Citations

Abstract Background: Quality of life (QOL) in breast cancer patients (pts) can be greatly impacted by initial treatment and ongoing therapy, particularly if side effects and symptoms are not well tolerated. The PALLAS trial investigated whether the addition of 2 years of palbociclib (palbo) to adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) improved invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) over adjuvant ET alone. We report on the main patient-reported outcome (PRO) quality of life (QOL) and symptom severity results of this trial by treatment arm. Methods: PALLAS is an ongoing multicenter, open label phase 3 trial that enrolled hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative, stage II-III breast cancer patients at 406 cancer centers across 21 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either 2 years of palbo (125mg/day, 3 weeks on 1 week off) plus ongoing provider or patient-choice adjuvant ET (palbo+ET) versus ongoing ET alone. The primary study endpoint was iDFS. Treatment with palbo in all pts stopped at the time of the second interim analysis (5/2020) due to futility; all pts then moved to follow up. The PRO analyses were triggered for completion after awareness of the pre-specified 469 iDFS cases in November 2020. Eight PRO endpoints were measured serially (i.e., day 1 of each monthly cycle for the first 3 months, then every 3 months for the first 2 years, and once at year 3). The endpoints were the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/QOL score, the Brief Fatigue Inventory score, the modified Brief Pain Inventory severity and pain interference scores, the EORTC QLQ-BR23 alopecia score, and the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial hot flash symptoms, vaginal problems, and musculoskeletal pain scores. Linear mixed models compared the average difference between arms across time points during the initial 2-year treatment period adjusting for cycle 1 day 1 (C1D1) PRO scores, demographic and clinical variables. The average differences between arms (palbo+ET vs ET alone) and the two-sided (1-[0.05/8]) x 100% confidence intervals, adjusted for multiple comparisons, were calculated. Analysis of covariance compared the average between-arm differences by endpoint at 3 years. Results: The PRO intention to collect population included 4688 (81%) of the overall trial pts, and was clinically and demographically representative of the remaining 1073 pts. Each analysis population, with measures at C1D1 and at least 1 post-C1D1 assessment for each PRO endpoint, comprised ≥ 89% of the 4688 pts and the proportions were similar between arms. After adjustment for baseline covariates, on average, no clinically important differences between arms were observed for any of the eight endpoints over the 2 year treatment period (Table 1). All effect sizes were below the pre-specified 0.2 threshold. These PRO results were similar at the 3 year time point. Conclusions: No clinically significant differences in either patient-reported QOL or symptom severity were found, on average, between participants in the two PALLAS treatment arms while either taking palbo+ET or ET alone, or after study-wide termination of palbo. In general, the addition of palbociclib in the adjuvant breast cancer setting did not contribute to increased symptom burden within this survivorship population. Further analyses will examine the relationship between PROs and treatment discontinuation by arm and study time point. Support: AFT, Pfizer, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Table 1.Results of the Patient-Reported QOL and Symptom Severity Analyses Between the Two Treatment Arms During the First 2 Years of PALLASPRO Endpoint *Palbo + ET Adjusted average score (95% CI)ET alone Adjusted average score (95% CI)Average Difference + (Palbo + ET vs ET alone)[99.38% CI] Clinically ++ Important DifferenceEORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QOL71.7 (71.2, 72.2)74.0 (73.5, 74.5)-2.3 (-3.3, -1.4)**NoBrief Fatigue Inventory Score2.3 (2.2, 2.3)2.1 (2.0, 2.1)0.2 (0.1, 0.3)NoModified Brief Pain Inventory - Severity Score2.3 (2.2, 2.3)2.4 (2.4, 2.5)-0.2 (-0.3, -0.1)NoModified Brief Pain Inventory - Interference Score1.7 (1.6, 1.7)1.7 (1.6, 1.7)0.0 (-0.1, 0.1)NoEORTC QLQ-BR23 Alopecia1.4 (1.4, 1.4)1.3 (1.3, 1.3)0.1 (0.1, 0.1)NoBreast Cancer Prevention Trial - Hot Flash Symptoms1.2 (1.2, 1.3)1.2 (1.2, 1.3)0.0 (-0.1, 0.1)NoBreast Cancer Prevention Trial - Vaginal Problems0.8 (0.8, 0.8)0.8 (0.7, 0.8)0.0 (0.0, 0.1)NoBreast Cancer Prevention Trial - Musculoskeletal Pain1.2 (1.2, 1.2)1.3 (1.3, 1.3)-0.1 (-0.2, 0.0)No* For the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QOL subscale, higher scores indicate better QOL. For all other PRO endpoints, higher scores indicate worse symptom levels. ** The lower bound of the one-sided CI (adjusted for multiple comparisons) was -3.3. Because the lower limit is greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -3.44, non-inferiority of palbo+ET relative to ET-alone was concluded. The non-inferiority margin corresponds to a 0.2 SD in the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health/QOL score. +The average difference was adjusted for the following baseline covariates: Cycle 1 day 1 score, region (if applicable), age category, first adjuvant ET, race, ethnicity, N-stage, T-stage, histological grade, PgR, prior chemotherapy, ECOG Performance Status. ++Based on each instrument’s published clinically relevant cut-offs, if available. After calculating Cohen’s d treatment effect sizes, (i.e. by dividing the average difference by the ET-alone arm standard deviation from cycle 1 day 1), all effect sizes were below the pre-specified 0.2 threshold, and would not be considered clinically important. Citation Format: Michelle Joy Naughton, David Zahrieh, Michael Gnant, Nicholas Zdenkowski, Julie Lemieux, Jun J Mao, Vesna Bjelic-Radisic, Eileen Shinn, Marija Balic, Christoph Thomssen, Jane Neisel, Manuel Ruiz-Echarri, Sibylle Loibl, Claudine Isaacs, David Cameron, Fernando Manuel Henao Carrasco, Matthew Goetz, Viktor Wette, Gustavo Werutsky, Hope Rugo, Marcus Vetter, Ling-Ming Tseng, Kathy Miller, Florian Fitzal, Juan Miguel Gil Gil, Haeseong Park, Barbro Linderholm, Emilio Bajetta, Zoneddy Dayao, Aleix Prat, Karin Ehrhardt, Otto Metzger, Amal Arahmani, Ernest Law, Ann Partridge, Lisa Carey, Alex Zoroufy, Amylou Dueck, Dominik Hlauschek, Angela DeMichele, Erica Mayer. Quality of life and symptom severity in the PALLAS randomized trial of palbociclib with adjuvant endocrine therapy in early breast cancer (AFT-05) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-10-01.

Abstract Background: MET has been associated with beneficial anti-cancer effects in epidemiologic and preclinical research. It may act indirectly by reversing obesity associated physiologic changes or directly via mitochondrial mediated effects on LKB1/AMPK/mTOR and other mechanisms. MA.32 investigated the effect of MET vs PLAC (in addition to standard therapy) on adjuvant BC outcomes. Design: Randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind Phase III clinical trial conducted within the NCI US National Clinical Trials Network, NCRI (UK) BG, IBCSG. Methods: Between 2010-2013 BC patients < 75 yo without diabetes (DM) with high risk T1-3, N0-3 M0 BC regardless of ER, PgR, HER2 and with adequate cardiac, renal and hepatic function were randomized (stratified for ER/PgR + vs -, BMI < vs > 30 kg/m2, HER2 +ve vs -ve, any vs no chemo) within 1 year of BC diagnosis to MET 850 mg po bid or PLAC bid for 5 years. Dose was reduced for toxicity with re-escalation when possible. Subjects were followed for Invasive Disease-Free Survival (IDFS primary outcome; events included invasive local/regional recurrences, distant recurrences, new ipsilateral/contralateral invasive BCs, new non-breast primary cancers, any death), Overall Survival (OS), Distant Relapse Free Survival (DRFS), BC Specific Survival (BCSS), BC Free Interval (BCFI), contralateral BC and cardiovascular (CV) events/new DM. 3582 subjects were required for 80% power to detect HR 0.76 (431 events). In 2011, entry was restricted to higher risk BC, leading to 80% power to detect HR 0.785 (544 events). In 2016, after the 2nd interim analysis at 29.5 months median F/U, the DSMB recommended (i) the intervention be continued with primary analysis triggered at 544 events be conducted in ER/PgR +ve (any HER2) subjects only and (ii) ER/PgR -ve subjects stop study drug for futility but blinding and follow-up continue. In 2021, a time driven analysis in ER/PgR +ve BC was approved (465 events providing 80% power to detect the original HR 0.76). Time to event survival described by the Kaplan-Meier method. Two-sided log-rank tests adjusting for stratification factors were primarily used to compare IDFS between arms. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify and adjust for factors significantly related to IDFS. Results: 3649 subjects were enrolled. In the 2533 ER/PgR +ve subjects included in the primary analysis, baseline mean (± SD) age was 52.7 (±9.9 yrs); mean BMI 28.8 (±6.4) kg/m2. Baseline tumor characteristics were balanced: T stage 1/2/3/4 = 832/1351/349/1; N stage 0/1/2/3 = 964/1097/449/23; HER2+ 429. 1901 (75%) received XRT. 2150 (84.9%) received (neo)adj chemo, 2223 (87.8%) (neo)adj hormones and 434 (17.1%) HER2 targeted therapy. Any Grade ≥ 3 toxicity was similar in MET and PLAC arms (21.7% and 18.7%, P = 0.06). Median follow-up was 96.2 (range 0.2-121.0) months with 465 IDFS events (234 MET, 231 PLAC, 76% due to BC). Efficacy results are shown below. MET vs PLACMET vs PLACIDFSOSPopulation Included# subjectsHR (95% CI)HR (95% CI)PRIMARY ANALYSISER/PgR +ve (any HER2)*25331.01 (0.84-1.21). P=0.920.89 (0.64-1.23). P=0.46ER/PgR -ve (any HER211161.01 (0.79-1.30. P=0.92)0.89 (0.64-1.23). P=0.46Exploratory. AnalysisHER2 +ve (any ER/PgR)6200.64 (0.43-0.95. P=0.0260.53 (0.30-0.98. P=0.0398**in ER/PgR pos BC HRs were similar for BCFI, DRFS, BCSS (ranging from 0.98-1.09)Conclusions: MET did not improve IDFS or other BC outcomes in ER/PgR positive or ER/PgR negative BC and should not be used as adjuvant treatment. Exploratory findings suggesting benefit in HER2+ve BC should be further investigated. Funded by: CCSRI, NCI (US), CBCF, BCRF, CRUK, Hold’Em for Life Charity, Apotex (Canada) Citation Format: Pamela J. Goodwin, Bingshu E Chen, Karen A Gelmon, Timothy J Whelan, Marguerite Ennis, Julie Lemieux, Jennifer A Ligibel, Dawn L Hershman, Ingrid A Mayer, Timothy J Hobday, Judith M Bliss, Priya Rastogi, Manuela Rabaglio-Poretti, Som D. Mukherjee, Robert R Mackey, Vandana G Abramson, Conrad Oja, Robert Wesolowski, Alastair M Thompson, Daniel W Rea, Paul M Stos, Lois E Shepherd, Vuk Stambolic, Wendy R Parulekar. CCTGMA.32, a phase III randomized double-blind placebo controlled adjuvant trial of metformin (MET) vs placebo (PLAC) in early breast cancer (BC): Results of the primary efficacy analysis (clinical trials.gov NCT01101438) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS1-08.

Abstract Background: There is no clinical equipoise on the best upfront management of patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer (BC) that is high-risk by clinicopathologic criteria, and low-risk based on molecular profiling. These patients are unlikely to respond to chemotherapy. However, these patients still have risk, often risk of late recurrence, despite standard adjuvant endocrine therapy. Novel endocrine-based strategies that are more effective and tolerable than current standard therapies are needed for this population. Next-generation orally-bioavailable selective estrogen receptor degraders (oSERDs) with improved pharmacokinetic (PK) properties are promising potential therapies for HR+ BC. The oSERD amcenestrant has demonstrated a favorable safety profile and encouraging efficacy in a phase I/II dose escalation and expansion trial for heavily pre-treated patients with HR+ metastatic BC and is an attractive agent for assessment in the neoadjuvant BC setting. The neoadjuvant setting offers a unique opportunity to study novel agents and to assess early biological endpoints. However, one of the challenges in studying endocrine-based strategies in the neoadjuvant setting is the lack of a robust surrogate endpoint to reliably predict response and benefit. The I-SPY2 Endocrine Optimization Protocol (EOP) is a pilot sub-study within the main I-SPY2 TRIAL that will test amcenestrant alone or in combination with abemaciclib or letrozole. EOP will test the feasibility of using the I-SPY2 platform to test novel endocrine-based strategies in the neoadjuvant setting in patients with clinical high-risk, molecular low-risk, HR+/HER2- tumors, and will generate a rich database of imaging, molecular, and pathologic correlative endpoints that may potentially inform the improved assessment of response to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. Trial Design/Eligibility/Accrual: The I-SPY2 EOP is a prospective, randomized, open-label trial specifically for patients with HR+/HER2-negative MammaPrint (MP) low-risk tumors that are at least 2.5 cm in size. Eligible patients are identified during the screening process for the parent I-SPY2 trial. The planned total accrual for the EOP is 120 patients. Patients are randomized 1:1:1 to one of 3 oral treatment arms: 1) amcenestrant 200 mg daily; 2) amcenestrant 200 mg daily + abemaciclib 150 mg bid; 3) amcenestrant 200 mg daily + letrozole 2.5 mg daily. Patients are treated for 6 months prior to surgery. Premenopausal women must receive concomitant monthly ovarian suppression. Serial breast MRIs, breast biopsies, blood, and patient reported outcomes (PROs) are being collected, and patients will be followed for 10 years for recurrence and survival. Serial dedicated breast PET (dbPET) scans and PKs will be assessed in a subset of patients. Objectives/Statistics: The primary objective of the EOP is to investigate the feasibility of enrolling and treating molecularly-selected patients with early stage HR+/HER2- MP low-risk BC in a randomized neoadjuvant trial using an oral-SERD backbone. Treatment will be determined to be feasible if ≥75% of enrolled patients complete ≥75% of assigned study therapy. Secondary objectives include the safety, tolerability, PROs, and PKs related to amcenestrant +/- abemacilcib and letrozole, as well as the assessment of imaging, pathologic, and molecular correlative endpoints as potential biomarkers of response to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. Status: This study opened in May 2021. Accrual is ongoing. Citation Format: A. Jo Chien, Kevin M Kalinsky, Julissa Molina-Vega, Rita Mukhtar, Karthik Giridhar, Olufunmilayo I Olopade, Amrita Basu, Smita M Asare, Paul Henderson, Gillian Hirst, Ruixiao Lu, Ella Jones, Nola Hylton, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Laura J van 't Veer, Douglas Yee, Ingrid Mayer, Laura J Esserman. I-SPY2 endocrine optimization protocol (EOP): A pilot neoadjuvant endocrine therapy study with amcenestrant as monotherapy or in combination with abemacicilib or letrozole in molecularly selected HR+/HER2- clinical stage 2/3 breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-10-02.

Abstract Background Advances in the multidisciplinary care of hormone-receptor positive (HR+) early breast cancer (eBC) have markedly improved clinical outcomes: however, disease recurrence may still occur, particularly in patients (pts) with moderate or high-risk cancers at the time of diagnosis. The use of CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) combined with endocrine therapy (ET) is a standard of care for advanced breast cancer, supporting the rationale to study CDK4/6i in the eBC setting. Here we present the final protocol-planned analyses of the global phase III PALLAS trial investigating whether the addition of the CDK4/6i palbociclib (P) to adjuvant ET improves outcomes over ET alone for HR+/HER2- eBC. Methods PALLAS (PALbociclib CoLlaborative Adjuvant Study, NCT02513394) is a randomized phase III open-label trial in which pts with stage II-III HR+/HER2- eBC were randomized to receive either 2 years of P with adjuvant ET (P+ET) or ET alone. The primary endpoint is invasive disease-free survival (iDFS); secondary endpoints include distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS), locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Mandatory biospecimen collection has supported the creation of an expansive translational science program, and long-term follow-up is planned. Revised sample size calculations required recruitment of 5600 pts in order to detect a 25% iDFS improvement in patients receiving P+ET with 85% power; this final protocol-planned analysis was planned after 469 iDFS events. Results From September 1, 2015 to November 30, 2018, 5,761 pts (median age 52 years, range 22-90) were randomized in 406 centers in 21 countries worldwide. 1,014 (17.6%) had stage IIA disease (capped) and 4,728 (82.1%) stages IIB/III. 4,754 (82.5%) had received prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. After a protocol-planned 2nd interim analysis in May 2020 crossed the futility threshold, 349 P+ET pts still on active treatment stopped P and were transferred to follow-up. At the time of final analysis cutoff date (November 20, 2020), after a median follow-up of 31 months and 516 events recorded, iDFS was similar between the two arms, with 3-year iDFS of 89.3% (95% CI: 87.8-90.6%) for Palbo+ET, and 89.4% (88.0-90.7%) for ET alone (hazard ratio 0.96, 95% CI: 0.81-1.14). There was no statistically significant difference in secondary outcome endpoints. Subgroup analyses revealed no significant interactions between treatment effect and other factors (including risk category). The safety profile of P was as expected, with grade 3 or 4 neutropenia the most common side effect (safety population: 1759/2841 [61.9%] vs 11/2902 [0.4%]). Overall 42% of pts. discontinued P prior to the planned 2-year duration, 28.2% of Palbo+ET pts discontinued therapy due to adverse events, without an observed impact on survival outcomes. Conclusions Now with the full number of events, this analysis of the PALLAS trial shows that the addition of 2 years of P to ongoing adjuvant ET did not improve survival endpoints for pts with stage II-III HR+/HER2- eBC. Whether P is beneficial in the adjuvant setting for certain sub-groups of pts will be further evaluated with longer-term follow-up and by the ongoing translational science program. Support: ABCSG; AFT; Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02513394; https://www.abcsg.org; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Citation Format: Michael Gnant, Amylou C Dueck, Sophie Frantal, Miguel Martin, Hal Burstein, Richard Greil, Peter Fox, Antonio C Wolff, Arlene Chan, Eric Winer, Christian Singer, Kathy Miller, Marco Colleoni, Michelle Naughton, Gabor Rubovszky, Judith Bliss, Ingrid A Mayer, Guenther G Steger, Zbigniew Nowecki, Olwen Hahn, Norman Wolmark, Hope Rugo, Georg Pfeiler, Hannes Fohler, Otto Metzger, Céline Schurmans, Kathy P Theall, Dongrui R Lu, Kathleen Tenner, Christian Fesl, Angela DeMichele*, Erica L Mayer, *shared last authorship. Adjuvant palbociclib in HR+/HER2- early breast cancer: Final results from 5,760 patients in the randomized phase III PALLAS trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS1-07.

Background: Palliative Care (PC) encompasses an integrated health care philosophy of care for individuals with serious illnesses and their families. Referrals to palliative care often come from other healthcare clinicians who lack the time and skill required to address the needs of the patient and their caregivers. At its heart, palliative care is individualized to the values, beliefs, and goals of the patient. The process of eliciting values, beliefs, and goals takes time and expertise, and correspondingly, palliative care is labor intensive. To date, there has been no concentrated focus on how to accurately capture the productivity or work of palliative care clinicians. As a result, there is not a universally accepted method of measuring the effort which includes impact, activity, composition, and productivity of a palliative care program. Objective: This paper reviews results obtained during a telephone survey of similar hospital-based palliative care programs on how they measure productivity. Currently, based on the survey, there are two focused methods for benchmarking: work relative value units (wRVU) and consult volume. This paper highlights the variability of wRVUs and the challenge of using them to compare different PC programs. Design: The design was an open-ended question telephone survey. Using the characteristics of our hospital program, the team created a composite of descriptions to consider for comparison. Then, various hospital-based palliative care teams were selected based on publicly reported data through Vizient, a national benchmarking organization. Based on a literature review, an open-ended question survey was created. These questions explored program composition, clinician productivity and performance benchmarks. Data was collected manually and stored in a confidential file. Result: Ninety-four programs were queried that met the following composite: (1) participated in Vizient program and (2) self-reported a hospital-based, inpatient palliative program. Forty-one programs responded to the request to participate. Of these, 32 programs consisted of facilities who had hospitalists who provided palliative care, but there was not a dedicated palliative care team. Nine programs had a dedicated palliative care team with clinicians who only practiced palliative medicine. Inquiry to these programs revealed that within these nine programs—two methods of capturing clinician productivity were used—five sites used a wRVU metric and four sites used a consult volume metric. Conclusion: Preliminary findings support the complexity of benchmarking PC programs against peer institutions with a standard productivity model based on the variability in program composition.

Abstract Background Limited and conflicting findings have been reported regarding the association between social support and colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes. We sought to assess the influences of marital status and living arrangement on survival outcomes among patients with stage III colon cancer. Patients and Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of 1082 patients with stage III colon cancer prospectively followed in the CALGB 89803 randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial. Marital status and living arrangement were both self-reported at the time of enrollment as, respectively, married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never-married, and living alone, with a spouse or partner, with other family, in a nursing home, or other. Results Over a median follow-up of 7.6 years, divorced/separated/widowed patients experienced worse outcomes relative to those married regarding disease free-survival (DFS) (hazards ratio (HR), 1.44 (95% CI, 1.14-1.81); P =.002), recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR, 1.35 (95% CI, 1.05-1.73); P = .02), and overall survival (OS) (HR, 1.40 (95% CI, 1.08-1.82); P =.01); outcomes were not significantly different for never-married patients. Compared to patients living with a spouse/partner, those living with other family experienced a DFS of 1.47 (95% CI, 1.02-2.11; P = .04), RFS of 1.34 (95% CI, 0.91-1.98; P = .14), and OS of 1.50 (95% CI, 1.00-2.25; P =.05); patients living alone did not experience significantly different outcomes. Conclusion Among patients with stage III colon cancer who received uniform treatment and follow-up within a nationwide randomized clinical trial, being divorced/separated/widowed and living with other family were significantly associated with greater colon cancer mortality. Interventions enhancing social support services may be clinically relevant for this patient population. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00003835

PURPOSECurrent tools in predicting survival outcomes for patients with colon cancer predominantly rely on clinical and pathologic characteristics, but increasing evidence suggests that diet and lifestyle habits are associated with patient outcomes and should be considered to enhance model accuracy.METHODSUsing an adjuvant chemotherapy trial for stage III colon cancer (CALGB 89803), we developed prediction models of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival by additionally incorporating self-reported nine diet and lifestyle factors. Both models were assessed by multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and externally validated using another trial for stage III colon cancer (CALGB/SWOG 80702), and visual nomograms of prediction models were constructed accordingly. We also proposed three hypothetical scenarios for patients with (1) good-risk, (2) average-risk, and (3) poor-risk clinical and pathologic features, and estimated their predictive survival by considering clinical and pathologic features with or without adding self-reported diet and lifestyle factors.RESULTSAmong 1,024 patients (median age 60.0 years, 43.8% female), we observed 394 DFS events and 311 deaths after median follow-up of 7.3 years. Adding self-reported diet and lifestyle factors to clinical and pathologic characteristics meaningfully improved performance of prediction models (c-index from 0.64 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.67] to 0.69 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.72] for DFS, and from 0.67 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.70] to 0.71 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.75] for overall survival). External validation also indicated good performance of discrimination and calibration. Adding most self-reported favorable diet and lifestyle exposures to multivariate modeling improved 5-year DFS of all patients and by 6.3% for good-risk, 21.4% for average-risk, and 42.6% for poor-risk clinical and pathologic features.CONCLUSIONDiet and lifestyle factors further inform current recurrence and survival prediction models for patients with stage III colon cancer.

PURPOSE The PALLAS study investigated whether the addition of palbociclib, an oral CDK4/6 inhibitor, to adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) improves invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in early hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2–) breast cancer. In this analysis, we evaluated palbociclib exposure and discontinuation in PALLAS. METHODS Patients with stage II-III HR+, HER2– disease were randomly assigned to 2 years of palbociclib with adjuvant ET versus ET alone. The primary objective was to compare iDFS between arms. Continuous monitoring of toxicity, dose modifications, and early discontinuation was performed. Association of baseline covariates with time to palbociclib reduction and discontinuation was analyzed with multivariable competing risk models. Landmark and inverse probability weighted per-protocol analyses were performed to assess the impact of drug persistence and exposure on iDFS. RESULTS Of the 5,743 patient analysis population (2,840 initiating palbociclib), 1,199 (42.2%) stopped palbociclib before 2 years, the majority (772, 27.2%) for adverse effects, most commonly neutropenia and fatigue. Discontinuation of ET did not differ between arms. Discontinuations for non–protocol-defined reasons were greater in the first 3 months of palbociclib, and in the first calendar year of accrual, and declined over time. No significant relationship was seen between longer palbociclib duration or ≥ 70% exposure intensity and improved iDFS. In the weighted per-protocol analysis, no improvement in iDFS was observed in patients receiving palbociclib versus not (hazard ratio 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.11). CONCLUSION Despite observed rates of discontinuation in PALLAS, analyses suggest that the lack of significant iDFS difference between arms was not directly related to inadequate palbociclib exposure. However, the discontinuation rate illustrates the challenge of introducing novel adjuvant treatments, and the need for interventions to improve persistence with oral cancer therapies.