Citations

PURPOSE The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007 and updated in 2021 (STEEP 2.0), provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer (BC) end points. STEEP 2.0 identified a need to separately address end points for neoadjuvant clinical trials. The multidisciplinary NeoSTEEP working group of experts was convened to critically evaluate and align neoadjuvant BC trial end points. METHODS The NeoSTEEP working group concentrated on neoadjuvant systemic therapy end points in clinical trials with efficacy outcomes—both pathologic and time-to-event survival end points—particularly for registrational intent. Special considerations for subtypes and therapeutic approaches, imaging, nodal staging at surgery, bilateral and multifocal diseases, correlative tissue collection, and US Food and Drug Administration regulatory considerations were contemplated. RESULTS The working group recommends a preferred definition of pathologic complete response (pCR) as the absence of residual invasive cancer in the complete resected breast specimen and all sampled regional lymph nodes (ypT0/Tis ypN0 per AJCC staging). Residual cancer burden should be a secondary end point to facilitate future assessment of its utility. Alternative end points are needed for hormone receptor–positive disease. Time-to-event survival end point definitions should pay particular attention to the measurement starting point. Trials should include end points originating at random assignment (event-free survival and overall survival) to capture presurgery progression and deaths as events. Secondary end points adapted from STEEP 2.0, which are defined from starting at curative-intent surgery, may also be appropriate. Specification and standardization of biopsy protocols, imaging, and pathologic nodal evaluation are also crucial. CONCLUSION End points in addition to pCR should be selected on the basis of clinical and biologic aspects of the tumor and the therapeutic agent investigated. Consistent prespecified definitions and interventions are paramount for clinically meaningful trial results and cross-trial comparison.

Abstract Background: While cigarette smoking has declined among the U.S. general population, sale and use of non-cigarette alternative tobacco products (ATP; e.g., e-cigarettes, cigars) and dual use of cigarettes/ATPs are rising. Little is known about ATP use patterns in cancer survivors enrolled in clinical trials. We investigated prevalence of tobacco product use, and factors associated with past 30-day use, among patients with cancer in national trials. Methods: Cancer survivors (N = 756) enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials (2017–2021) completed a modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) which assessed baseline cigarette and ATP use since cancer diagnosis and in the past 30 days. Results: Patients were on average 59 years old, 70% male, and the mean time since cancer diagnosis was 26 months. Since diagnosis, cigarettes (21%) were the most common tobacco product used, followed by smokeless tobacco use (5%), cigars (4%), and e-cigarettes (2%). In the past 30 days, 12% of patients reported smoking cigarettes, 4% cigars, 4% using smokeless tobacco, and 2% e-cigarettes. Since cancer diagnosis, 5.5% of the sample reported multiple tobacco product use, and 3.0% reported multiple product use in the past 30 days. Males (vs. females; OR 4.33; P = 0 < 0.01) and individuals not living with another person who smokes (vs. living with; OR, 8.07; P = 0 < 0.01) were more likely to use ATPs only versus cigarettes only in the past 30 days. Conclusions: Among patients with cancer, cigarettes were the most prevalent tobacco product reported. Impact: Regardless, ATPs and multiple tobacco product use should be routinely assessed in cancer care settings.

The Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) Reviewer Academy seeks to train and establish a community of trusted, reliable, and skilled peer reviewers with diverse backgrounds and interests to promote high-quality reviews for each of the SCCM journals. Goals of the Academy include building accessible resources to highlight qualities of excellent manuscript reviews; educating and mentoring a diverse group of healthcare professionals; and establishing and upholding standards for insightful and informative reviews. This manuscript will map the mission of the Reviewer Academy with a succinct summary of the importance of peer review, process of reviewing a manuscript, and the expected ethical standards of reviewers. We will equip readers to target concise, thoughtful feedback as peer reviewers, advance their understanding of the editorial process and inspire readers to integrate medical journalism into diverse professional careers.

LBA520 Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter trial using response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes including MammaPrint (MP) risk to evaluate novel neoadjuvant agents in high-risk breast cancer. Oral paclitaxel and encequidar (OPE) is an oral combination of paclitaxel (P) with a p-glycoprotein pump inhibitor, encequidar, to enhance gastrointestinal (GI) absorption. Dostarlimab (D) is an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm and MP high-risk cancers were screened and treated starting Oct 5, 2020. Treatment included Oral Paclitaxel 205mg/m2 and encequidar 12.9 mg on days 1-3, Carboplatin (Cb) AUC 1.5 on day 1 weekly x 12, and Dostarlimab (D) 500 mg every 3 weeks x 4, followed by doxorubicin/ cyclophosphamide (AC) every 2-3 weeks x 4. The control arm was IV P weekly x 12 followed by AC every 2-3 weeks x 4. For patients with HER2+ disease, weekly Trastuzumab (T) was administered during the first 12 weeks. The arm was eligible for graduation [> 85% chance of success in a 300-person phase 3 neoadjuvant trial with a pathologic complete response (pCR) endpoint] in 10 predefined signatures. Results: 106 patients (44 HR+HER2-, 56 HR-HER2- (TN), 6 HER2+) received OPE/Cb/D ± T. The control arm included 388 historical controls (201 HR+HER2-, 156 TN, 31 HER2+). 22 patients (20 HR+, 2 HR-) in OPE/Cb/D were MP1 (MP high) and 84 patients (29 HR+, 55 HR-) were MP2 (MP ultra-high). OPE/Cb/D graduated in the TN signature and accrual was stopped. Conclusions: OPE/Cb/D graduated in the TN signature with a higher predicted pCR rate compared to control. OPE and D have been, individually, shown to have efficacy in other settings. The lower-than-expected pCR rate and lower irAEs with triplet therapy (taxane, platinum, immune checkpoint inhibitor [ICI]) in TN compared to prior IV chemo + ICI arms on I-SPY 2 suggests a possible interference of OPE with ICI. Changes in gut microbiome is being investigated as an explanation. Clinical trial information: NCT01042379 . [Table: see text]

ObjectiveTo evaluate clinical outcomes of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for acute basilar artery occlusion (BAO) using population‐level data from the United States.MethodsWeighted discharge data from the National Inpatient Sample were queried to identify adult patients with acute BAO during the period of 2015 to 2019 treated with EVT or medical management only. Complex samples statistical methods and propensity‐score adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were performed to assess clinical endpoints.ResultsAmong 3,950 BAO patients identified, 1,425 (36.1%) were treated with EVT [mean age 66.7 years, median National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score 22]. On unadjusted analysis, 155 (10.9%) EVT patients achieved favorable functional outcomes (discharge disposition to home without services), while 515 (36.1%) experienced in‐hospital mortality, and 20 (1.4%) developed symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). Following propensity‐score adjustment by IPTW accounting for age, stroke severity, and comorbidity burden, EVT was independently associated with favorable functional outcome [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07, 1.46; p = 0.004], but not with in‐hospital mortality or sICH. In an IPTW‐adjusted sub‐group analysis of patients with NIHSS scores >20, EVT was associated with both favorable functional outcome (discharge disposition to home or to acute rehabilitation) (aOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.24, 1.94; p < 0.001) and decreased mortality (aOR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69, 0.89; p < 0.001), but not with sICH.InterpretationThis retrospective population‐based analysis using a large national registry provides real‐world evidence of a potential benefit of EVT in acute BAO patients. ANN NEUROL 2023;94:55–60

ImportanceAurora A kinase (AURKA) activation, related in part to AURKA amplification and variants, is associated with downregulation of estrogen receptor (ER) α expression, endocrine resistance, and implicated in cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK 4/6i) resistance. Alisertib, a selective AURKA inhibitor, upregulates ERα and restores endocrine sensitivity in preclinical metastatic breast cancer (MBC) models. The safety and preliminary efficacy of alisertib was demonstrated in early-phase trials; however, its activity in CDK 4/6i–resistant MBC is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of adding fulvestrant to alisertib on objective tumor response rates (ORRs) in endocrine-resistant MBC.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis phase 2 randomized clinical trial was conducted through the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, which enrolled participants from July 2017 to November 2019. Postmenopausal women with endocrine-resistant, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)–negative MBC who were previously treated with fulvestrant were eligible. Stratification factors included prior treatment with CDK 4/6i, baseline metastatic tumor ERα level measurement (&amp;lt;10%, ≥10%), and primary or secondary endocrine resistance. Among 114 preregistered patients, 96 (84.2%) registered and 91 (79.8%) were evaluable for the primary end point. Data analysis began after January 10, 2022.InterventionsAlisertib, 50 mg, oral, daily on days 1 to 3, 8 to 10, and 15 to 17 of a 28-day cycle (arm 1) or alisertib same dose/schedule with standard-dose fulvestrant (arm 2).Main Outcomes and MeasuresImprovement in ORR in arm 2 of at least 20% greater than arm 1 when the expected ORR for arm 1 was 20%.ResultsAll 91 evaluable patients (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [11.3] years; 1 American Indian/Alaskan Native [1.1%], 2 Asian [2.2%], 6 Black/African American [6.6%], 5 Hispanic [5.5%], and 79 [86.8%] White individuals; arm 1, 46 [50.5%]; arm 2, 45 [49.5%]) had received prior treatment with CDK 4/6i. The ORR was 19.6%; (90% CI, 10.6%-31.7%) for arm 1 and 20.0% (90% CI, 10.9%-32.3%) for arm 2. In arm 1, the 24-week clinical benefit rate and median progression-free survival time were 41.3% (90% CI, 29.0%-54.5%) and 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.9-10.0), respectively, and in arm 2 they were 28.9% (90% CI, 18.0%-42.0%) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.9-7.8), respectively. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events attributed to alisertib were neutropenia (41.8%) and anemia (13.2%). Reasons for discontinuing treatment were disease progression (arm 1, 38 [82.6%]; arm 2, 31 [68.9%]) and toxic effects or refusal (arm 1, 5 [10.9%]; arm 2, 12 [26.7%]).Conclusions and RelevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that adding fulvestrant to treatment with alisertib did not increase ORR or PFS; however, promising clinical activity was observed with alisertib monotherapy among patients with endocrine-resistant and CDK 4/6i–resistant MBC. The overall safety profile was tolerable.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02860000

Clinical trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of people with cancer. ASCO and the Association of Community Cancer Centers collaborated on a quality improvement study to enhance racial and ethnic equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in cancer clinical trials. The groups conducted a pilot study to examine the feasibility, utility, and face validity of a two-part clinical trial site self-assessment to enable diverse types of research sites in the United States to (1) review internal data to assess racial and ethnic disparities in screening and enrollment and (2) review their policies, programs, procedures to identify opportunities and strategies to improve EDI. Overall, 81% of 62 participating sites were satisfied with the assessment; 82% identified opportunities for improvement; and 63% identified specific strategies and 74% thought the assessment had potential to help their site increase EDI. The assessment increased awareness about performance (82%) and helped identify specific strategies (63%) to increase EDI in trials. Although most sites (65%) were able to provide some data on the number of patients that consented, only two sites were able to provide all requested trial screening, offering, and enrollment data by race and ethnicity. Documenting and evaluating such data are critical steps toward improving EDI and are key to identifying and addressing disparities more broadly. ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers will partner with sites to better understand their processes and the feasibility of collecting screening, offering, and enrollment data in systematic and automated ways.