasis.

Abstract Background: The clinical utility of routine annual mammogram after curative-intent treatment for male breast cancer is uncertain. There is potentially greater value after lumpectomy (as surveillance for ipsilateral recurrence) than mastectomy (as screening for a new contralateral cancer). The goal of this study was to assess real world use of mammography in men during the first year after lumpectomy or mastectomy to treat breast cancer. Methods: Administrative claims data from OptumLabs Data Warehouse (a large US database that includes privately insured patients and Medicare Advantage-insured enrollees from all 50 states and of all ages and ethnic and racial groups) were used to identify men treated with breast surgery for a new diagnosis of breast cancer between 2007 and 2017. We required continuous coverage starting at least 6 months prior to the non-metastatic breast cancer diagnosis and continuing until at least 13 months after the breast surgery. Our primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had at least one mammogram during the year (13-month period, to allow for scheduling and other logistical delays) after lumpectomy or mastectomy. Univariate and multivariate testing were performed to identify predictors of mammography (with p&lt;0.05 used as the threshold for statistical significance for both). Our secondary endpoint was the proportion with at least one mammogram within 24 months of surgery, performed in a subset who maintained their insurance coverage for at least that duration. Results: The 13-month analysis included 730 men with a median age at diagnosis of 62 years (Range: 25 to 87 years) and a median follow-up duration of 35 months (Range: 13 to 134 months). 209 (29%) of these men underwent mammography within 13 months after surgery. The characteristics of patients who underwent mammography and those who did not are shown in Table 1. Mammography was more likely after lumpectomy than mastectomy (41% vs. 27%) and after radiation therapy (41% vs. 32% in those who did not receive radiation). In a multivariate logistic regression model, more recent diagnosis (2015+) was associated with lower odds of undergoing mammography, while receipt of radiation was associated with higher odds of undergoing mammography. In the subset of patients with two or more years of post-surgery coverage (n=527), the proportion who had at least one mammogram during that 24-month period was 49% after lumpectomy and 40% after mastectomy. Conclusions: In this insured cohort, 73% of men did not undergo mammography within a year after mastectomy, and 59% did not within a year after lumpectomy. Mammography was less likely in patients diagnosed more recently (perhaps due to acknowledgment of the unique aspects of male breast cancer including a relatively low risk of contralateral second primary tumors), and more likely in those who received radiation. These variations in practice likely result from the paucity of evidence-based guidelines for male breast cancer survivorship care. More research is needed pertaining to whether or not mammograms improve clinical outcomes after curative intent treatment for male breast cancer. Table 1: Patient characteristics associated with receipt of mammogram within first 13 months after male breast cancer surgeryUnivariate AnalysisMultivariate AnalysisNo Mammogram (N=521)Mammogram (N=209)P-value, chi-square testOdds Ratio (OR) and 95% CIP-value for ORAge Group:0.1225-4966 (12.7%)32 (15.3%)Reference50-64216 (41.5%)98 (46.9%)0.99 (0.60, 1.63)0.9665-74112 (21.5%)44 (21.1%)0.87 (0.48, 1.57)0.6575+127 (24.4%)35 (16.7%)0.57 (0.30, 1.07)0.08Census Region:0.52Midwest138 (26.5%)59 (28.2%)ReferenceNortheast97 (18.6%)47 (22.5%)1.10 (0.68, 1.78)0.69South223 (42.8%)79 (37.8%)0.74 (0.49, 1.11)0.15West63 (12.1%)24 (11.5%)0.83 (0.47, 1.47)0.51Year of diagnosis:0.072007-2010126 (24.2%)65 (31.1%)Reference2011-2014199 (38.2%)82 (39.2%)0.80 (0.54, 1.20)0.292015+196 (37.6%)62 (29.7%)0.63 (0.41, 0.96)0.03Elixhauser Category:0.250148 (28.4%)69 (33.0%)Reference1-2218 (41.8%)74 (35.4%)0.85 (0.56, 1.28)0.433+155 (29.8%)66 (31.6%)1.18 (0.75, 1.87)0.47Surgery Type:0.005Lumpectomy55 (10.6%)38 (18.2%)ReferenceMastectomy466 (89.4%)171 (81.8%)1.57 (0.97, 2.55)0.07Chemotherapy:0.79No301 (57.8%)123 (58.9%)ReferenceYes220 (42.2%)86 (41.1%)0.79 (0.54, 1.16)0.23Radiation:0.02No355 (68.1%)124 (59.3%)ReferenceYes166 (31.9%)85 (40.7%)1.51 (1.03, 2.20)0.03 Citation Format: Siddhartha Yadav, Lindsey Sangaralingham, Stephanie R. Payne, Karthik V. Giridhar, Tina J. Hieken, Judy C. Boughey, Robert W. Mutter, John R. Hawse, Rafael E. Jimenez, Rachel A. Freedman, Sadia Choudhery, Fergus J. Couch, Celine M. Vachon, Nilay Shah, Roberto A. Leon-Ferre, Kathryn J. Ruddy. Surveillance mammography after treatment for male breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-17-08.