Idossa, Damé

e12697 Background: Postpartum-associated breast cancer (PABC) has been defined clinically as breast cancer (BC) diagnosed within the first 5 years of the most recent birth. Though generally rare, incidence rates are increasing in conjunction with delayed childbearing and older maternal age at first birth. Currently, there are limited data regarding serial patient-reported outcomes in this patient population compared to non-PABC patients. Methods: Patients with PABC from the Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry who completed baseline, 2, and 4-year surveys were matched 1:1 to BC patients whose cancers occurred more than 5 years after their most recent birth (or in the setting of nulliparity) based on age, clinical stage, treatment received, and tumor subtype. Survey results from the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-10 (PROMIS-10), and Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) collected at approximately two and four years after diagnosis were compared between PABC and non-PABC patients. Univariable analyses used Wilcoxon rank sum tests, whereas multivariable analyses employed linear regression models adjusting for potential confounding effects. Results: A total of 222 individuals were included (111 with PABC). A higher proportion of individuals in the PABC cohort were married compared to the non-PABC cohort (80% vs. 42%, p < 0.001); otherwise, the groups were well-balanced across multiple categories, including age, gender, race/ethnicity, menopausal status, and germline mutation status. In univariable analyses, the Year 2 composite PHQ-2 score was significantly worse among individuals with non-PABC (p = 0.04), and the non-PABC cohort reported greater difficulty with sleep (p = 0.03) as measured by IES-R at Year 4. Both associations attenuated in a multivariable analysis controlling for marital status. In marital status-adjusted analyses of Year 4 survey results, PABC participants reported greater difficulty in carrying out social activities but were less likely to report emotional distress as evaluated by PROMIS-10 (compared with non-PABC participants). No other variables were significant univariably or multivariably (p > 0.05). Conclusions: In general, quality of life is similar among survivors of PABC compared to those diagnosed with breast cancer outside the postpartum period (or when nulliparous). However, our findings reveal that individuals with PABC are less likely to experience emotional distress 2 and 4 years after the BC diagnosis, which is unexpected, given that postpartum patients typically report higher levels of distress compared to their non-postpartum counterparts. Further investigation into these findings is warranted.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive breast cancer subtype characterized by lack of estrogen receptor expression, progesterone receptor expression, and human epidermal growth factor 2 overexpression/amplification. Given its generally aggressive biology, current guidelines recommend systemic therapy for most patients, with anthracycline- and taxane-based regimens being historically preferred. However, the clinical outcomes of patients with stage I TNBC and the benefit (or lack thereof) of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy have not been prospectively evaluated as this population has largely been excluded from prospective randomized clinical trials. As such, management decisions for stage I TNBC are typically extrapolated from trials enrolling patients with stage II or III TNBC or based on retrospective analyses. Currently, the primary factor influencing systemic therapy decisions is the anatomic stage, without other biomarkers clinically used to guide systemic therapy. This review summarizes the existing evidence supporting current and emerging systemic therapy strategies for stage I TNBC, with a special focus on treatment de-escalation and promising biomarkers that can advance personalized treatment selection.

The treatment paradigm of stage II to III triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is rapidly evolving, with the recent incorporation of pembrolizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy improving disease outcomes. Nevertheless, almost one in five patients with early-stage TNBC will relapse in 5 years, underscoring an urgent need to identify and improve outcomes for those at high risk of recurrence. Novel therapeutic strategies including antibody-drug conjugates, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies, dual immune checkpoint blockade, and locoregional therapies to augment the antitumor immune response are being investigated in clinical trials. Biomarker strategies including tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, immune signatures, and circulating tumor DNA are being explored to identify patients at a high risk of relapse and to predict treatment response. In this article, we review recent advances in the management of stage II to III TNBC, highlight emerging investigational therapies and combinations, and explore novel biomarker strategies aimed at personalizing the care for patients with stage II to III TNBC.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the lack of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 overexpression. Historically, treatment options for TNBC have been limited, because of the absence of actionable targets. The addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy improved outcomes for a subset of patients with metastatic PD-L1–positive disease; however, a critical need for more effective therapies remains. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have been a promising advance in the management of advanced TNBC and are reshaping the landscape as they move earlier into the treatment algorithm. A greater understanding of the molecular heterogeneity of TNBC has enabled the pursuit of more targeted and personalized therapeutic strategies. Despite this, TNBC continues to have the least favorable outcomes compared with other breast cancer subtypes. This review highlights current evidence and future challenges in advanced TNBC, including optimizing therapeutic sequencing and the ongoing need for predictive biomarkers and novel agents.

Abstract Introduction Cancer clinical trials have historically faced challenges in achieving fully representative trial population, particularly in terms of including patients from diverse ethnic and racial groups, those with low socioeconomic status, and those living in rural regions. This has contributed to inequities in access to novel therapeutic options. Background The I-SPY adaptive platform trials have prioritized diversity since inception, consistently enrolling in &gt;10% of trial patients being Black and/or Hispanic individuals. The majority of participating institutions in the I-SPY 2.2 study are academic or large well-resourced health systems. In 2023, the I-SPY ACCESS (Achieving Cancer Clinical Trial Equity in Socioeconomically Diverse Sites) Initiative was launched to enhance representation by engaging and involving nontraditional trial sites- such as safety-net hospitals, community cancer centers, and rural cancer centers- that serve historically excluded patient populations. Methods The I-SPY ACCESS Initiative offers customized and personalized tailored support to under-resourced sites. This includes comprehensive feasibility and readiness assessments, onboarding guidance, enhanced site-specific training, centralized institutional review board (IRB) navigation, site peer mentorship, and educational materials for both patient and provider. Additionally, patients gain access to I-SPY advocate peer trial navigators. Sites are provided culturally responsive patient education tools- including multilingual brochures, a dedicated patient website, and content co-developed with community partners. A Clinical Trial Navigator supports both patients and sites, helping to locate logistical, social, and trial specific resources.Tools such as virtual Clinical Research Coordinators (vCRC's) and OneSource technology are deployed strategically based on assessed site need and resource availability. OneSource is an innovative platform that enables direct extraction of clinical data from electronic health records into trial databases, reducing site workload and improving data quality. Funding models are currently being explored to extend OneSource and vCRC services across more ACCESS sites. In the future, there are plans to pilot financial navigation services and integrative care resources for all patients enrolled in I-SPY with particular focus on those enrolled at ACCESS sites. Results and Progress As of June 2025, seven sites have been assessed as ACCESS sites for I-SPY 2.2, with two sites having successfully completed activation and currently enrolling participants. Beginning in mid-2024, one DCIS RECAST ACCESS site has been activated and 11 additional sites are in the onboarding process. The modest pace of I-SPY 2.2 activation reflects the complexity and operational demands associated with resource-intensive platform trial. In contrast, the DCIS RECAST protocol was designed with a lower burden, facilitating easier implementation by under-resourced sites, reflected by increased interest in the study among ACCESS sites. The ACCESS framework is being explored for potential future application in the Pre I-SPY Phase 1 platform trial, particularly considering the historical underrepresentation of such sites in the early-phase clinical research. Conclusion and Future Goals The I-SPY ACCESS initiative demonstrates that investing in thoughtful, innovative, and effective means for trial delivery, as well as incorporating community-based support, can strengthen representation in complex, adaptive breast cancer trials. The initiative offers a flexible, equity-driven framework that is impactful now and scalable for future innovation in oncology research. Citation Format: S. L. Horton, D. A. Idossa, K. C. Hewitt, J. Perlmutter, L. Van't Veer, N. Hylton, A. Borowsky, F. Symmans, D. Yee, C. Yau, P. Pohlmann, J. Boughey, L. Esserman. Expanding Diversity through Innovation: Development of the I-SPY ACCESS Initiative for the I-SPY2.2 and DCIS RECAST Clinical Trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS4-09-08.

Abstract Introduction: An Our Practice Advisory (OPA), formerly known as Best Practice Advisory (BPA), is an electronic health record (EHR) tool. OPAs identify key parameters to alert providers of potential interventions that could enhance quality of care. Such functionality is increasingly relevant given the rapid pace of new drug approvals. Within the Mayo Clinic system, we previously identified that amongst Mayo Clinic patients (pts) meeting the MonarchE criteria, 28% of pts did not undergo a documented discussion with their provider regarding the role of adjuvant abemaciclib (Premji, SABCS 2024). Further, a Flatiron study identified that only 40% of eligible pts received abemaciclib (Sandoval, Miami Breast 2025). To address this practice gap, in 2024 we began to implement EHR clinical decision support by creating an OPA trigger for pts eligible for an adjuvant CDK 4/6 inhibitor (CDK 4/6i). Here we report on ‘action taken’ versus not for the OPA and the most common reasons for re-prompts. Methods: The Mayo Breast Disease Group designed an OPA including pts who are within 14 months of a clinical or pathologic diagnosis of high-risk early-stage breast cancer. We leveraged structured data captured in the Epic staging forms (Epic Systems) to identify pts with clinical or pathologic T-stage, N-stage, grade, ± Ki-67/ multigene signature to identify ER+/HER2- pts eligible for adjuvant ribociclib or abemaciclib based on FDA approvals. The OPA was triggered by a patient encounter in oncology when endocrine therapy (but not CDK4/6i) was on the active medication list resulting in a hard stop. The OPA gathered limited details about whether adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitors were discussed and whether the provider followed a link that resulted in prescribing one—considered an indicator of action taken. In this IRB-exempt quality improvement project, we describe the responses captured in the OPA trigger utilizing Epic tools. Results: The OPA went live on 1/10/2025. Over a 5-month period post OPA initiation, we identified 517 OPA alerts among 332 unique pts. Their median age was 62.5 years, and the majority were female (97%). The median time to resolve the OPA was 17.5 seconds (range 2-567 seconds). 12.6% (65/517) of the time there was ‘action taken’ by selecting the hyperlink to potentially start a treatment plan. Providers selected the following OPA pre-set responses: ‘re-prompt in one month’ 248 (48%), ‘patient not a candidate for therapy’ 48 (9%), ‘patient declines’ 69 (13%), ‘outside oncologist will prescribe’ 36 (7%), ‘not discussed’ 44 (9%), and unknown 72 (14%). The most common free text comments among the 517 OPA alerts (summarized) included: ‘revisit in future’ 108 (21%), ‘too early’ 65 (13%), ‘patient declines’ 66 (13%), ‘outside oncologist will start’ 31 (6%), ‘not a candidate’ 26 (5%), and ‘co-morbidities’ 18 (3%). Erroneous OPA prompting occurred in 14 (3%) who previously failed a CDK4/6i due to toxicity and in 18 (3%) for pts currently on a CDK4/6i. 30 (6%) OPA comments noted that they discussed or started therapy that day. Conclusion: The OPA offered clinical decision support and ensured that clinicians considered prescribing CDK 4/6i in all pts identified as eligible, and captured deferrals. Refinements are needed to ensure appropriate timing of OPA and minimize erroneous firing. The OPA remains active and captures the reason for deferral of adjuvant CDK 4/6i prescription. This data pairs real world decision making to better understand clinically meaningful application of improved invasive disease-free survival (iDFS). Citation Format: S. Premji, P. Advani, S. Chumsri, L. Mina, J. Taraba, J. Carroll, J. Hoppenworth, E. Cathcart-Rake, T. Haddad, B. Rudder, G. Choong, D. Idossa, C. O’Sullivan, S. Yadav, K. Ruddy, P. Peethambaram, T. Hobday, M. Goetz, R. Rao, B. Ernst, F. Batalini, R. Leon-Ferre, A. Tevaarwerk, K. Giridhar. Implementing an Our Practice Advisory (OPA) to provide clinical decision support for adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitors in early-stage hormone receptor positive breast cancer: The Mayo Clinic Experience [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS5-11-10.

Abstract Introduction: Metaplastic breast cancer (MpBC) is a rare, aggressive subtype of breast cancer that has limited evidence-based data to guide treatment. Historically, MpBC has had limited response to chemotherapy; however, the response of MpBC to antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) remains poorly characterized. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients (pts) with pathologic diagnosis of MpBC who received ADC therapy as part of standard of care in the metastatic setting across 4 NCI-designated cancer centers. The primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) at time of best response to ADC & real world PFS (rwPFS) of ADC compared to non-ADC therapy, defined as time from treatment start to time of progression or death. Results: We identified 48 pts with MpBC who received at least one ADC between 3/2016 and 10/2025. Median age was 54 years (range 31-77); all pts were biological females. Most pts had triple negative disease (n=39, 81%), 5 (10%) had HER2+ disease, 3 (6%) had hormone receptor positive disease & 17 (35%) were confirmed HER2-low (IHC 1+ or 2+, ISH nonamplified). The most common MpBC subtypes were with squamous differentiation (n=17, 35%), chondroid (n=11, 23%), matrix-producing (n=11, 23%) & spindle cell differentiation (n=10, 21%). Ten pts (21%) had de novo metastatic disease & 38 (79%) had recurrent disease. Most common metastatic sites were lung (n=33, 69%) & liver (21, 44%). 37/38 (97%) patients had curative intent anthracycline & taxane, with median disease-free interval of 16 months (range 2-241). 18 pts (38%) received curative intent immune checkpoint inhibitor. Most pts received ADC in the first (n=19, 40%) or second line (n=18, 38%) with Sacituzumab govitecan being the most common (n=38, 79%) ADC, followed by Trastuzumab deruxtecan (n=9, 19%). 7 pts (15%) received a second ADC. ORR at time of best response was 38% (n=18), with 4 pts experiencing complete response (1 patient who received ADC in 1L, 3 in the 2L) & 14 experiencing partial response. 3 pts (6%) experienced stable disease, & 27 pts (56%) experienced progressive disease as best response. Median rwPFS of pts receiving ADC in the first line was 2.3 months, compared to 4.3 months in those receiving non-ADC/chemotherapy (HR 1.34; 95% CI 0.72-2.49, p=0.89). Median rwPFS of pts receiving ADC in the second line was 2.6 months, compared to 2.3 months in those receiving non-ADC/chemotherapy (HR 0.56; 0.28-1.11; p=0.10). Toxicity resulted in dose reductions in 17 pts (35%), dose delays in 14 (29%), & ADC discontinuation in 2 (4%). Conclusion: In this multi-institutional cohort of pts with metastatic MpBC, ADC treatment yielded a 38% ORR, including four complete responses. However, rwPFS was poor overall & similar between ADC & non-ADC therapy. These findings highlight the need to develop new treatment strategies for MpBC, though a subset of pts may experience meaningful response to ADC. Citation Format: S. Jacob, S. Premji, S. Fisch, A. LeVee, S. Marion, D. Schmolze, J. Mortimer, L. Huppert, D. Idossa, A. Nayak, P. Wileyto, A. DeMichele, P. D. Shah. Efficacy of antibody drug conjugates in patients with advanced metaplastic breast cancer: a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS1-09-18.

Abstract Introduction: Metaplastic breast cancer (MpBC) represents a rare subtype, constituting &lt;1% of all breast cancer cases. It is pathologically characterized by epithelial and mesenchymal cellular components exhibiting a basal molecular pattern, hormone receptor and HER2-negativity, and high grade. Clinically, MpBC exhibits an aggressive course with early disease progression and poor survival. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have been shown to penetrate the central nervous system (CNS); however, little is known about the response of ADCs in MpBC, particularly in patients with CNS disease. Here we aimed to describe features of CNS disease in a subset of patients (pts) who received an ADC for MpBC . Methods: We conducted a multi-institutional retrospective observational study of pts with advanced MpBC treated with ADCs at 4 NCI-designated cancer centers (abstract #A-345). This analysis includes a subset of this cohort with CNS metastases, with the aim of examining the incidence, characteristics, and treatment patterns. Clinical outcomes were evaluated for pts with information available, including CNS median progression-free survival (mPFS; defined from initiation of systemic therapy to time of further documented CNS progression or death) and median real world PFS (rwPFS; defined from time of treatment initiation to documented disease progression or death). Results: We identified 48 pts with MpBC who received an ADC. Among them, we identified 15 (31%) who developed CNS metastases. Of these, the majority (n=11, 73%) had triple-negative breast cancer, and 4 (27%) had HER2-positive breast cancer. The median age was 50 years (32-75 years). The median interval from the initial MpBC diagnosis to CNS metastasis was 13 months (0-54 months). Excluding those with de novo CNS disease, the median interval from time of metastatic diagnosis to development of CNS metastasis [mets] was 3 months (0-22 months). 4 (27%) pts had de-novo metastatic disease, of which 2 (50%) presented with CNS disease. 4 (27%) pts had screening CNS imaging prior to their diagnosis of CNS metastatic disease. At the time of CNS disease diagnosis, 9 (60%) pts had oligometastatic intraparenchymal CNS disease (defined as &lt;5 CNS mets), 5 (33%) had diffuse (&gt;5 CNS mets) CNS disease, and 1 (6%) had leptomeningeal and intraparenchymal disease. Most pts 14(93%) with CNS disease were symptomatic at time of diagnosis. One pt underwent resection, 9 (60%) underwent stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), 6 (40%) underwent whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), and 1 pt received intrathecal chemotherapy with methotrexate. The median number of lines in the metastatic setting prior to documented CNS disease was 1 (range 0-3). The majority 13 (87%) underwent a change in systemic therapy at time of CNS disease diagnosis, with 60% changing to an ADC at the time of CNS diagnosis or progression. Among pts with progression of CNS disease warranting change in systemic therapy, the median time from first CNS event to further CNS progression was 6.5 months. Median CNS PFS was 3.5 months (range 1 -74 months) and median rwPFS was 4.4 months. For those patients who used ADCs after diagnosis of metastatic CNS diagnosis (12/15), median rwPFS was 4 months. Conclusions: Within this CNS sub-cohort study, we found that 31% of pts with MpBC developed CNS metastasis. The majority of pts had neurological symptoms at diagnosis, but most pts did not undergo routing screening for CNS disease. Given the high rate of CNS mets within a short timeframe from diagnosis with poor outcomes, CNS screening should be considered. The extremely short median CNS PFS and low median rwPFS of this cohort highlight the guarded prognosis associated with MpBC. Given the small sample size of this cohort, larger studies are warranted to validate these findings. Citation Format: S. Premji, S. Jacob, A. LeVee, S. Marion, S. Fisch, L. Huppert, J. Mortimer, D. Schmolze, A. Nayak, A. DeMichele, P. Shah, R. Leon-Ferre, D. Idossa. Central nervous system disease in patients with metaplastic breast cancer receiving antibody drug conjugates: a multi-institutional study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS1-09-07.

230 Background: The burden of symptoms and financial toxicity are well-documented adverse effects of cancer treatments. Recently, logistic toxicity has emerged, referring to the detrimental impact of logistical demands associated with cancer treatment on patient well-being. For non- English speaking patients, language barriers can affect their treatment experience, increasing logistic burdens. Methods: Between September 2024 and May 2025, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 low English proficiency (LEP)/non-English speaking adults with cancer. The interviews explored logistic challenges faced due to LEP and its impact on patients' cancer care experience. Transcripts were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Results: Of the 39 identified eligible individuals, 26 provided consent, and 21 (81%) completed the interview. The most common primary language of the participants was Spanish (9, 43%), followed by Somali (3, 14%), Arabic and Korean (2, 9%), and Amharic, Mandarin, Hmong, Russian, and Vietnamese (1, 5%). Seven major themes emerged regarding the logistic burdens of cancer care: (1) communication challenges, (2) navigating healthcare systems, (3) emotional distress from diagnosis and communication barriers, (4) financial toxicity, (5) transportation challenges, (6) adverse treatment effects, and (7) concerns about the political climate and its impact on resources. Conclusions: The increase in non-English languages in the U.S. highlights the need to understand the unique challenges faced by these patients. This study identified logistic toxicity themes consistent with previous research, while also revealing unique challenges. Further research is necessary to explore strategies to mitigate logistic burdens among those with LEP. Theme Illustrative Quotes Communication challenges “Communication with the psychologist was challenging … I couldn’t express myself effectively and it left me unsatisfied with the interaction.” Navigating healthcare systems “dealing with the insurance, it has been difficult … I have to depend on another person to help me” Emotional distress from diagnosis and communication barriers “In addition to my sickness, the lack of communication and understanding… makes me very sad.” Financial toxicity “...there's no income. There is nothing to feed our children.” Transportation challenges “I have to leave home 2 or 3 hours in advance because people will help me, not within my time, but within their own time.” Adverse treatment effects “I noticed weird feelings in my limbs. I'm not able to write down or hold anything. It makes everything difficult.” Concerns about current political climate and its impact on existing resources “… that they don't want Spanish spoken in the United States. They're not going to provide help for people like me at the hospitals…”

53 Background: Language barriers affect millions in the US, where nearly 8% of individuals (~ 26 million) have limited English proficiency, making it harder to access, understand, and engage with healthcare services. As clinical trials enroll increasingly diverse participants, ensuring the accessibility and clarity of consent forms is critical. Understanding translation costs can improve budgeting and prevent enrollment delays for non-English-speaking participants. This study evaluates the costs of translating consent forms into three of the most widely spoken non-English languages in the U.S. Methods: In February 2025, we queried ClinicalTrials.gov to identify publicly available consent forms for phase 3 interventional trials in lung, breast, GI, & GU cancers from 2013–2024. In total, 18 consent forms were identified. The U.S. News top 20 U.S. cancer centers were contacted to identify commonly used certified translation companies. We obtained quotes from 8 IRB-certified agencies via online portal for Spanish, Simplified Chinese, and Tagalog translations. Results: The 18 informed consent forms were on average 14 pages long (range: 3-29 pages). Across the 8 translation companies, translating documents into Spanish (average price per document [$pD]: 1088.58) was cheaper than Chinese (average $pD: $1253.94, p < 0.001) and Tagalog (average $pD: $1399.07, p < 0.001). Costs varied significantly by company (p < 0.001). Quality assurance measures, including dual translation and proofreading, were included in 87.5% of quotes. The average turnaround time for translating one consent into 3 different languages was 4 business days (range: 2-8 business days). Conclusions: The cost of translating informed consent forms for oncology clinical trials varies significantly by language and translation company, with Spanish translations being the least expensive and Tagalog the most costly. While translation costs represent a small fraction of overall trial expenses, variability in pricing and turnaround times underscores the need for structured budgeting and standardized translation processes. Translations of informed consents should ideally be completed prior to trial initiation to avoid the delayed recruitment or exclusion of non-English speaking patients. Our results are valuable for researchers & sponsors involved in oncology clinical trials, helping them make informed decisions in budgeting regarding language translation services. Company ID Average $pD, Spanish Average $pD, Chinese Average $pD, Tagalog Spanish $pW Chinese $pW Tagalog $pW 1 840.11 1,054.07 1,054.07 0.16 0.20 0.20 2 1,109.63 1,553.49 1,775.41 0.22 0.28 0.32 3 945.00 1,081.50 1,422.33 0.10 0.17 0.12 4 1,880.56 1,880.56 2,131.94 0.30 0.30 0.34 5 875.35 875.35 875.35 0.15 0.15 0.15 6 1,029.98 1,367.56 1,472.93 0.27 0.36 0.39 7 929.72 978.65 1,125.45 0.14 0.15 0.17 8 1,042.39 1,184.50 1,279.22 0.33 0.37 0.41