Citations

The therapeutic options for patients with noninvasive or invasive breast cancer are complex and varied. These NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer include recommendations for clinical management of patients with carcinoma in situ, invasive breast cancer, Paget disease, phyllodes tumor, inflammatory breast cancer, and management of breast cancer during pregnancy. The content featured in this issue focuses on the recommendations for overall management of ductal carcinoma in situ and the workup and locoregional management of early stage invasive breast cancer. For the full version of the NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer, visit NCCN.org .

The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer include up-to-date guidelines for clinical management of patients with carcinoma in situ, invasive breast cancer, Paget disease, phyllodes tumor, inflammatory breast cancer, male breast cancer, and breast cancer during pregnancy. These guidelines are developed by a multidisciplinary panel of representatives from NCCN Member Institutions with breast cancer–focused expertise in the fields of medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, pathology, reconstructive surgery, and patient advocacy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the most recent updates to recommendations for adjuvant systemic therapy in patients with nonmetastatic, early-stage, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

Abstract There are few data on the quality of cancer treatment information available on social media. Here, we quantify the accuracy of cancer treatment information on social media and its potential for harm. Two cancer experts reviewed 50 of the most popular social media articles on each of the 4 most common cancers. The proportion of misinformation and potential for harm were reported for all 200 articles and their association with the number of social media engagements using a 2-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum test. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Of 200 total articles, 32.5% (n = 65) contained misinformation and 30.5% (n = 61) contained harmful information. Among articles containing misinformation, 76.9% (50 of 65) contained harmful information. The median number of engagements for articles with misinformation was greater than factual articles (median [interquartile range] = 2300 [1200-4700] vs 1600 [819-4700], P = .05). The median number of engagements for articles with harmful information was statistically significantly greater than safe articles (median [interquartile range] = 2300 [1400-4700] vs 1500 [810-4700], P = .007).

Abstract Trial Information Click here to access other published clinical trials. Lessons Learned The results from the liposarcoma cohort of SARC024 confirm previously published data and do not support the routine use of regorafenib in this patient population. Continued exploration of novel therapies, including combination approaches, is warranted for a patient population in whom limited treatment options exist. Background Regorafenib is a multitargeted kinase inhibitor with a kinase profile overlapping, but distinct from, pazopanib, an agent approved for recurrent and metastatic non-gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), non-adipocytic soft tissue sarcoma. We conducted a randomized, phase II study of regorafenib versus placebo in refractory liposarcoma patients. Methods Patients with advanced or metastatic, treatment-refractory liposarcoma were randomized 1:1 to receive regorafenib 160 mg or placebo once daily (3 weeks on, 1 week off). Patients with well-differentiated liposarcoma only were excluded. Crossover for placebo was allowed upon progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), according to RECIST version 1.1. Results Forty-eight subjects with liposarcoma (34 dedifferentiated, 12 myxoid/round cell, 2 pleomorphic) were enrolled. Median PFS was 1.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92–3.67) months for regorafenib versus 2.07 (95% CI, 1.64–3.44) months for placebo; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 (95% CI, 0.46, 1.58), p = .62. No responses were seen on regorafenib. One PR was observed on placebo. Median overall survival was 6.46 (95% CI, 4.16–23.48) months for regorafenib and 4.89 (95% CI, 3.02–9.77) months for placebo, stratified HR, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.31–1.40), p = .28). Treatment-related adverse events were similar to the known safety profile of regorafenib. Conclusion Regorafenib did not appear to improve PFS in treatment-refractory liposarcoma. No new significant safety signals were observed.

Several new systemic therapy options have become available for patients with metastatic breast cancer, which have led to improvements in survival. In addition to patient and clinical factors, the treatment selection primarily depends on the tumor biology (hormone-receptor status and HER2-status). The NCCN Guidelines specific to the workup and treatment of patients with recurrent/stage IV breast cancer are discussed in this article.

These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight the updated recommendations for use of multigene assays to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic chemotherapy therapy for women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative early-stage invasive breast cancer. This report summarizes these updates and discusses the rationale behind them.

4519 Background: Tandem HDC with carbo/etoposide (CE) is curative for a portion of relapsed GCT pts. However, outcomes of refractory or high-risk relapsed pts remain poor. We tested a new HDC regimen of GemDMC, based on DNA damage repair inhibition. We combined BEV with HDC given their potential synergy and the high vascularity of GCT metastases. Methods: Eligibility: Intermediate (int)/high-risk (Beyer Model), creatinine ≤1.8 mg/dL and adequate organ function. HDC included BEV (5 mg/kg) preceding GemDMC (HDC #1) and ifosfamide/CE (ICE) (HDC #2). Following accrual of 42 pts, we amended the trial omitting BEV. The trial was powered to distinguish a target 50% 2-yr RFS from an expected 25% in this population. Results: We enrolled 69 male pts in cohorts 1 (BEV, N=42) and 2 (no BEV, N=27) (Table). Pts were heavily pretreated and most had refractory tumors. Main AE: mucositis and renal (4 HDC-related deaths in cohort 1, 1 in cohort 2). Tumor markers normalized in 90% pts with active tumors at HDC. After HDC, 19 pts were in CR and 28 in PRm- (of these, 22 had residual lesions resected with no viable tumor found in 20/22, 2 xRT, 4 monitored). Median f/u = 39 (2-105) mo. The 2-yr RFS rates in cohorts 1 and 2 = 52% and 78%, respectively. Their respective 2-yr OS rates = 55% and 81%. Conclusions: Sequential HDC with GemDMC–ICE shows encouraging outcomes in heavily pretreated and refractory GCT, exceeding the anticipated results. Addition of BEV increases toxicity but not tumor control. Clinical trial information: NCT00936936. [Table: see text]

Previous studies have indicated that the G-protein-coupled secretin receptor is present as a homodimer, organized through symmetrical contacts in transmembrane domain IV, and that receptor dimerization is critical for high-potency signalling by secretin. However, whether all of the receptor exists in the dimeric form or if this is regulated is unclear. We used measures of quantal brightness of the secretin receptor tagged with monomeric enhanced green fluorescent protein (mEGFP) and spatial intensity distribution analysis to assess this. Calibration using cells expressing plasma membrane-anchored forms of mEGFP initially allowed us to demonstrate that the epidermal growth factor receptor is predominantly monomeric in the absence of ligand and while wild-type receptor was rapidly converted into a dimeric form by ligand, a mutated form of this receptor remained monomeric. Equivalent studies showed that, at moderate expression levels, the secretin receptor exists as a mixture of monomeric and dimeric forms, with little evidence of higher-order complexity. However, sodium butyrate-induced up-regulation of the receptor resulted in a shift from monomeric towards oligomeric organization. In contrast, a form of the secretin receptor containing a pair of mutations on the lipid-facing side of transmembrane domain IV was almost entirely monomeric. Down-regulation of the secretin receptor-interacting G-protein Gαs did not alter receptor organization, indicating that dimerization is defined specifically by direct protein–protein interactions between copies of the receptor polypeptide, while short-term treatment with secretin had no effect on organization of the wild-type receptor but increased the dimeric proportion of the mutated receptor variant.