Citations

Abstract Background Breast cancer chemoprevention is underutilized among high-risk women. We examined whether decision support could increase informed decision making. Methods We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of a patient-facing decision aid (RealRisks) and provider tool (BNAV) compared with standard education on the number of women with high-risk breast lesions making informed choices. Questionnaires were administered at baseline and 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was chemoprevention informed choice (defined as adequate knowledge and attitudes congruent with decision) at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included breast cancer risk perceptions, worry, chemoprevention knowledge, decision conflict, and chemoprevention decision. Results Across 31 randomized sites, we enrolled 210 providers, who were primarily breast health specialists. Of these, 24 sites (14 intervention, 10 control) enrolled 412 patients. Among 287 patients evaluable for the primary outcome, there were no statistically significant differences in informed choice between the intervention and control arms at 6 months (35% vs 27%, respectively; P = .20) and 12 months (37% vs 25%, respectively; P = .05). At 6 months, women in the intervention compared with control arm were more likely to have accurate breast cancer risk perceptions (31% vs 21%, respectively; P = .03) and adequate chemoprevention knowledge (33% vs 23%, respectively; P = .04). At 12 months, 52% of women in the control and 50% in the intervention arm self-reported initiating chemoprevention. Conclusion Decision support led to modest improvements in accurate risk perceptions and chemoprevention knowledge but not informed choice. Relatively high chemoprevention uptake was achieved among women with high-risk breast lesions managed mainly by breast health specialists. Trial Registration NCT04496739, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04496739?cond=NCT04496739&viewType=Card&rank=1

Abstract Background: Breast cancer (BC) chemoprevention with selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) and aromatase inhibitors (AIs) remains underutilized among high-risk women. Improving knowledge about BC risk and chemoprevention among high-risk patients and their healthcare providers may enhance informed decision-making about this BC risk reduction strategy. Methods: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of web-based patient and provider decision support, RealRisks and BNAV, to improve chemoprevention informed choice among women with atypical hyperplasia (AH) or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). Thirty-one sites, including academic and community practices across the U.S., were randomized to standard patient educational materials alone or combined with RealRisks and BNAV. A total of 412 patients and 210 healthcare providers were enrolled. Patient surveys were administered at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome at 6 months was chemoprevention informed choice, defined as adequate chemoprevention knowledge and attitudes congruent with decision. Secondary endpoints included BC risk perceptions, worry, chemoprevention knowledge, decision conflict and chemoprevention decision. Assuming 10% loss to follow up (LTFU), roughly equal accrual across sites, and an intraclass coefficient (ICC) of 0.02, we had 90% power to detect a 15% absolute difference in informed choice if the event rate in the control arm was 10%. Results: Among 24 evaluable sites, 14 were randomized to the intervention arm and 10 to the control arm. Among 210 enrolled providers, median age was 46 (range, 28-83) and 78% were female; 75% physicians and 25% advanced practice providers/nurses; 53% medical oncologists, 29% surgeons, and 10% gynecologists/family practitioners/internists; and 83% had previously prescribed chemoprevention. Among 412 enrolled patients, median age was 53 (range, 35-74), including 77% White, 8% Black, and 10% Asian race, and 14% Hispanic ethnicity. In terms of BC risk factors, 77% had AH and 23% LCIS, 34% had a first-degree family history of BC, and 65% had heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts on mammography. Thirty percent were unevaluable for the primary endpoint (1% ineligible, 26% LTFU, 3% missing data). Among 288 evaluable patients (148 at intervention sites, 140 at control sites), the proportion of patients exercising informed choice at 6 months in the intervention and control arms was 35% vs. 27%, respectively (odds ratio [OR]=1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.84-2.46, p=0.19; observed ICC=0.006). Compared to patients in the control arm at 6 months, those in the intervention arm were more likely to have accurate BC risk perceptions (OR=1.80, 95% CI=1.11-2.91) and adequate chemoprevention knowledge (OR=1.62, 95% CI=1.00-2.61). We observed no significant differences in BC worry, decision conflict, or chemoprevention decision between study arms. At 6 months, 49% of women in the control arm and 51% in the intervention arm decided to take a SERM or AI for BC chemoprevention (p=0.58), a rate higher than anticipated. Conclusions: We did not observe a significant increase in informed choice among patients and providers assigned to chemoprevention decision support compared to standard educational materials alone. Among women with AH or LCIS seen mainly by breast specialists who prescribed chemoprevention, about half decided to take a SERM or AI. Therefore, relatively high chemoprevention uptake may be achieved among women with high-risk breast lesions managed by breast specialists. Chemoprevention decision support may improve decision antecedents, such as accurate BC risk perceptions and chemoprevention knowledge, but may have a limited role in changing health behaviors. Citation Format: K. D. Crew, G. L. Anderson, K. B. Arnold, A. Michel, M. T. DeLucie, C. W. Law, S. Pruthi, A. C. Sandoval Leon, R. Shirley, M. T. Grosse Perdekamp, S. V. Colonna, S. L. Krisher, T. King, L. D. Yee, T. J. Ballinger, C. Braun-Inglis, D. A. Mangino, K. B. Wisinski, C. A. DeYoung, M. Ross, J. D. Floyd, A. Kaster, L. VanderWalde, T. Saphner, C. Zarwan, S. Lo, C. Graham, A. K. Conlin, K. J. Yost, D. M. Agnese, C. Jernigan, D. L. Hershman, M. L. Neuhouser, J. A. Zell, B. Arun, R. Kukafka. Making informed choices on incorporating chemoprevention into care (MiCHOICE): Cluster randomized controlled trial of decision support for breast cancer chemoprevention, SWOG 1904 [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 PS3-01-15.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate are intended to serve as a resource for health care providers to identify individuals who may benefit from cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling and testing; help guide decisions related to genetic testing; and facilitate a multidisciplinary approach in the comprehensive care of individuals at increased risk for hereditary breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer. The current guidelines focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic and likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer and recommended approaches to genetic counseling/testing and care strategies in individuals with these P/LP variants associated with increased risk of these cancers. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s most recent recommendations regarding screening for prostate cancer and pancreas cancer, as well as testing criteria for nonepithelial ovarian cancer.

AbstractBackgroundThe management of early breast cancer (BC) has witnessed an uprise in the use of neoadjuvant therapy and a remarkable reshaping of the systemic therapy postneoadjuvant treatment in the last few years, with the evolution of many controversial clinical situations that require consensus.MethodsDuring the 14th Breast‐Gynecological and Immuno‐Oncology International Cancer Conference held in Egypt in 2022, a panel of 44 BC experts from 13 countries voted on statements concerning debatable challenges in the neo/adjuvant treatment setting. The recommendations were subsequently updated based on the most recent data emerging. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop this consensus. A consensus was achieved when ≥75% of voters selected an answer.Results and ConclusionsThe consensus recommendations addressed different escalation and de‐escalation strategies in the setting of neoadjuvant therapy for early BC. The recommendations recapitulate the available clinical evidence and expert opinion to individualize patient management and optimize therapy outcomes. Consensus was reached in 63% of the statements (52/83), and the rationale behind each statement was clarified.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer, including BRCA1 , BRCA2 , CDH1 , PALB2 , PTEN , and TP53 , and recommended approaches to genetic counseling/testing and care strategies in individuals with these P/LP variants. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize important updates regarding: (1) a new section for transgender, nonbinary and gender diverse people who have a hereditary predisposition to cancer focused on risk reduction strategies for ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, prostate cancer, and breast cancer; and (2) testing criteria and management associated with TP53 P/LP variants and Li-Fraumeni syndrome.

Abstract Purpose: Germline pathogenic variants in CHEK2 confer moderately elevated breast cancer risk (odds ratio, OR ∼ 2.5), qualifying carriers for enhanced breast cancer screening. Besides pathogenic variants, dozens of missense CHEK2 variants of uncertain significance (VUS) have been identified, hampering the clinical utility of germline genetic testing (GGT). Experimental Design: We collected 460 CHEK2 missense VUS identified by the ENIGMA consortium in 15 countries. Their functional characterization was performed using CHEK2-complementation assays quantifying KAP1 phosphorylation and CHK2 autophosphorylation in human RPE1–CHEK2-knockout cells. Concordant results in both functional assays were used to categorize CHEK2 VUS from 12 ENIGMA case–control datasets, including 73,048 female patients with breast cancer and 88,658 ethnicity-matched controls. Results: A total of 430/460 VUS were successfully analyzed, of which 340 (79.1%) were concordant in both functional assays and categorized as functionally impaired (N = 102), functionally intermediate (N = 12), or functionally wild-type (WT)–like (N = 226). We then examined their association with breast cancer risk in the case–control analysis. The OR and 95% CI (confidence intervals) for carriers of functionally impaired, intermediate, and WT-like variants were 2.83 (95% CI, 2.35–3.41), 1.57 (95% CI, 1.41–1.75), and 1.19 (95% CI, 1.08–1.31), respectively. The meta-analysis of population-specific datasets showed similar results. Conclusions: We determined the functional consequences for the majority of CHEK2 missense VUS found in patients with breast cancer (3,660/4,436; 82.5%). Carriers of functionally impaired missense variants accounted for 0.5% of patients with breast cancer and were associated with a moderate risk similar to that of truncating CHEK2 variants. In contrast, 2.2% of all patients with breast cancer carried functionally wild-type/intermediate missense variants with no clinically relevant breast cancer risk in heterozygous carriers.

Abstract Background: Despite evidence of substantial breast cancer risk reduction, few high-risk women adopt chemopreventive medications such as selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) or aromatase inhibitors (AIs). Women with benign breast disease, such as atypical hyperplasia (AH) or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), have an increased risk of developing breast cancer and derive a greater benefit from antiestrogens compared to other high-risk women. Reasons for low uptake of chemoprevention include insufficient patient and clinician knowledge about antiestrogens, time constraints during the clinical encounter, and concerns about side effects. To address these barriers, we have developed patient and provider web-based decision support tools to improve informed choice about breast cancer chemoprevention among women with AH or LCIS. Study design: We are conducting a cluster-randomized controlled trial of clinical decision support to improve chemoprevention informed choice among women with AH or LCIS and their treating providers. Twenty-six U.S. sites through the SWOG Cancer Research Network were randomly assigned 1:1 to standard educational materials alone or in combination with the patient-centered decision aid (RealRisks) and provider decision support tool (BNAV). A total of 415 patients and 200 healthcare providers will be recruited from these sites. RealRisks consists of interactive modules to calculate personalized breast cancer risk and elicit preferences on chemoprevention. The modules are available in English and Spanish. BNAV is comprised of self-directed case-based learning modules on breast cancer risk assessment and chemoprevention. Patients complete questionnaires at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Providers complete surveys at baseline and after their enrolled patient’s 6-month clinical encounter. The primary endpoint is chemoprevention informed choice at 6 months, using a measure combining knowledge, attitude, and intention scales. Secondary endpoints include perceived breast cancer risk/worry, chemoprevention knowledge/intention, decision conflict/regret, shared decision-making, and chemoprevention uptake. For patients who begin chemoprevention, adherence and reasons for discontinuation are assessed annually for up to 5 years. Barriers and facilitators to implementing RealRisks and BNAV into clinic workflow will be assessed by conducting patient and provider interviews at baseline and mid-implementation. Eligibility criteria: Eligible patients include women, age 35-74 years, with AH or LCIS, no history of breast cancer, no prior use of SERMs or AIs, no bilateral mastectomies, English or Spanish-speaking, and access to the internet. Eligible providers include breast surgeons, medical oncologists, primary care providers, and physician extenders who see patients with AH or LCIS. Statistical methods: We have 90% power to detect a 15% increase in the frequency of chemoprevention informed choice with a 1-sided 0.025 level test, assuming an intraclass correlation (ICC) of 0.02 to account for clustering, roughly equal accrual at each site, 10% loss to follow-up, and ≤10% event rate in the control arm. Current/target accrual: The trial was activated on 9/1/2020. As of 7/7/2022, all 26 sites have been randomized, 157/200 providers and 184/415 patients have been enrolled. Discussion: Our hybrid effectiveness/implementation study seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-level intervention in promoting informed decision-making about breast cancer chemoprevention. Study results will provide valuable insights on how the decision support tools are integrated in diverse clinical settings. Citation Format: Katherine D. Crew, Garnet Anderson, Kathryn Arnold, Andrew Stieb, Jacquelyn N. Amenta, Cynthia Law, Ana Sandoval-Leon, Sarah Colonna, Tari King, Debra Mangino, Sandhya Pruthi, Maria Grosse Perdekamp, Christa Braun-Inglis, Stacy Krisher, Lisa Yee, Danielle Bertoni, Samantha Seaward, Kari B. Wisinski, Justin Floyd, Corrine Zarwan, Tarah J. Ballinger, Lindi VanderWalde, Masey M. Ross, Preston Steen, Shelly Lo, Alison Conlin, Kathleen Yost, John Ellerton, Erin Lin, Holly J. Pederson, Sagar Sardesai, Cheryl Jernigan, Dawn Hershman, Marian L. Neuhouser, Banu K. Arun, Rita Kukafka. SWOG 1904: Cluster-randomized controlled trial of patient and provider decision support to increase chemoprevention informed choice among women with atypical hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ (MiCHOICE) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-15-01.

Background: The management of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is challenging with several controversies and unmet needs. During the 12th Breast-Gynaecological & Immuno-oncology International Cancer Conference (BGICC) Egypt, 2020, a panel of 35 breast cancer experts from 13 countries voted on consensus guidelines for the clinical management of TNBC. The consensus was subsequently updated based on the most recent data evolved lately. Methods: A consensus conference approach adapted from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) was utilized. The panellists voted anonymously on each question, and a consensus was achieved when ≥75% of voters selected an answer. The final consensus was later circulated to the panellists for critical revision of important intellectual content. Results and conclusion: These recommendations represent the available clinical evidence and expert opinion when evidence is scarce. The percentage of the consensus votes, levels of evidence and grades of recommendation are presented for each statement. The consensus covered all the aspects of TNBC management starting from defining TNBC to the management of metastatic disease and highlighted the rapidly evolving landscape in this field. Consensus was reached in 70% of the statements (35/50). In addition, areas of warranted research were identified to guide future prospective clinical trials.

1024 Background: The combination of platinum agents and PARP inhibitors may benefit patients (pts) with BRCA-associated metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We report on the response and clinical benefit rates when combining the PARP inhibitor veliparib (V) and carboplatin (carb) in a phase I trial. Methods: BRCA carriers with MBC were eligible. Carb starting at an AUC of 6 was given IV in 21-day cycles (C) and V was given orally twice daily (BID) at dose levels (L) L1 through L5. Results: Twenty-eight pts (26 eligible) carrying BRCA1 (12) or BRCA2 (15), or both (1) mutations were accrued between June 2010 and June 2012. The median age (32-66) was 45 years. The number (#) of prior chemotherapy regimens given for MBC was 1 (0-5); 70% of BCs were ER+, and 7% were HER2+. The schema, dose limiting toxicities (DLT) during C 1, median # of Cs on trial, and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) are shown. There were 3 (12%) complete and 9 (35%) partial responses (PR). Unconfirmed PR or stable MBC (median duration: 8 months [6-10+]) were seen in 7 pts (27%); the clinical benefit rate was74%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) is 7.8 months (95% CI 7.3-9.5). The pt with Fallopian tube cancer had a CR. DLTs with C 1 were seen in 2/6 evaluable pts at L1 (1 pt w/grade 3 hyponatremia and dehydration, and 1pt w/grade 4 thrombocytopenia [PLT]), leading to de-escalation of carb. At L2, 1 pt had grade 4 PLT. At L5, 1 pt had grade 4 PLT, and 2 pts grade 3 PLT (1 pt also experienced grade 4 granulocytopenia [ANC]), defining the MTD at carb AUC 5 and V 150 mg BID (L4). Dose delays and/or dose adjustments due to grade ≥ 2 toxicities for ANC or PLT were seen during the first 3 Cs at L1 (100%), L2 (50 %), L3 (67%), L4 (83 %), and at L5 (67%). Conclusions: The combination of carb and V is active, and is associated with substantial clinical benefit rate and managable hematologic toxicities in BRCA carriers with MBC. Further definition of the role of V is warranted. [Table: see text]

AbstractPrevious transcriptome‐wide association studies (TWAS) have identified breast cancer risk genes by integrating data from expression quantitative loci and genome‐wide association studies (GWAS), but analyses of breast cancer subtype‐specific associations have been limited. In this study, we conducted a TWAS using gene expression data from GTEx and summary statistics from the hitherto largest GWAS meta‐analysis conducted for breast cancer overall, and by estrogen receptor subtypes (ER+ and ER−). We further compared associations with ER+ and ER− subtypes, using a case‐only TWAS approach. We also conducted multigene conditional analyses in regions with multiple TWAS associations. Two genes, STXBP4 and HIST2H2BA, were specifically associated with ER+ but not with ER– breast cancer. We further identified 30 TWAS‐significant genes associated with overall breast cancer risk, including four that were not identified in previous studies. Conditional analyses identified single independent breast‐cancer gene in three of six regions harboring multiple TWAS‐significant genes. Our study provides new information on breast cancer genetics and biology, particularly about genomic differences between ER+ and ER− breast cancer.