Citations

627 Background: With more centers using MRI to aid in initial staging, there is apprehension that the highly sensitive MRI exam may lead to “unnecessary” mastectomies. We evaluated whether a negative contralateral MRI could be used to rule out a synchronous contralateral carcinoma and hence avoid a prophylactic contralateral mastectomy (CPM) at initial breast cancer diagnosis. Methods: Data of women with a new diagnosis of breast cancer (invasive or DCIS) from February 2003-November 2007 at our institution were reviewed. Women who had a negative MRI of the contralateral breast and who subsequently underwent CPM were included. A CPM was one in which there was no histological confirmation of cancer in the contralateral breast before surgery. All mastectomy specimens were analyzed pathologically. True negatives were mastectomy samples which contained no cancer following pathologic examination. False negatives were mastectomy samples which were found to have cancer after pathologic review. Results: 538 women were identified. 51 women met the study criteria. Median patient age was 56 years (range, 33–77). Of the 51 women who underwent a CPM, 2 were found to have pathologic confirmation of cancer. One occult cancer was a 0.3 cm grade 1, invasive lobular carcinoma; the second a 0.5 cm, low grade DCIS. The overall prevalence of synchronous occult contralateral cancer after a negative MRI was 3.9% (95% CI 0.5 - 13.5%). The negative predictive value of MRI was 96.1% (95% CI 86.5 - 99.5%). Conclusions: This study provides pathologic data regarding the utility of a negative contralateral breast MRI in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. The prevalence of a synchronous occult contralateral cancer after a negative MRI in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer is very low. Physicians and patients can be assured that the risk of occult cancer is low in the setting of a normal contralateral MRI, an important fact when considering CPM after a diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

623 Background: Neoadjuvant therapy plays an important role in breast cancer treatment. Unlike patients who undergo surgery followed by adjuvant therapy,there are no established guidelines for surgical management following neoadjuvant therapy. Methods: Surgical practice patterns from 50 patients in N0338 “Phase II trial of Docetaxel and Carboplatin administered every two weeks as induction therapy for Stage II and Stage III breast cancer” were reviewed. The protocol did not mandate surgical therapy leaving the decision to the treating surgeon and patient. Results: 66% of patients underwent mastectomy (M) and 33% underwent breast conservation therapy (BCT). Three (9%) had immediate reconstruction. Eight (24%) underwent contralateral prophylactic M. Residual tumor size did not always impact primary surgical therapy. In the M group 4 (12%) had no residual disease, 15 (45%) < 2cm and 14 (42%) > 2cm; whereas, in the BCT group 1 (6%) had no residual disease, 12 (70%) < 2cm and 4 (24%) > 2cm. Axillary lymph node (ALN) staging varied tremendously. Three (6%) patients presented with palpable lymphadenopathy and proceeded to complete axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) after chemotherapy (CT). Fine needle aspiration (8) or core needle biopsy (7) of the axilla was performed in 15 (30%) patients before CT; 1 was negative and went on to have sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after CT; 14 (94%) were positive with 13 (86%) going on to ALND and 1 SLNB after CT. Five (10%) underwent SLNB prior to CT. One (20%) was positive and went on to have ALND after CT; 4 (8%) were negative and had no further ALN staging. A total of 19 (39%) had SLNB after neoadjuvant therapy; 13 (68%) were positive and underwent ALND; 1 SLNB failed; 2 of 5 that were negative underwent ALND with 1 having a positive lymph node. Ten (20%) underwent ALND with no pre-operative staging with 8 being positive for ALN metastases. Conclusions: Review of study data from multiple institutions revealed no consistent criteria in selection of surgical intervention for the breast tumor or ALN staging. There remains a need for further research in this area to establish standard practice guidelines. Support from NIH, sanofi-aventis, Amgen, Breast Cancer Research Foundation. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

539 Background: An increased baseline sHER-2 concentration is an indicator of poor prognosis in the metastatic and adjuvant settings of HER-2+BC. This study evaluated the levels of sHER-2 during treatment and at time of recurrence in N9831. Methods: Aims were to describe sHER-2 levels during treatment and at time of recurrence in patients (pts) randomized to Arms A (standard chemotherapy) and C (standard chemotherapy with concurrent trastuzumab). Baseline serum samples of 1506 pts from both arms along with 86 recurrence serum samples were analyzed for sHER-2 (ng/mL). In addition, 556 serial samples were obtained in 148 patients over the treatment period. Median follow up was 4.5 years. Statistical methods included repeated measures linear models, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and Cox regression models. Results: Analyzing serial sHER-2 levels during treatment, mean log sHER-2 remained constant in Arm C (estimated slope = 0.004, p = 0.44) while the estimated increase per month was 0.026 (on log e scale) for Arm A (p = 0.0003). Based on the linear model at 18 months, the mean log sHER-2 was 2.98 (95% CI: 2.87–3.09) and 2.55 (95% CI: 2.40–2.70) for Arms A and C, respectively. Among pts with disease recurrence, sHER-2 levels increased in Arm A from baseline to time of recurrence (mean = 72.9, median = 1.7, p =0.005) while sHER-2 levels remained unchanged in Arm C (mean = 9.2, median = -0.9, p = 0.65). While all 86 recurrence patients had baseline sHER2 levels <50, 24% (15/63) of Arm A patients had very high recurrence sHER-2 levels (≥50) as compared to 9% (2/23) on Arm C (p=0.10). Patients with recurrence sHER-2 levels ≥15 had shorter survival time following recurrence with 3 year overall survival of 51% compared to 76% for the <15 sHER-2 group (HR = 2.77; 95% CI: 1.20–6.43, p = 0.02). Conclusions: Based on serial specimens during treatment, the concurrent trastuzumab arm (C) had constant sHER-2 levels, whereas the standard chemotherapy arm (A) had increasing sHER-2 levels. In arm A, recurrence sHER-2 levels increased significantly from baseline while recurrence sHER-2 levels did not change in arm C. Additionally, pts with high sHER-2 levels at recurrence had shorter overall survival following recurrence. Partial support: CA25224, CA114740 , Genentech, Siemens, and the BCRF. [Table: see text]

520 Background: Targeted therapy using trastuzumab (an anti-HER-2 receptor monoclonal antibody) has significantly improved survival in breast carcinoma patients (pts), but determining which pts will respond to this therapy remains a challenge. We previously reported (Miller DV, ASCO 2004 abstract #568) a subset of pts with breast cancers demonstrating focal HER-2 amplified clones (FHAC) amidst otherwise nonamplified tumor cells by fluorescence in-situ hybridization. These accounted for 21% of the HER-2 amplified but immunohistochemistry (IHC) negative cases and 30% of the HER-2 amplified but IHC equivocal cases. The clinical significance of this phenomenon was unclear at that time. We now report the disease-free survival (DFS) data on 91 FHAC pts with a comparison to the diffusely amplified (DA) cases in this trial group. Methods: Breast tumors were evaluated for HER-2 gene amplification using PathVysion™. FHAC cases demonstrated 2–40% of cells with >10 HER-2 signals and HER-2:CEP17 ratio >5.0, regardless of the overall HER-2:CEP17 ratio. Patient and disease characteristics were compared using chi-square tests. Cox regression models compared DFS between pts randomized to arms A (standard chemotherapy) and C (standard chemotherapy with concurrent trastuzumab) within 91 FHAC and 1571 DA cases. Median follow up was 4.0 years. Results: Age, race, menopausal status, surgical procedure, nodal status, histologic type and grade, and tumor size, were not significantly different between pateints with FHAC and DA. Pateints with FHAC had more frequent hormone receptor positivity compared to DA cases (66% vs 50%; p = 0.004). Hazard ratios between pts with FHAC and DA showed that both groups of pts had similar DFS (A: HR = 0.86, p = 0.65; C: HR = 0.72, p = 0.57). Hazard ratios between arms within FHAC and DA groups demonstrated similar benefit from trastuzumab in each group (FHAC: HR = 0.50, p = 0.30; DA: HR = 0.59, p < 0.0001). Results remained consistent when including hormone receptor status in the model. Conclusions: Based on a small number (n = 91) of pts with FHAC, benefit from trastuzumab appears to be similar whether the population of HER-2 amplified cells with breast carcinomas is focal or diffuse. [Table: see text]

e11527 Background: 118 Her2 positive invasive carcinomas were retested centrally at the Mayo Clinic for Her2 status confirmation prior to inclusion in Mayo Clinic Cancer Research Consortium study RC0639 phase II study of cardiac safety and tolerability of adjuvant chemotherapy plus trastuzumab with lapatinib for resected Her2+ breast cancer (MCCRC RC0639). Methods: Central confirmatory methods were immunohistochemical (IHC) Dako HercepTest on a Dako Autostainer using the manufacturer's recommendations and HercepTest kit epitrope retrieval kit and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) using Vysis PathVysion probe kit. Test results are interpreted using ASCO/CAP guidelines (IHC >30%, Her2:CEP 17 ratio >2.2). Results: There is local and central test 3+ IHC concordance in 48 of 53 tumors (agreement 90.6%) and FISH amplification in 29 of 33 tumors (agreement 87.9%), improved or similar results using identical methods to results in NCCTG N9831 adjuvant trial (n=1063, 81.6% IHC; n=813, 88.1% FISH). Of 92 centrally tested 3+ IHC positive tumors, 88 (95.7%) were FISH amplified. 5 centrally tested patients interpreted as Her2 positive by pre-ASCO/CAP guidelines (IHC >10%; HER2:CEP17 ratio >2) are Her2 ineligible using ASCO/CAP guidelines. IHC not confirmed centrally was reviewed by a second pathologist in 16 of 118 specimens. IHC concordance between two central pathologists was 10/16 (62.5%) in negative or equivocal (≤30% IHC staining) specimens; 7/10 (70%) with two reader agreement were FISH amplified and 4/6 (66%) with disagreement were FISH amplified. Conclusions: Concordance in IHC and FISH results between local and central labs is similar or improved since N9831. New ASCO/CAP Her2 testing guidelines change eligibility based on Her2 status in 4.2 % of patients. Equivocal IHC results falling between pre- and post- ASCO/CAP IHC positive thresholds (>10% and <30% IHC strong staining) are only partially resolved by repeat IHC review and/or FISH testing. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in medicine are currently areas of intense exploration, showing potential to automate human tasks and even perform tasks beyond human capabilities. Literacy and understanding of AI/ML methods are becoming increasingly important to researchers and clinicians. The first objective of this review is to provide the novice reader with literacy of AI/ML methods and provide a foundation for how one might conduct an ML study. We provide a technical overview of some of the most commonly used terms, techniques, and challenges in AI/ML studies, with reference to recent studies in cardiac electrophysiology to illustrate key points. The second objective of this review is to use examples from recent literature to discuss how AI and ML are changing clinical practice and research in cardiac electrophysiology, with emphasis on disease detection and diagnosis, prediction of patient outcomes, and novel characterization of disease. The final objective is to highlight important considerations and challenges for appropriate validation, adoption, and deployment of AI technologies into clinical practice.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, providers and patients must engage in shared decision making regarding the pros and cons of early versus delayed interventions for localized skin cancer. Patients at highest risk of COVID‐19 complications are older; are immunosuppressed; and have diabetes, cancer, or cardiopulmonary disease, with multiple comorbidities associated with worse outcomes. Physicians must weigh the patient's risk of COVID‐19 complications in the event of exposure against the risk of worse oncologic outcomes from delaying cancer therapy. Herein, the authors have summarized current data regarding the risk of COVID‐19 complications and mortality based on age and comorbidities and have reviewed the literature assessing how treatment delays affect oncologic outcomes. They also have provided multidisciplinary recommendations regarding the timing of local therapy for early‐stage skin cancers during this pandemic with input from experts at 11 different institutions. For patients with Merkel cell carcinoma, the authors recommend prioritizing treatment, but a short delay can be considered for patients with favorable T1 disease who are at higher risk of COVID‐19 complications. For patients with melanoma, the authors recommend delaying the treatment of patients with T0 to T1 disease for 3 months if there is no macroscopic residual disease at the time of biopsy. Treatment of tumors ≥T2 can be delayed for 3 months if the biopsy margins are negative. For patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, those with Brigham and Women's Hospital T1 to T2a disease can have their treatment delayed for 2 to 3 months unless there is rapid growth, symptomatic lesions, or the patient is immunocompromised. The treatment of tumors ≥T2b should be prioritized, but a 1‐month to 2‐month delay is unlikely to worsen disease‐specific mortality. For patients with squamous cell carcinoma in situ and basal cell carcinoma, treatment can be deferred for 3 months unless the individual is highly symptomatic.

529 Background: Multiple prognostic models exist to predict late relapse risk in early stage hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC). The CTS5 is one such model that has been validated in HR+ HER2-negative BC. The value of this model in HR+ HER2+ has not been established. Here, we assessed CTS5 in patients (pts) with early stage HER2+ BC treated in the NCCTG N9831 (Alliance) trial. Methods: Pts with stage I-III HER2+ HR+ BC who survived ≥ 5 years were included. The online CTS5 calculator was used to determine CTS5 score and risk group (low, intermediate, and high) based on age, tumor size, grade, and number of involved nodes. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates, Cox regression models, and C index were used for analysis. Results: From 3,130 pts, 1,204 pts met the criteria and were included. Median age was 49 (22-79) years and median tumor size was 2.4 (0.1-12) cm. 63.6% had grade 3 tumors, 33.6% grade 2, and 2.8% grade 1. Median follow up was 10.89 (5.01-15.32) years. Based on CTS5, 821 (68.2%) pts were classified as high risk, 289 (24%) as intermediate risk, and 94 (7.8%) as low risk. Overall, using univariate Cox regression analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in recurrence free survival (RFS) among pts with intermediate vs. low (HR 0.47 95%CI 0.18-1.22, p = 0.12) and high vs. low (HR1.23 95%CI0.57-2.67, p = 0.6) with the C index of 0.58. Among pts who received concurrent trastuzumab (H) with HR+ BC, there was also no statistical difference in RFS between high vs. low (HR 0.68 95%CI0.24-1.97, p = 0.48) with the C index of 0.55. Paradoxically, pts with intermediate risk had better RFS than low risk (HR 0.18 95%CI0.03-0.97, p = 0.05). As a continuous variable, there is also no significant improvement in RFS per 1 unit increase in CTS5 score (HR 1.19 95%CI 0.73-1.96, p = 0.49) with the C index of 0.54. After 5 years, 7.06% (n = 30/425) of HR+ pts treated with concurrent H recurred. Conclusions: The CTS5 model is not prognostic in pts with early stage HR+ HER2+ BC receiving adjuvant H. While most HR+ HER2+ pts are classified as high risk by CTS5, the recurrence between years 5-10 was low in pts who received adjuvant H. This study highlights the need to develop a new predictive model for risk of late relapse in this specific group of pts to enable clinicians to determine which pts would benefit from extended adjuvant endocrine therapy. Support: BCRF-19-161, U10CA180821, Genentech. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Clinical trial information: NCT00005970 .