Citations

AbstractBackgroundPatient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are a better tool for evaluating the experiences of patients who have symptomatic, treatment‐associated adverse events (AEs) compared with clinician‐rated AEs. The authors present PROs assessing health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment‐related neurotoxicity for adjuvant capecitabine versus platinum on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group‐American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG‐ACRIN) EA1131 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02445391).MethodsParticipants completed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI‐16) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Gynecologic Oncology Group neurotoxicity subscale (platinum arm only) at baseline, cycle 3 day 1 (C3D1), 6 months, and 15 months. Because of early termination, power was insufficient to test the hypothesis that HRQoL, as assessed by the NFBSI‐16 treatment side‐effect (TSE) subscale, would be better at 6 and 15 months in the capecitabine arm; all analyses were exploratory. Means were compared by using t‐tests or the Wilcoxon rank‐sum test, and proportions were compared by using the χ2 test.ResultsTwo hundred ninety‐six of 330 eligible patients provided PROs. The mean NFBSI‐16 TSE subscale score was lower for the platinum arm at baseline (p = .02; absolute difference, 0.6 points) and for the capecitabine arm at C3D1 (p = .04; absolute difference, 0.5 points), but it did not differ at other times. The mean change in TSE subscale scores differed between the arms from baseline to C3D1 (platinum arm, 0.15; capecitabine arm, −0.72; p = .03), but not from baseline to later time points. The mean decline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Gynecologic Oncology Group neurotoxicity subscale scores exceeded the minimal meaningful change (1.38 points) from baseline to each subsequent time point (all p < .05).ConclusionsDespite the similar frequency of clinician‐rated AEs, PROs identified greater on‐treatment symptom burden with capecitabine and complemented clinician‐rated AEs by characterizing patients’ experiences during chemotherapy.

Background: Limited information is available for patients with breast cancer (BC) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially among underrepresented racial/ethnic populations. Methods: This is a COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry-based retrospective cohort study of females with active or history of BC and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosed between March 2020 and June 2021 in the US. Primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on a five-level ordinal scale, including none of the following complications, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression model identified characteristics associated with COVID-19 severity. Results: 1383 female patient records with BC and COVID-19 were included in the analysis, the median age was 61 years, and median follow-up was 90 days. Multivariable analysis revealed higher odds of COVID-19 severity for older age (aOR per decade, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.32–1.67]); Black patients (aOR 1.74; 95 CI 1.24–2.45), Asian Americans and Pacific Islander patients (aOR 3.40; 95 CI 1.70–6.79) and Other (aOR 2.97; 95 CI 1.71–5.17) racial/ethnic groups; worse ECOG performance status (ECOG PS ≥2: aOR, 7.78 [95% CI, 4.83–12.5]); pre-existing cardiovascular (aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.63–3.15])/pulmonary comorbidities (aOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.20–2.29]); diabetes mellitus (aOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.66–3.04]); and active and progressing cancer (aOR, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.89–22.6]). Hispanic ethnicity, timing, and type of anti-cancer therapy modalities were not significantly associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The total all-cause mortality and hospitalization rate for the entire cohort was 9% and 37%, respectively however, it varied according to the BC disease status. Conclusions: Using one of the largest registries on cancer and COVID-19, we identified patient and BC-related factors associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, underrepresented racial/ethnic patients experienced worse outcomes compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Funding: This study was partly supported by National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to Tianyi Sun, Sanjay Mishra, Benjamin French, Jeremy L Warner; P30-CA046592 to Christopher R Friese; P30 CA023100 for Rana R McKay; P30-CA054174 for Pankil K Shah and Dimpy P Shah; KL2 TR002646 for Pankil Shah and the American Cancer Society and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research (MRSG-16-152-01-CCE) and P30-CA054174 for Dimpy P Shah. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH). The funding sources had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication. Clinical trial number: CCC19 registry is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701 .

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

Abstract Background: Late recurrence of breast cancer after 5 years accounts for about 50% of recurrences in hormone receptor (HR)-positive early breast cancer (EBC). TAILORx established non-inferiority of adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) given for at least 5 years to chemotherapy plus ET (CET) in EBC and a 21-gene recurrence score (RS) of 11-25, although there was some chemotherapy benefit in women Methods: Eligibility criteria included women 18-75 years with HR-positive, HER2-negative, T1b-T2N0 EBC who agreed to have CT assigned or randomized based on the RS assay. The primary endpoint was invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in the RS 11-25 group. The “primary analysis” refers to the original prespecified analysis for the primary IDFS endpoint (836 IDFS events at full information in the RS 11-25 group) after a median of 7.5 years. The “updated analysis” was performed after a median followup of 11.0 and 10.4 years in the randomized and overall populations, respectively. Results:10,253 eligible women enrolled between 4/7/06-10/6/10.The updated analysis includes substantially more events that the primary analysis, including IDFS events (1819 vs. 1210), distant recurrences (561 vs. 384), locoregional +/- distant recurrences (764 vs. 543), and deaths (910 vs. 499). The table provides 5 and 12-year event rates (and standard errors) for all arms, and comparisons of the randomized arms. The primary trial conclusions remain unchanged: ET was non-inferior to CET in the randomized group with a RS 11-25. Although recurrence occurred in &lt; 10% by 12 years for a RS 0-25, late recurrence events beyond 5 years exceeded earlier recurrence. Non-recurrence events occurred in about 13% at 12 years (~1%/year), contributing substantially to the IDFS rates. For women Conclusions: The current updated analysis confirms findings from the original primary analysis that ET is non-inferior to CET in HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative EBC and a RS 11-25. As in the original primary analysis, the subgroup of women Citation Format: Joseph Sparano, Robert J. Gray, Della Makower, Kathy S. Albain, Daniel F. Hayes, Charles Geyer, Elizabeth Dees, Matthew P. Goetz, John A. Olson Jr, Tracy G. Lively, Sunil Badve, Thomas Saphner, Lynne I. Wagner, Timothy Whelan, Virginia Kaklamani, George Sledge. Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx): An Update Including 12-Year Event Rates [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 GS1-05.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

Abstract Background Black race is associated with worse outcomes in early breast cancer. We evaluated clinicopathologic characteristics, the 21-gene recurrence score (RS), treatment delivered, and clinical outcomes by race and ethnicity among women who participated in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment. Methods The association between clinical outcomes and race (White, Black, Asian, other or unknown) and ethnicity (Hispanic vs non-Hispanic) was examined using proportional hazards models. All P values are 2-sided. Results Of 9719 eligible women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer, there were 8189 (84.3%) Whites, 693 (7.1%) Blacks, 405 (4.2%) Asians, and 432 (4.4%) with other or unknown race. Regarding ethnicity, 889 (9.1%) were Hispanic. There were no substantial differences in RS or ESR1, PGR, or HER2 RNA expression by race or ethnicity. After adjustment for other covariates, compared with White race, Black race was associated with higher distant recurrence rates (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.60, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.07 to 2.41) and worse overall survival in the RS 11-25 cohort (HR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.06 to 2.15) and entire population (HR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.90). Hispanic ethnicity and Asian race were associated with better outcomes. There was no evidence of chemotherapy benefit for any racial or ethnic group in those with a RS of 11-25. Conclusions Black women had worse clinical outcomes despite similar 21-gene assay RS results and comparable systemic therapy in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment. Similar to Whites, Black women did not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy if the 21-gene RS was 11-25. Further research is required to elucidate the basis for this racial disparity in prognosis.

503 Background: TAILORx established that endocrine therapy (ET) alone is non-inferior to adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) plus ET in EBC and a 21-gene RS of 11-25, with some benefit if ≤50 years (y) with RS 16-25 (PMID: 29860917). We evaluated whether clinical risk (tumor size & histologic grade) provides additional prognostic information to RS, a secondary trial objective. Methods: Clinical risk by was assessed by Adjuvant! (version 8.0) using MINDACT criteria (PMID 27557300), defined as low clinical risk (LCR - tumor ≤3 cm and low grade, <2 cm and intermediate grade, or ≤1 cm and high grade) or high clinical risk (HCR -not meeting LCR criteria). Results: Of 9427 women with RS and clinical risk information, 70% were LCR and 30% HCR, with comparable distribution by age ( ≤50 vs. >50). The RS was 26-100 in 9% of LCR and 27% of HCR patients, with similar distributions by age. Although LCR/HCR provided additional prognostic information in each RS category for iDFS, including RS 0-10 (9-year rates 86.7% vs. 75.7% LCR vs. HCR), 11-25 (85.4% vs. 78.9%), and 26-100 (82.0% vs. 70.4%), iDFS rates were similar irrespective of CT (no vs. yes) in the entire RS 11-25 cohort whether LCR (85.8% vs. 85.1%) or HCR (79.8% vs. 77.9%). DRFI rates were also similar irrespective of CT in the RS 11-25 cohort or > 50y group whether LCR (96.0% vs. 96.1% overall; 96.5% vs. 96.0% > 50y) or HCR (92.3% vs. 89.9% overall; 91.7% vs. 90.7% >50y). For women ≤50y, the absolute reduction in distant recurrence from CT with a RS of 16-20 (N=923) was -0.2% (standard error [SE]±2.1%) for LCR vs. 6.5%(SE±4.9%) for HCR (vs. 1.6%[SE±1.9%] overall), whereas for a RS 21-25 (N=492) it was 6.4% (SE±4.9%) for LCR vs. 8.6% (SE±6.2%) for HCR (vs. 6.5%[SE±3.7%] overall). Conclusions: Clinical risk stratification provides additional prognostic information to the 21-gene RS, but not prediction of CT benefit in the overall TAILORx population or those > 50y, and facilitates more refined estimates of absolute CT benefit for women ≤50y with a RS 16-25. (Funded by National Cancer Institute, Komen Foundation, Breast Cancer Research Foundation). Clinical trial information: NCT00310180.