Screening Beyond the Evidence: Patterns of Age and Comorbidity for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Little evidence exists to guide continuation of screening beyond the recommended ages of national guidelines for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers, although increasing age and comorbidity burden is likely to reduce the screening benefit of lower mortality. OBJECTIVE: Characterize screening after recommended stopping ages, by age and comorbidities in a large, diverse sample. DESIGN: Serial cross-sectional. PARTICIPANTS: All individuals in the PROSPR-I consortium cohorts from 75 to 89 years of age for breast cancer screening, 66-89 years of age for cervical cancer screening, and 76-89 years of age for colorectal cancer screening from 2011 to 2013. The lower age thresholds were based on the guidelines for each respective cancer type. MAIN MEASURES: Proportion of annual screening by cancer type in relation to age and Charlson comorbidity score and median years of screening past guideline age. We estimated the likelihood of screening past the guideline-based age as a function of age and comorbidity using logistic regression. KEY RESULTS: The study cohorts included individuals screening for breast (n = 33,475); cervical (n = 459,318); and colorectal (n = 556,356) cancers. In the year following aging out, approximately 30% of the population was screened for breast cancer, 2% of the population was screened for cervical, and almost 5% for colorectal cancer. The median number of years screened past the guideline-based recommendation was 5, 3, and 4 for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively. Of those screening > 10 years past the guideline-based age,15%, 46%, and 25% had ≥ 3 comorbidities respectively. Colorectal cancer screening had the smallest decline in the likelihood of screening beyond the age-based recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The odds of screening past guideline-based age decreased with comorbidity burden for breast and cervical cancer screening but not for colorectal. These findings suggest the need to evaluate shared decision tools to help patients understand whether screening is appropriate and to generate more evidence in older populations.

Evaluating the Utility and Privacy of Synthetic Breast Cancer Clinical Trial Data Sets.

PURPOSE: There is strong interest from patients, researchers, the pharmaceutical industry, medical journal editors, funders of research, and regulators in sharing clinical trial data for secondary analysis. However, data access remains a challenge because of concerns about patient privacy. It has been argued that synthetic data generation (SDG) is an effective way to address these privacy concerns. There is a dearth of evidence supporting this on oncology clinical trial data sets, and on the utility of privacy-preserving synthetic data. The objective of the proposed study is to validate the utility and privacy risks of synthetic clinical trial data sets across multiple SDG techniques. METHODS: We synthesized data sets from eight breast cancer clinical trial data sets using three types of generative models: sequential synthesis, conditional generative adversarial network, and variational autoencoder. Synthetic data utility was evaluated by replicating the published analyses on the synthetic data and assessing concordance of effect estimates and CIs between real and synthetic data. Privacy was evaluated by measuring attribution disclosure risk and membership disclosure risk. RESULTS: Utility was highest using the sequential synthesis method where all results were replicable and the CI overlap most similar or higher for seven of eight data sets. Both types of privacy risks were low across all three types of generative models. DISCUSSION: Synthetic data using sequential synthesis methods can act as a proxy for real clinical trial data sets, and simultaneously have low privacy risks. This type of generative model can be one way to enable broader sharing of clinical trial data.

Vitamin D Insufficiency as a Risk Factor for Paclitaxel-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in SWOG S0221.

BACKGROUND: Prior work suggests that patients with vitamin D insufficiency may have a higher risk of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) from paclitaxel. The objective of this study was to validate vitamin D insufficiency as a CIPN risk factor. METHODS: We used data and samples from the prospective phase III SWOG S0221 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00070564) trial that compared paclitaxel-containing chemotherapy regimens for early-stage breast cancer. We quantified pretreatment 25-hydroxy-vitamin D in banked serum samples using a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry targeted assay. We tested the association between vitamin D insufficiency (≤20 ng/mL) and grade ≥3 sensory CIPN via multiple logistic regression and then adjusted for self-reported race, age, body mass index, and paclitaxel schedule (randomization to weekly or every-2-week dosing). We also tested the direct effect of vitamin D deficiency on mechanical hypersensitivity in mice randomized to a regular or vitamin D-deficient diet. RESULTS: Of the 1,191 female patients in the analysis, 397 (33.3%) had pretreatment vitamin D insufficiency, and 195 (16.4%) developed grade ≥3 CIPN. Patients with vitamin D insufficiency had a higher incidence of grade ≥3 CIPN than those who had sufficient vitamin D (20.7% vs 14.2%; odds ratio [OR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.14-2.15; P=.005). The association retained significance after adjusting for age and paclitaxel schedule (adjusted OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.18-2.30; P=.003) but not race (adjusted OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.98-1.97; P=.066). In the mouse experiments, the vitamin D-deficient diet caused mechanical hypersensitivity and sensitized mice to paclitaxel (both P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment vitamin D insufficiency is the first validated potentially modifiable predictive biomarker of CIPN from paclitaxel. Prospective trials are needed to determine whether vitamin D supplementation prevents CIPN and improves treatment outcomes in patients with breast and other cancer types.

Intervention Nonadherence in the TrACER (S1415CD) Study: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial of a Standardized Order Entry for CSF Prescribing.

PURPOSE: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial to test whether a guideline-based standing order entry (SOE) improves use of primary prophylactic CSF (PP-CSF) prescribing for patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We investigated variability in adherence to the intervention. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial among 32 oncology clinics from the NCI Community Oncology Research Program. Clinics were randomized 3:1 to a guideline-based PP-CSF SOE or usual care. Among SOE sites, automated orders for PP-CSF were included for regimens at high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) and an alert not to use PP-CSF for low FN risk. A secondary 1:1 randomization was done among intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate risk-regimens. Providers were allowed to override the SOE. RESULTS: Overall, PP-CSF use among patients receiving high FN risk treatment was high and not different between arms; however, rates of PP-CSF use varied widely by site, ranging from 48.6% to 100%. Among those receiving low FN risk regimens, PP-CSF use was low and not different between arms; however, PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 19.4% across sites. In the intermediate-risk substudy, PP-CSF was five-fold higher among sites randomized to SOE; however, there was considerable variability in adherence to intervention assignment: PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 75% among sites randomized to SOE. Despite an alert to not prescribe, PP-CSF prescribing ranged from 0% to 33%. CONCLUSION: In this randomized pragmatic trial aimed at improving PP-CSF prescribing, there was substantial variability in site adherence to the intervention assignment. Although the ability to opt out of the intervention is a feature of pragmatic trials, planning to estimate nonadherence is critical to ensure adequate power.

Pre-treatment Amino Acids and Risk of Paclitaxel-induced Peripheral Neuropathy in SWOG S0221.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a treatment-limiting and debilitating neurotoxicity of many commonly used anti-cancer agents, including paclitaxel. The objective of this study was to confirm the previously found inverse association between pre-treatment blood concentrations of histidine and CIPN occurrence and examine relationships of other amino acids with CIPN severity. Methods: Pre-treatment levels of 20 amino acid concentrations were measured via a targeted mass spectrometry assay in banked serum from the SWOG S0221 (NCT00070564) trial of patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving paclitaxel. The associations between amino acid levels and CIPN occurrence or severity were tested in regression analysis adjusted for paclitaxel schedule, age, self-reported race, and body mass index with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The network of metabolic pathways of amino acids was analyzed using over-representation analysis in MetaboAnalyst. The partial correlation network of amino acids was evaluated using a debiased sparse partial correlation algorithm and Cytoscape. Results: In the primary analysis, histidine concentration was not associated with CIPN occurrence (odds ratio (OR) = 0.97 [0.83, 1.13], p = 0.72). In a secondary analysis, no amino acid was associated with CIPN occurrence (all p > 0.0025). Higher concentrations of four amino acids, glutamate (ß = 0.58 [0.23, 0.93], p = 0.001), phenylalanine (ß = 0.54 [0.19, 0.89], p = 0.002), tyrosine (ß = 0.57 [0.23, 0.91], p = 0.001), and valine (ß = 0.58 [0.24, 0.92], p = 0.001) were associated with more severe CIPN, but none of these associations retained significance after adjustment. In the over-representation analysis, no amino acid metabolic pathways were significantly enriched (all FDR > 0.05). In the network of enriched pathways, glutamate metabolism had the highest centrality. Conclusions: This analysis showed that pre-treatment serum amino acid concentrations are not strongly predictive of CIPN severity. Future prospectively designed studies that assess non-amino acid metabolomics predictors are encouraged.

Impact of treatment experience on patient knowledge of colony-stimulating factors among patients receiving cancer chemotherapy: evidence from S1415CD-a large pragmatic trial.

PURPOSE: Primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed alongside chemotherapy regimens that carry a significant risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). As part of S1415CD, a prospective, pragmatic trial evaluating the impact of automated orders to improve PP-CSF prescribing, we evaluated patients' baseline knowledge of PP-CSF and whether that knowledge improved following the first cycle of chemotherapy. METHODS: Adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer initiating chemotherapy were enrolled in S1415CD between January 2016 and April 2020. Eight questions assessing knowledge of CSF indications, risks, benefits, and out-of-pocket costs were included in a baseline survey and in a follow-up survey at the end of the first cycle of chemotherapy. Responses were stratified by the trial arm and whether chemotherapy was low, intermediate, or high FN risk. RESULTS: Of the 3605 eligible patients, 3580 (99.3%) completed the baseline survey, and 3420 (95.5%) completed the follow-up survey. At baseline, 803 (22.4%) patients responded "Don't know" to all 8 questions, and all patients averaged 2.75 correct questions. At follow-up, knowledge increased by 0.34 in the high-FN-risk group (p < 0.001) but declined for the other FN-risk groups. In multivariate analysis, receiving a high-FN-risk regimen and younger age were significantly associated with knowledge improvement. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy patients had poor knowledge of PP-CSF that improved only modestly among recipients of high-FN-risk chemotherapy. Further efforts to inform patients about the risks, benefits, and costs of PP-CSF may be warranted, particularly for those in whom prophylaxis is indicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02728596, April 6, 2016.

Effects of CYP3A4 and CYP2C9 genotype on systemic anastrozole and fulvestrant concentrations in SWOG S0226.

Objective & methods: This study tested associations of genotype-predicted activity of CYP3A4, other pharmacogenes, SLC28A7 (rs11648166) and ALPPL2 (rs28845026) with systemic concentrations of the endocrine therapies anastrozole and fulvestrant in SWOG S0226 trial participants. Results: Participants in the anastrozole-only arm with low CYP3A4 activity (i.e. CYP3A4*22 carriers) had higher systemic anastrozole concentrations than patients with high CYP3A4 activity (ß-coefficient = 10.03; 95% CI: 1.42, 18.6; p = 0.025). In an exploratory analysis, participants with low CYP2C9 activity had lower anastrozole concentrations and higher fulvestrant concentrations than participants with high CYP2C9 activity. Conclusion: Inherited genetic variation in CYP3A4 and CYP2C9 may affect concentrations of endocrine therapy and may be useful to personalize dosing and improve treatment outcomes.

Radiotherapy Use and Incidence of Locoregional Recurrence in Patients With Favorable-Risk, Node-Positive Breast Cancer Enrolled in the SWOG S1007 Trial.

Importance: Little is known about regional nodal irradiation (RNI) practice patterns or rates of locoregional recurrence (LRR) with and without RNI in patients with limited nodal disease and favorable biology treated with modern surgical and systemic therapy, including approaches that de-escalate those latter treatments. Objective: To investigate how often patients with low-recurrence score breast cancer with 1 to 3 nodes involved receive RNI, incidence and predictors of LRR, and associations between locoregional therapy and disease-free survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this secondary analysis of the SWOG S1007 trial, patients with hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative breast cancer, and a Oncotype DX 21-gene Breast Recurrence Score assay result of no more than 25, were randomized to endocrine therapy alone vs chemotherapy then endocrine therapy. Prospectively collected radiotherapy information was collected from 4871 patients treated in diverse settings. Data were analyzed June 2022 to April 2023. Exposure: Receipt of RNI (targeting at least the supraclavicular region). Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Cumulative incidence of LRR was calculated by locoregional treatment received. Analyses were assessed for associations between invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and locoregional therapy, adjusted for menopausal status, treatment group, recurrence score, tumor size, nodes involved, and axillary surgery. Radiotherapy information was recorded in the first year after randomization, so survival analyses were landmarked as starting at 1 year among those still at risk. Results: Of 4871 female patients (median [range] age, 57 [18-87] years) with radiotherapy forms, 3947 (81.0%) reported radiotherapy receipt. Of 3852 patients who received radiotherapy and had complete information on targets, 2274 (59.0%) received RNI. With a median follow-up of 6.1 years, the cumulative incidence of LRR by 5 years was 0.85% among patients who received breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy with RNI; 0.55% after breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy without RNI; 0.11% after mastectomy with postmastectomy radiotherapy; and 1.7% after mastectomy without radiotherapy. Similarly low LRR was observed within the group assigned to endocrine therapy without chemotherapy. The rate of IDFS did not differ by RNI receipt (premenopausal: hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.74-1.43; P = .87; postmenopausal: HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.68-1.07; P = .16). Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a clinical trial, RNI use was divided in the setting of biologically favorable N1 disease, and rates of LRR were low even in patients who did not receive RNI. Disease-free survival was not associated with RNI receipt; omission of chemotherapy among patients similar to those enrolled in the S1007 trial is not an independent indication for use of RNI.

Image analysis-based tumor infiltrating lymphocytes measurement predicts breast cancer pathologic complete response in SWOG S0800 neoadjuvant chemotherapy trial.

We assessed the predictive value of an image analysis-based tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) score for pathologic complete response (pCR) and event-free survival in breast cancer (BC). About 113 pretreatment samples were analyzed from patients with stage IIB-IIIC HER-2-negative BC randomized to neoadjuvant chemotherapy ± bevacizumab. TILs quantification was performed on full sections using QuPath open-source software with a convolutional neural network cell classifier (CNN11). We used easTILs% as a digital metric of TILs score defined as [sum of lymphocytes area (mm2)/stromal area(mm2)] × 100. Pathologist-read stromal TILs score (sTILs%) was determined following published guidelines. Mean pretreatment easTILs% was significantly higher in cases with pCR compared to residual disease (median 36.1 vs.14.8%, p < 0.001). We observed a strong positive correlation (r = 0.606, p < 0.0001) between easTILs% and sTILs%. The area under the prediction curve (AUC) was higher for easTILs% than sTILs%, 0.709 and 0.627, respectively. Image analysis-based TILs quantification is predictive of pCR in BC and had better response discrimination than pathologist-read sTILs%.

Evaluation of the Sensitivity to Endocrine Therapy Index and 21-Gene Breast Recurrence Score in the SWOG S8814 Trial.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy has not demonstrated benefit over adjuvant endocrine therapy alone for postmenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer with a 21-gene breast recurrence score (RS) of 25 or below (RS ≤ 25). We tested whether combined results from RS and the sensitivity to endocrine therapy (SET2,3) index of endocrine-related transcription (SETER/PR) adjusted for baseline prognostic index (BPI) improve prognostic assessment, and whether SET2,3 predicted benefit from anthracycline-based chemotherapy. METHODS: A blinded retrospective clinical validation of SET2,3 in two randomized treatment arms from the SWOG S8814 trial comparing adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed by tamoxifen endocrine therapy for 5 years, versus tamoxifen alone. SET2,3 assay was calibrated and measured using whole-transcriptome RNA sequence of tumor samples already tested for RS. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: There were 106 events in 283 patients over a median follow-up of 8.99 years. Proportional hazards assumptions were met during the first 5 years only. SET2,3 index and RS were not correlated (r = -0.04) and were independently prognostic (SET2,3: hazard ratio [HR], 0.48 per unit; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.68; P < .001; RS: HR, 1.28 per 10 units; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.44; P < .001). SET2,3 index did not predict chemotherapy benefit (interaction P = .77). SET2,3 was high in 93/175 (53%) patients with RS ≤ 25 (concordant low-risk), with 5-year DFS 97%. SET2,3 was low in 55/108 (51%) patients with RS > 25 (concordant high-risk), with 5-year DFS 53%. Both components of SET2,3 index were prognostic after adjustment for RS: SETER/PR (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.92) and BPI (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.64). CONCLUSION: SET2,3 index was not correlated with RS, demonstrated additive prognostic performance, and was not chemopredictive in this subset of patients from S8814. The SETER/PR and BPI components of SET2,3 each added prognostic information to RS.

Cisplatin with veliparib or placebo in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer and BRCA mutation-associated breast cancer (S1416): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are effective in germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation-associated metastatic breast cancer. However, studies evaluating PARP inhibitors plus platinum-based chemotherapy in germline BRCA1/2-wildtype triple-negative breast cancer are scarce. A large proportion of germline BRCA1/2-wildtype triple-negative breast cancer shows homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), resulting in a BRCA-like phenotype that might render sensitivity to PARP inhibitors. The S1416 trial assessed the efficacy of cisplatin combined with the PARP inhibitor veliparib in three predefined groups of metastatic breast cancer: germline BRCA1/2-mutated, BRCA-like, and non-BRCA-like. METHODS: S1416 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial conducted at 154 community and academic clinical sites across the USA. Eligible patients aged 18 years or older had metastatic or recurrent triple-negative breast cancer or germline BRCA1/2-associated metastatic or recurrent breast cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had received up to one line of chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via the National Clinical Trials Network open interactive system with dynamic balancing on number of previous cytotoxic regimens for metastatic disease to receive intravenous cisplatin (75 mg/m2, day 1) combined with either veliparib or matching placebo (300 mg orally twice a day, days 1-14) on a 21-day cycle. Investigators, patients, and the sponsors were masked to treatment assignment; the study statisticians were unmasked. Central testing after ran domisation classified patients as having mutated or wildtype germline BRCA1/2. A biomarker panel established a priori was used to classify patients with wildtype germline BRCA1/2 into BRCA-like and non-BRCA-like phenotype groups, with BRCA-like status based on at least one of the biomarkers: genomic instability score (≥42), somatic BRCA1/2 mutations, BRCA1 promoter methylation, or non-BRCA1/2 homologous recombination repair germline mutations. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed separately for the three predefined biomarker groups with a prespecified α value for each analysis. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat and included all eligible patients. Safety analyses of toxicities attributed to treatment included all patients who received at least one dose of veliparib or placebo. The study is ongoing and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02595905. FINDINGS: Between July 7, 2016, and June 15, 2019, 335 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. 320 patients (n=162 to cisplatin plus veliparib, all women; and n=158 to cisplatin plus placebo, 157 women and one man) were eligible for efficacy evaluation. 247 patients were classified into the three biomarker groups: germline BRCA1/2-mutated (n=37), BRCA-like (n=101), and non-BRCA-like (n=109). 73 patients could not be classified due to missing biomarker information. Median follow-up was 11·1 months (IQR 5·6-20·8). In the germline BRCA1/2-mutated group, median progression-free survival was 6·2 months (95% CI 2·3-9·2) in the cisplatin plus veliparib group and 6·4 months (4·3-8·2) in the cisplatin plus placebo group (HR 0·79 [95% CI 0·38-1·67]; log-rank p=0·54). In the BRCA-like group, median progression-free survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 4·3-7·8) in the cisplatin plus veliparib group versus 4·2 months (2·3-5·0) in the cisplatin plus placebo group (HR 0·57 [95% CI 0·37-0·88]; p=0·010). In the non-BRCA-like group, median progression-free survival was 4·0 months (95% CI 2·5-4·7) in the cisplatin plus veliparib group versus 3·0 months (2·2-4·4) in the cisplatin plus placebo group (HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·60-1·33]; p=0·57). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events attributed to treatment were neutropenia (71 [46%] of 155 patients in the cisplatin plus veliparib group vs 29 [20%] of 147 in the cisplatin plus placebo group), leukopenia (42 [27%] vs 11 [7%]), anaemia (35 [23%] vs 12 [8%]), and thrombocytopenia (29 [19%] vs four [3%]). Serious adverse events attributed to treatment occurred in 48 (31%) patients in the cisplatin plus veliparib group and 53 (36%) patients in the cisplatin plus placebo group. Treatment-related adverse events led to death in one patient in the cisplatin plus veliparib group (sepsis) and one patient in the cisplatin plus placebo group (acute kidney injury due to cisplatin plus heart failure from previous doxorubicin exposure). INTERPRETATION: The addition of veliparib to cisplatin significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with BRCA-like metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, but not in patients with non-BRCA-like metastatic breast cancer. PARP inhibitors combined with platinum-based chemotherapy should be explored further in BRCA-like triple-negative breast cancer. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute and National Institute of General Medical Sciences (US National Institutes of Health); AbbVie; Myriad Genetics; the Biomarker, Imaging, and Quality of Life Studies Funding Program (awarded by the National Cancer Institute); and The University of Kansas Cancer Center.

A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Standing Order Entry Intervention for Colony-Stimulating Factor Use Among Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia.

PURPOSE: Primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed to reduce febrile neutropenia (FN) but their benefit for intermediate FN risk regimens is uncertain. Within a pragmatic, randomized trial of a standing order entry (SOE) PP-CSF intervention, we conducted a substudy to evaluate the effectiveness of SOE for patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens. METHODS: TrACER was a cluster randomized trial where practices were randomized to usual care or a guideline-based SOE intervention. In the primary study, sites were randomized 3:1 to SOE of automated PP-CSF orders for high FN risk regimens and alerts against PP-CSF use for low-risk regimens versus usual care. A secondary 1:1 randomization assigned 24 intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for intermediate-risk regimens. Clinicians were allowed to over-ride the SOE. Patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled. Mixed-effect logistic regression models were used to test differences between randomized sites. RESULTS: Between January 2016 and April 2020, 846 eligible patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens were registered to either SOE to prescribe (12 sites: n = 542) or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF (12 sites: n = 304). Rates of PP-CSF use were higher among sites randomized to SOE (37.1% v 9.9%, odds ratio, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.77 to 19.70; P = .0038). Rates of FN were low and identical between arms (3.7% v 3.7%). CONCLUSION: Although implementation of a SOE intervention for PP-CSF significantly increased PP-CSF use among patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens, FN rates were low and did not differ between arms. Although this guideline-informed SOE influenced prescribing, the results suggest that neither SOE nor PP-CSF provides sufficient benefit to justify their use for all patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens.

An evaluation of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness research: lessons learned from SWOG S1415CD.

Aim: Stakeholder engagement is central to comparative effectiveness research yet there are gaps in definitions of success. We used a framework developed by Lavallee et al. defining effective engagement criteria to evaluate stakeholder engagement during a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were developed from the framework and completed to learn about members' experiences. Interviews were analyzed in a deductive approach for themes related to the effective engagement criteria. Results: Thirteen members participated and described: respect for ideas, time to achieve consensus, access to information and continuous feedback as areas of effective engagement. The primary criticism was lack of diversity. Discussion: Feedback was positive, particularly among themes of respect, trust and competence, and led to development of a list of best practices for engagement. The framework was successful for evaluating engagement. Conclusion: Standardized frameworks allow studies to formally evaluate their stakeholder engagement approach and develop best practices for future research.

What is this article about? This article is about the evaluation of how effective the stakeholder engagement was in a comparative effectiveness research (CER) study funded by the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The research team found a framework (developed by Lavalle et al.) that defined six different criteria for effective stakeholder engagement, and used that criteria to complete semi-structured interviews with the stakeholders involved with our study. These interviews were reviewed to determine what stakeholder engagement processes were successful and helped provide a list of best practices for stakeholder engagement for other researchers doing CER. What were the results? Stakeholders highlighted respect for their ideas, time to achieve consensus, easy access to information and a continuous feedback loop between study team and stakeholders as effective engagement processes. What do the results mean? These results can help other researchers doing CER learn best practices to implement from the outset of a study to best engage stakeholders in their research. The results also show that having a standardized framework to evaluate stakeholder engagement is important and allows for research teams to formally evaluate their engagement approach and learn what was successful and where there are areas for improvement in future studies.

Effects of a Guideline-Informed Clinical Decision Support System Intervention to Improve Colony-Stimulating Factor Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Colony-stimulating factors are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. Research suggests that 55% to 95% of colony-stimulating factor prescribing is inconsistent with national guidelines. Objective: To examine whether a guideline-based standing order for primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors improves use and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial, the Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER), involved 32 community oncology clinics in the US. Participants were adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy and enrolled between January 2016 and April 2020. Data analysis was performed from July to October 2021. Interventions: Sites were randomized 3:1 to implementation of a guideline-based primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor standing order system or usual care. Automated orders were added for high-risk regimens, and an alert not to prescribe was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was to find an increase in colony-stimulating factor use among high-risk patients from 40% to 75%, a reduction in use among low-risk patients from 17% to 7%, and a 50% reduction in febrile neutropenia rates in the intervention group. Mixed model logistic regression adjusted for correlation of outcomes within a clinic. Results: A total of 2946 patients (median [IQR] age, 59.0 [50.0-67.0] years; 2233 women [77.0%]; 2292 White [79.1%]) were enrolled; 2287 were randomized to the intervention, and 659 were randomized to usual care. Colony-stimulating factor use for patients receiving high-risk regimens was high and not significantly different between groups (847 of 950 patients [89.2%] in the intervention group vs 296 of 309 patients [95.8%] in the usual care group). Among high-risk patients, febrile neutropenia rates for the intervention (58 of 947 patients [6.1%]) and usual care (13 of 308 patients [4.2%]) groups were not significantly different. The febrile neutropenia rate for patients receiving high-risk regimens not receiving colony-stimulating factors was 14.9% (17 of 114 patients). Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, colony-stimulating factor use was low and did not differ between groups (29 of 457 patients [6.3%] in the intervention group vs 7 of 128 patients [5.5%] in the usual care group). Febrile neutropenia rates did not differ between usual care (1 of 127 patients [0.8%]) and the intervention (7 of 452 patients [1.5%]) groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, implementation of a guideline-informed standing order did not affect colony-stimulating factor use or febrile neutropenia rates in high-risk and low-risk patients. Overall, use was generally appropriate for the level of risk. Standing order interventions do not appear to be necessary or effective in the setting of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor prescribing. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02728596.

Estimating Cancer Screening Sensitivity and Specificity Using Healthcare Utilization Data: Defining the Accuracy Assessment Interval.

The effectiveness and efficiency of cancer screening in real-world settings depend on many factors, including test sensitivity and specificity. Outside of select experimental studies, not everyone receives a gold standard test that can serve as a comparator in estimating screening test accuracy. Thus, many studies of screening test accuracy use the passage of time to infer whether or not cancer was present at the time of the screening test, particularly for patients with a negative screening test. We define the accuracy assessment interval as the period of time after a screening test that is used to estimate the test's accuracy. We describe how the length of this interval may bias sensitivity and specificity estimates. We call for future research to quantify bias and uncertainty in accuracy estimates and to provide guidance on setting accuracy assessment interval lengths for different cancers and screening modalities.

Successes and challenges of implementing a cancer care delivery intervention in community oncology practices: lessons learned from SWOG S1415CD.

BACKGROUND: Cancer Care Delivery (CCD) research studies often require practice-level interventions that pose challenges in the clinical trial setting. The SWOG Cancer Research Network (SWOG) conducted S1415CD, one of the first pragmatic cluster-randomized CCD trials to be implemented through the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Program (NCORP), to compare outcomes of primary prophylactic colony stimulating factor (PP-CSF) use for an intervention of automated PP-CSF standing orders to usual care. The introduction of new methods for study implementation created challenges and opportunities for learning that can inform the design and approach of future CCD interventions. METHODS: The order entry system intervention was administered at the site level; sites were affiliated NCORP practices that shared the same chemotherapy order system. 32 sites without existing guideline-based PP-CSF standing orders were randomized to the intervention (n = 24) or to usual care (n = 8). Sites assigned to the intervention participated in tailored training, phone calls and onboarding activities administered by research team staff and were provided with additional funding and external IT support to help them make protocol required changes to their order entry systems. RESULTS: The average length of time for intervention sites to complete reconfiguration of their order sets following randomization was 7.2 months. 14 of 24 of intervention sites met their individual patient recruitment target of 99 patients enrolled per site. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper we share seven recommendations based on lessons learned from implementation of the S1415CD intervention at NCORP community oncology practices representing diverse geographies and patient populations across the U. S. It is our hope these recommendations can be used to guide future implementation of CCD interventions in both research and community settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02728596 , registered April 5, 2016.

Biomarkers for Adjuvant Endocrine and Chemotherapy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update recommendations on appropriate use of breast cancer biomarker assay results to guide adjuvant endocrine and chemotherapy decisions in early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: An updated literature search identified randomized clinical trials and prospective-retrospective studies published from January 2016 to October 2021. Outcomes of interest included overall survival and disease-free or recurrence-free survival. Expert Panel members used informal consensus to develop evidence-based recommendations. RESULTS: The search identified 24 studies informing the evidence base. RECOMMENDATIONS: Clinicians may use Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, Breast Cancer Index (BCI), and EndoPredict to guide adjuvant endocrine and chemotherapy in patients who are postmenopausal or age > 50 years with early-stage estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (ER+ and HER2-) breast cancer that is node-negative or with 1-3 positive nodes. Prosigna and BCI may be used in postmenopausal patients with node-negative ER+ and HER2- breast cancer. In premenopausal patients, clinicians may use Oncotype in patients with node-negative ER+ and HER2- breast cancer. Current data suggest that premenopausal patients with 1-3 positive nodes benefit from chemotherapy regardless of genomic assay result. There are no data on use of genomic tests to guide adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with ≥ 4 positive nodes. Ki67 combined with other parameters or immunohistochemistry 4 score may be used in postmenopausal patients without access to genomic tests to guide adjuvant therapy decisions. BCI may be offered to patients with 0-3 positive nodes who received 5 years of endocrine therapy without evidence of recurrence to guide decisions about extended endocrine therapy. None of the assays are recommended for treatment guidance in individuals with HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer. Treatment decisions should also consider disease stage, comorbidities, and patient preferences.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

A Randomized Trial of Fulvestrant, Everolimus, and Anastrozole for the Front-line Treatment of Patients with Advanced Hormone Receptor-positive Breast Cancer, SWOG S1222.

PURPOSE: Metastatic hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer is an important cause of cancer mortality. Endocrine treatment with or without additional targeted therapies has been the mainstay of treatment. This trial was designed to evaluate the combination of fulvestrant plus everolimus versus fulvestrant, everolimus, and anastrozole compared with fulvestrant alone in the first-line treatment of advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized placebo-controlled trial included postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had received no prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Participants were randomized to one of three treatment arms and the primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), comparing combinations of fulvestrant and everolimus with or without anastrozole with fulvestrant alone. Circulating tumor cells (CTC), as measured with two different methods, and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) were evaluated serially prior to treatment and the beginning of the second cycle of therapy. RESULTS: Due in part to changes in clinical practice, the study was closed after accruing only 37 participants. There was no evidence that everolimus-containing combination treatment improved PFS or overall survival relative to fulvestrant alone. When modeled continuously, an association was observed of baseline CTC and ctDNA with poorer survival. CONCLUSIONS: Although power of the study was limited, the findings were unable to support the routine use of everolimus combination endocrine therapy in the first-line treatment of advanced hormone-sensitive breast cancer. Prognostic impact of baseline ctDNA and copy-number variations in CTC was demonstrated.

21-Gene Assay to Inform Chemotherapy Benefit in Node-Positive Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The recurrence score based on the 21-gene breast-cancer assay has been clinically useful in predicting a chemotherapy benefit in hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, axillary lymph-node-negative breast cancer. In women with positive lymph-node disease, the role of the recurrence score with respect to predicting a benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy is unclear. METHODS: In a prospective trial, we randomly assigned women with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, one to three positive axillary lymph nodes, and a recurrence score of 25 or lower (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a worse prognosis) to endocrine therapy only or to chemotherapy plus endocrine (chemoendocrine) therapy. The primary objective was to determine the effect of chemotherapy on invasive disease-free survival and whether the effect was influenced by the recurrence score. Secondary end points included distant relapse-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 5083 women (33.2% premenopausal and 66.8% postmenopausal) underwent randomization, and 5018 participated in the trial. At the prespecified third interim analysis, the chemotherapy benefit with respect to increasing invasive disease-free survival differed according to menopausal status (P = 0.008 for the comparison of chemotherapy benefit in premenopausal and postmenopausal participants), and separate prespecified analyses were conducted. Among postmenopausal women, invasive disease-free survival at 5 years was 91.9% in the endocrine-only group and 91.3% in the chemoendocrine group, with no chemotherapy benefit (hazard ratio for invasive disease recurrence, new primary cancer [breast cancer or another type], or death, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.26; P = 0.89). Among premenopausal women, invasive disease-free survival at 5 years was 89.0% with endocrine-only therapy and 93.9% with chemoendocrine therapy (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.83; P = 0.002), with a similar increase in distant relapse-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.87; P = 0.009). The relative chemotherapy benefit did not increase as the recurrence score increased. CONCLUSIONS: Among premenopausal women with one to three positive lymph nodes and a recurrence score of 25 or lower, those who received chemoendocrine therapy had longer invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival than those who received endocrine-only therapy, whereas postmenopausal women with similar characteristics did not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; RxPONDER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01272037.).