Citations

LBA1 Background: In hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative, axillary node (AN)-negative breast cancer, the 21-gene expression assay (Oncotype DX Recurrence Score [RS]) is prognostic for distant recurrence, prognostic for low recurrence with endocrine therapy alone if low (0-10), and predictive of chemotherapy benefit if high (26 or higher). We performed a prospective, randomized trial of endocrine therapy (ET) versus chemoendocrine therapy (CET) in women with a mid-range RS of 11-25. Methods: Eligibility criteria included women 18-75 years of age with HR-positive, HER2-negative, axillary node (AN)-negative breast cancer and tumors 1.1-5.0 cm in size (or 0.6-1.0 cm and int/high grade) and agreed to have chemotherapy assigned or randomized based on the RS. Women with a mid-range RS (11-25) were randomized to receive ET or CET. The primary endpoint was invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), and the trial was designed to show non-inferiority for ET alone by not rejecting equality (hazard ratio [HR] margin up to 1.322 for omission of chemotherapy, 1-sided type I error rate 10%, type II error rate 5%). The target sample size was adjusted to compensate for non-adherence to randomized treatment, and the protocol-specified final analysis was triggered after 835 iDFS events. Results: Of the 10,253 eligible women enrolled between 4/7/06-10/6/10, 6711 (65.5%) had a RS of 11-25 and adequate information. There were 836 iDFS events at final analysis with a median followup of 90 months. ET was non-inferior to CET for iDFS (HR 1.08, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.94, 1.24, p=0.26) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. ET was also non-inferior for distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI; HR 1.03, p=0.80), recurrence-free interval (RFI; HR 1.12, p=0.28), and overall survival (OS; HR 0.97, p=0.80). Nine year rates were similar for iDFS (83.3% vs. 84.3%), DRFI (94.5% vs. 95.0%), RFI (92.2% vs. 92.9%), and OS (93.9% vs. 93.8%). Recurrence accounted for 338 (41.6%) the first iDFS event, of which 199 (23.8%) were distant recurrences. Treatment interaction tests were significant for age (iDFS p=0.03; RFI p= 0.02), but not menopause, tumor size, grade, or RS (continuous or RS 11-15, 16-20, 21-25). Conclusions: In women with HR-positive, HER2-negative, AN-negative breast cancer and a RS of 11-25, adjuvant ET was not inferior to CET in the ITT analysis. (Funded by NCI, BCRF, and Komen Foundation.) Clinical trial information: NCT00310180.

Abstract Background: Late recurrence 5 or more years after diagnosis accounts for least one-half of all breast cancer recurrences, especially in hormone receptor (HR)+ disease. Biomarkers prognostic for late recurrence offer potential to more accurately identify subjects who might benefit from extended adjuvant endocrine therapy, or novel strategies to reduce late recurrence risk. Methods: CTCs were assessed at a single time point using the CELL SEARCH® assay in patients without clinical evidence of recurrence between 4.5-7.5 years after an initial diagnosis of HER2- stage II-III breast cancer and enrolled in trial E5103; all patients received surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy for at least 5 years if HR+ disease. Patients were followed for evidence of clinical recurrence in accordance with standard care, and the association between CTCs and clinical recurrence was evaluated. Results: 546 patients without clinical evidence of recurrence enrolled between 2/25/13-7/29/16 and provided a blood sample that yielded a CTC result; 16 (2.9%) subsequently had a recurrence, of whom 15 had HR-positive disease. The median time between enrollment on E5103 and CTC assay was 5.2 years, and median/mean followup after the CTC assay was 1.6 years (range 0-3.9 years). The CTC assay was positive in 27 (4.9%) (median CTC count 1/7.5 ml blood, range 1-15). There were no significant differences in patient characteristics in the CTC+ vs. CTC- cases, including age < 50 years at initial diagnosis (52% vs. 44%), tumor size > 2 cm (63% vs. 59%), >/= 1 positive axillary node (81% vs. 72%), ER and/or PR+ (70% vs. 64%) or poor histologic grade (44% vs 55%). The recurrence rate per person-year in the CTC+ vs. CTC- groups was 19.6% vs. 1.1%, respectively (P<0.01). The median/mean time to recurrence after a positive CTC assay was 2.8 years. In multivariate analysis adjusted for clinical covariates (see table), a positive CTC assay was associated with an 18.3-fold increased risk of recurrence. Univariate and Multivariate Analysis - Association Between CTC Status and RecurrenceCovariateHazard Ratio for Recurrence - Univariate Analysis (95% CI)Hazard Ratio for Recurrence - Multivariate Analysis (95% CI)Age < 50 years3.4 (0.95-11.8)3.0 (0.8-10.9)Tumor size > 2 cm4.2 (0.98-19.2)2.9 (0.6-13.2)>/= 1+ node2.6 (0.59-11.5)0.7 (0.1-3.8)ER and/or PR+8.3 (1.1-63.5)7.7 (0.7-79.9)Poor grade0.43 (0.14-1.2)1.2 (0.4-3.8)CTC -pos vs CTC-neg20.9 (7.5-58.3)18.3 (5.7-58.2) Conclusions: A single positive CTC assay in patients without clinical evidence of recurrence 5 years after diagnosis of stage II-III HR+, HER2- breast cancer provides independent prognostic information for late recurrence, providing proof of concept for using liquid-based biomarkers for late relapse risk assessment. These findings provide a foundation for further evaluation of this new risk assessment paradigm using CTC and other blood-based assays in this setting, and designing clinical trials to tailor therapeutic risk interventions. Supported by Breast Cancer Research Foundation (J. Sparano; R. Comis) and Susan G. Komen Foundation (J. Sparano), and by the National Cancer Institute (CA180820, CA180794, CA180790, CA180791, CA180795, CA180802, CA180816, CA180821, CA189859). Citation Format: Sparano JA, O'Neill A, Alpaugh K, Wolff AC, Northfelt DW, Dang C, Sledge, Jr. GW, Miller KD. Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) five years after diagnosis are prognostic for late recurrence in operable stage II-III breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS6-03.

Abstract Background: Abemaciclib is an orally administered, selective inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 & 6 that is dosed on a twice daily continuous schedule. Abemaciclib has demonstrated clinical efficacy with a generally tolerable safety profile in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer in combination with fulvestrant in MONARCH 2 (NCT02107703) and in combination with non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAI) in MONARCH 3 (NCT02246621). These analyses were conducted to evaluate if patient and disease characteristics may better inform in whom and when abemaciclib should be initiated to define optimal treatment strategies. Methods: MONARCH 2 and 3 enrolled patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer. In MONARCH 2, patients whose disease had progressed while receiving endocrine therapy were treated with abemaciclib/placebo plus fulvestrant. In MONARCH 3, patients were treated with abemaciclib/placebo plus NSAI as initial therapy for advanced disease. An exploratory pooled analysis of the two studies was performed to determine significant prognostic factors. Efficacy results (progression-free survival [PFS] and objective response rate [ORR] in patients with measurable disease) were examined for patient subgroups corresponding to each of the identified significant prognostic factors. Subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP) methodology was performed to examine the association between treatment-free interval (TFI) following adjuvant endocrine therapy and outcomes of endocrine therapy alone or in combination with abemaciclib in MONARCH 3. Results: Analyses of clinical factors in over 1000 patients confirmed the following to have prognostic value: bone-only disease, liver metastases, tumor grade, progesterone receptor (PgR) status, and ECOG performance status. Prognosis was poor in patients with liver metastases, PgR-negative tumors, and high-grade tumors. While all subpopulations benefited from the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy regardless of prognosis, substantial benefit of abemaciclib was observed in poor prognosis subgroups, characterized by large increases in PFS (hazard ratios = 0.4 to 0.5) and ORR (over 30%). In addition, STEPP analysis of TFI on a subset of the MONARCH 3 population showed that patients with the shortest TFI appeared to have a poorer prognosis and received more benefit from the addition of abemaciclib compared to patients with longer TFI. Conclusions: This exploratory analysis has provided data that could help optimize treatment strategies by identifying that patients with poor prognostic factors may receive greater benefit from the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy. Citation Format: Goetz MP, O'Shaughnessy J, Sledge Jr. GW, Martin M, Lin Y, Forrester T, Mockbee C, Smith IC, Di Leo A, Johnston S. The benefit of abemaciclib in prognostic subgroups: An exploratory analysis of combined data from the MONARCH 2 and 3 studies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS6-02.

Abstract Background Celecoxib and low-dose aspirin might decrease risk of breast cancer recurrence. Methods In the Canadian Cancer Trials Group MA.27, postmenopausal hormone receptor–positive breast cancer patients were randomly assigned (2 × 2) to adjuvant exemestane or anastrozole, and celecoxib or placebo. Low-dose aspirin of 81 mg or less was a stratification factor. Due to concerns about cardiac toxicity, celecoxib use was stopped in December 2004, while stratification by aspirin use was removed through protocol amendment. We examined the effects of celecoxib and low-dose aspirin on event-free survival (EFS), defined as time from random assignment to time of locoregional or distant disease recurrence, new primary breast cancer, or death from any cause; distant disease–free survival (DDFS); and overall survival (OS). All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Random assignment to celecoxib (n = 811, 50.0%) or placebo (n = 811, 50.0%) was discontinued after 18 months (n = 1622). At a median of 4.1 years’ follow-up, among 1622 patients, 186 (11.5%) patients had an EFS event: 80 (4.9%) had distant relapse, and 125 (7.7%) died from any cause. Celecoxib did not statistically significantly impact EFS, DDFS, or OS in univariate analysis (respectively, P = .92, P = .55, and P = .56) or multivariable analysis (respectively, P = .74, P = .60, and P = .76). Low-dose aspirin use (aspirin users n = 476, 21.5%; non–aspirin users n = 1733, 78.5%) was associated in univariate analyses with worse EFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12 to 1.96, P = 0.006) and worse OS (HR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.35 to 2.61, P < .001). After adjusting for baseline characteristics and treatment arm, aspirin use showed no statistical association with EFS (P = .08) and DDFS (P = .82), but was associated with statistically worse OS (HR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.13 to 2.49, P = .01). Conclusion Random assignment to short-term (≤18 months) celecoxib as well as use of low-dose aspirin showed no effect on DDFS and EFS in multivariable analysis. Low-dose aspirin increased “all-cause” mortality, presumably because of higher preexisting cardiovascular risks.

BACKGROUNDBreast cancer patients in the MA.27 trial had similar outcomes with steroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) exemestane and nonsteroidal anastrozole. AIs increase the risk of osteoporosis. This study examined the effects of self‐reported osteoporosis and osteoporosis therapy (OPT) on outcomes.METHODSThe MA.27 phase 3 adjuvant trial enrolled 7576 postmenopausal women. The primary outcome was event‐free survival (EFS), and the secondary outcome was distant disease–free survival (DDFS). Patients were permitted bisphosphonates to prevent or treat osteopenia/osteoporosis. In a multivariate, stratified Cox regression, factors were significant with a 2‐sided Wald test P value ≤ .05.RESULTSOsteoporosis was reported at the baseline by 654 of the 7576 women (8.6%) and in total by 1294 patients. Oral OPT was received at the baseline by 815 of the 7576 women (10.8%) and in total by 2711 patients (36%). With a median follow‐up of 4.1 years, 693 EFS events (9.15%) and 321 DDFS events (4.2%) occurred. Osteoporosis was not associated with EFS or DDFS. Few EFS events occurred before the initiation of OPT, with no substantive evidence of a time‐differing effect on outcomes (nonproportional hazards). OPT (yes vs no) was significantly associated with improved EFS (hazard ratio [HR] for yes vs no, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57‐0.80; P < .001) and DDFS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44‐0.73; P <. 001). Time‐differing (time‐dependent) OPT was not (EFS; P = .45). OPT did not alter the incidence of visceral‐only metastasis (P = .31).CONCLUSIONSOral OPT, administered to postmenopausal breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant AI therapy, was associated with improved EFS and DDFS; the time of OPT initiation (a time‐dependent effect) did not affect the outcome. OPT did not alter the risk of visceral metastasis. Cancer 2017;123:2444–51. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUNDPublished studies have suggested that most patients with early stage breast cancer are willing, for modest survival benefits, to receive 6 months of adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5‐fluorouracil, an older regimen that is used infrequently today. We examined preferences regarding the survival benefit needed to justify 6 months of a contemporary chemotherapy regimen.METHODSThe Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Protocol 5103 was a phase 3 trial that randomized breast cancer patients to receive standard adjuvant doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel with either bevacizumab or placebo. Serial surveys to assess quality of life were administered to patients enrolled between January 1, 2010, and June 8, 2010. Survival benefit needed to justify 6 months of chemotherapy by patients was collected at the 18‐month assessment. A parallel survey was sent to physicians who had enrolled patients in the study.RESULTSOf 519 patients who had not withdrawn at a time point earlier than 18 months, 87.8% responded to this survey. A total of 175 physicians participated. We found considerable variation in patient preferences, particularly for modest survival benefits: for 2 months of benefit, 57% would consider 6 months of chemotherapy, whereas 96% of patients would consider 6 months of chemotherapy for 24 months. Race and education were associated with the choices. Physicians who responded were less likely to accept chemotherapy for modest benefit.CONCLUSIONSAmong patients who received contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy in a randomized controlled trial, we found substantial variation in preferences regarding benefits that justified undergoing chemotherapy. Differences between patients' and physicians' choices were also apparent. Eliciting preferences regarding risks and benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy is critical. Cancer 2017;123:2821–28. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

36 Background: Black race is associated with worse outcomes in localized breast cancer. We evaluated the characteristics of patients enrolled in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx) by race and ethnicity. Methods: The analysis included 10,071 evaluable patients with Recurrence Score (RS) data. Eligibility criteria included: (1) T1-2, N0 disease, (2) estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PR) positive disease that was also HER2/neu negative, (3) age 75 years or younger and medically appropriate for adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. Results: The study population included 8,501 whites (84%), 722 blacks (7%), 423 Asians (4%), and the remainder other/unknown race. With regard to ethnicity, 7,916 were nonHispanic (79%), 919 were Hispanic (9%), and 1,236 were of unreported ethnicity (12%). There was no significant difference in RS distribution (p = 0.14), median RS (17 vs. 17), and mean RS (19.6 vs. 18.4) in blacks compared with nonblacks. There was likewise no difference in Hispanic vs. nonHispanic ethnicity for RS distribution (p = 0.53), median RS (17 vs. 17), and mean RS (18.6 vs. 18.4). Blacks were significantly more likely to be younger (39% vs. 30% < 50 years), have larger tumors (37% vs. 31% > 2 cm), poor histologic grade (25% vs. 17%), and PR-negative disease (14% vs. 10%) (Chi square test p < 0.05). Hispanic women were also significantly younger (39% vs. 30% < 50 years), and demonstrated marginal but statistically significant differences in tumor size (65% vs. 69% > 2 cm), histologic grade (20% vs. 18% poor), and PR expression (12% vs. 10% negative) (Chi square test < 0.05). In 974 patients with information on body mass index (BMI), there was no correlation between BMI and RS (r = -0.04). BMI was higher for blacks than whites (medians 31.6 vs. 28.9, p = 0.02, Wilcoxon test), but not in Hispanics. Conclusions: In patients selected for participation in TAILORx there were no significant differences in RS by race, ethnicity, and BMI. Black and Hispanic patients were significantly younger, and blacks had tumors that were larger and more likely to be associated with poor grade. Clinical trial information: NCT00310180.

270 Background: Neuropathy is a common and potentially enduring and disabling complication of adjuvant taxane therapy. Recent studies have identified candidate host single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with taxane-induced neuropathy (Schneider et al. ASCO 2011, abstr. 1000). We therefore sought to determine whether neuropathy was associated with breast cancer recurrence. Methods: This study included 4,950 eligible women with axillary lymph node positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer who received up to 4 cycles of AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2) every 3 weeks, followed by either: (1) paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks x 4 (P3), (2) paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly x 12 (P1), (3) docetaxel 100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks x 4 (D3), or (4) docetaxel 35 mg/m2 weekly x 12 (D1). Chemotherapy doses were based on actual body weight. Cox proportional hazards model were used to determine the relationship between neuropathy and disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) treating neuropathy status as a time dependent covariate and using a landmark analysis. Results: Of 4,702 patients who received at least 1 taxane dose, grade 2-4 neuropathy developed in 20%, 27%, 16%, and 16% in the P3, P1, D3, and D1 arms, respectively. In a model including age, tumor size, nodal status, treatment arm, neuropathy, and the neuropathy- treatment interaction, there was no relationship between neuropathy and DFS and OS in the entire population, for any of the individual treatment arms, or for any breast cancer subtypes, whether analyzed as a time-dependent covariate or using a landmark analysis. Baseline covariates associated with an increase rate of neuropathy included black race (25% vs. 19% grade 2-4, p=0.02) and obesity (21% vs. 19%, p=0.04), but not age. Conclusions: There was no association between taxane-induced neuropathy and DFS or OS in patients treated with contemporary AC-taxane therapy, including weekly paclitaxel. These findings show that taxane-induced neuropathy is not associated with outcome, thus suggesting that validation of SNPs predictive of neuropathy may be useful in identifying patients at higher risk for neuropathy but not taxane benefit and thereby improve therapeutic individualization.

Abstract Background: Data regarding patients (pts) and physicians' preferences for modern adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) are limited. Prior studies suggested that most pts with early stage breast cancer were willing to receive 6 months of adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) for modest survival benefits (e.g. most women would have accepted 3-6 months extension of life). Methods: E5103 was a phase III trial which randomized node positive or high risk node negative breast cancer pts to receive adjuvant CT (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and paclitaxel) with either placebo or bevacizumab. Telephone based surveys were administered to all pts enrolled on E5103 between 01/Jan/10 and 08/Jun/10, as part of a Decision-Making/Quality of Life component. Results presented here are part of the 18 months post-enrollment follow-up. Pts were asked to rate the survival benefit needed to justify 6 months of CT. A complementary survey was sent to all physicians who registered at least one pt on E5103. Results: 465 out of 519 eligible pts (90%) responded to this survey at 18 months. Main reasons for non response were: inability to reach the patient (6%) or patient refusal (2%). Median pts age was 51 (25-76); 42% of pts had at least a college degree. The majority had at least Stage II cancer. 179 (16%) physicians participated, among whom median age was 50 (35-70). The median years in practice was 17 (3-38); 78% of physicians worked on large size practices, 72% saw at least 5 new breast cancer pts/month, and 77% enroll between 1-4 pts on trials/month. We found considerable variation in pts preferences particularly for modest survival benefits: a substantial minority of pts (24%) would consider 6 months of CT definitely worthwhile for 1 month survival benefit, 18% would possibly consider it and 56% would not. The percentage considering CT definitely worthwhile increased with greater benefit, but did not reach 100%, even with 24 months survival benefit. About half of pts considered 6 months of CT definitely worthwhile for 9 months benefit, 70% for 12 months and 84% for 24 months. Physicians were less likely to accept CT for a small chance of benefit (34% of pts vs. 5% of physicians would definitely consider CT worthwhile for 2 months of benefit). For longer benefit, pts and physicians choices were similar (84% of pts vs. 92% of physicians would definitely consider CT worthwhile for 24 months benefit). Table Yes, definitely worthwhileYes, maybeNo, not worthwhileNo answerConsider 6 months of CT to live:PtsPhysiciansPtsPhysiciansPtsPhysiciansPts/Physicians*1 month longer24%3%18%15%56%80%2%2 months longer34%5%23%32%41%60%2%6 months longer44%32%35%54%19%12%2%9 months longer53%51%34%42%11%5%2%12 months longer70%75%23%22%5%1%2%24 months longer84%92%12%5%2%1%2%n Pts= 465; n Physicians= 179; * equal results in both groups Conclusions: This subgroup of pts who had undergone modern adjuvant CT in a large multicenter randomized controlled trial and these physicians who registered pts on the same trial had different cutoffs for acceptable levels of benefits and risks when considering adjuvant chemotherapy. It is important to engage pts in determining whether CT is or is not a "reasonable" option for treatment. Citation Format: Vaz Luis I, O'Neill A, Sepucha K, Miller KD, Baker E, Dang CT, Northfelt DW, Winer EP, Sledge GW, Schneider BP, Partridge A. Survival benefit needed to undergo chemotherapy: Patients and physicians preferences. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-11-02.