A randomized phase III double-blind placebo-controlled trial of first-line chemotherapy and trastuzumab with or without bevacizumab for patients with HER2/neu-positive metastatic breast cancer: a trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E1105).

BACKGROUND: In 2008, bevacizumab received accelerated Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for use in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Based on the pre-clinical and preliminary clinical activity of the trastuzumab and bevacizumab combination, ECOG-ACRIN E1105 trial was developed to determine if the addition of bevacizumab to a chemotherapy and trastuzumab combination for first-line therapy would improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with HER2-positive MBC. FINDINGS: 96 patients were randomized to receive standard first-line chemotherapy and trastuzumab with or without bevacizumab between November 2007 and October 2009, and 93 began protocol therapy. Induction therapy was given for 24 weeks, followed by maintenance trastuzumab with or without bevacizumab. 60% (56/93) began carboplatin and 74% (69/93) completed 6 cycles of induction therapy. Primary endpoint was PFS. Median PFS was 11.1 and 13.8 months for placebo and bevacizumab arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 95%, Confidence Interval [Cl] for bevacizumab vs. placebo: 0.73 [0.43-1.23], p = 0.24), and at a median follow-up of 70.7 months, median survival was 49.1 and 63 months (HR [95% Cl] for OS: 1.09 [0.61-1.97], p = 0.75). The most common toxicities across both arms were neutropenia and hypertension, with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, fatigue, and sensory neuropathy reported more frequently with bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, the addition of bevacizumab did not improve outcomes in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. Although the trial was underpowered due to smaller than anticipated sample size, these findings corroborated other clinical trials during this time. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: NCT00520975.

A randomized phase III double-blind placebo-controlled trial of first line chemotherapy and trastuzumab with or without bevacizumab for patients with HER2/neu-positive metastatic breast cancer: a trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E1105).

Background: In 2008, bevacizumab received accelerated Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for use in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Based on the preclinical and preliminary clinical activity of the trastuzumab and bevacizumab combination, ECOG-ACRIN E1105 trial was developed to determine if the addition of bevacizumab to a chemotherapy and trastuzumab combination for first-line therapy would improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with HER2-positive MBC. Findings: 96 patients were randomized to receive standard first-line chemotherapy and trastuzumab with or without bevacizumab between November 2007 and October 2009, and 93 began protocol therapy. Induction therapy was given for 24 weeks, followed by maintenance trastuzumab with or without bevacizumab. 60% (56/93) began carboplatin and 74% (69/93) completed 6 cycles of induction therapy. Primary endpoint was PFS. Median PFS was 11.1 and 13.8 months for placebo and bevacizumab arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 95%, Confidence Interval [Cl] for bevacizumab vs. placebo: 0.73 [0.43-1.23], p = 0.24), and at a median follow-up of 70.7 months, median survival was 49.1 and 63 months (HR [95% Cl] for OS: 1.09 [0.61-1.97], p = 0.75). The most common toxicities across both arms were neutropenia and hypertension, with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, fatigue, and sensory neuropathy reported more frequently with bevacizumab. Conclusions: In this trial, the addition of bevacizumab did not improve outcomes in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. Although the trial was underpowered due to smaller than anticipated sample size, these findings corroborated other clinical trials during this time.

Black Women's Perspectives on Breast Cancer Risk Assessment.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to gather the perspectives of Black women on breast cancer risk assessment through a series of one-on-one interviews. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional qualitative study consisting of one-on-one semistructured telephone interviews with Black women in Tennessee between September 2020 and November 2020. Guided by the Health Belief Model, qualitative analysis of interview data was performed in an iterative inductive and deductive approach and resulted in the development of a conceptual framework to depict influences on a woman's decision to engage with breast cancer risk assessment. RESULTS: A total of 37 interviews were completed, and a framework of influences on a woman's decision to engage in breast cancer risk assessment was developed. Study participants identified several emerging themes regarding women's perspectives on breast cancer risk assessment and potential influences on women's decisions to engage with risk assessment. Much of women's decision context was based on risk appraisal (perceived severity of cancer and susceptibility of cancer), emotions (fear and trust), and perceived risks and benefits of having risk assessment. The decision was further influenced by modifiers such as communication, the risk assessment protocol, access to health care, knowledge, and health status. Perceived challenges to follow-up if identified as high risk also influenced women's decisions to pursue risk assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Black women in this study identified several barriers to engagement with breast cancer risk assessment. Efforts to overcome these barriers and increase the use of breast cancer risk assessment can potentially serve as a catalyst to address existing breast cancer disparities. Continued work is needed to develop patient-centric strategies to overcome identified barriers.

Barriers to Implementation of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment: The Health Care Team Perspective.

PURPOSE: To assess health care professionals' perceptions of barriers to the utilization of breast cancer risk assessment tools in the public health setting through a series of one-on-one interviews with health care team members. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional qualitative study consisting of one-on-one semistructured telephone interviews with health care team members in the public health setting in the state of Tennessee between May 2020 and October 2020. An iterative inductive-deductive approach was used for qualitative analysis of interview data, resulting in the development of a conceptual framework to depict influences of provider behavior in the utilization of breast cancer risk assessment. RESULTS: A total of 24 interviews were completed, and a framework of influences of provider behavior in the utilization of breast cancer risk assessment was developed. Participants identified barriers to the utilization of breast cancer risk assessment (knowledge and understanding of risk assessment tools, workflow challenges, and availability of personnel); patient-level barriers as perceived by health care team members (psychological, economic, educational, and environmental); and strategies to increase the utilization of breast cancer risk assessment at the provider level (leadership buy-in, training, supportive policies, and incentives) and patient level (improved communication and better understanding of patients' perceived cancer risk and severity of cancer). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding barriers to implementation of breast cancer risk assessment and strategies to overcome these barriers as perceived by health care team members offers an opportunity to improve implementation of risk assessment and to identify a racially, geographically, and socioeconomically diverse population of young women at high risk for breast cancer.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Endocrine Therapy With or Without Ribociclib After Progression on Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4/6 Inhibition in Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: MAINTAIN Trial.

PURPOSE: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) with endocrine therapy (ET) improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Although preclinical and clinical data demonstrate a benefit in changing ET and continuing a CDK4/6i at progression, no randomized prospective trials have evaluated this approach. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, phase II, double-blind placebo-controlled trial in patients with HR+/HER2- MBC whose cancer progressed during ET and CDK4/6i, participants switched ET (fulvestrant or exemestane) from ET used pre-random assignment and randomly assigned 1:1 to the CDK4/6i ribociclib versus placebo. PFS was the primary end point, defined as time from random assignment to disease progression or death. Assuming a median PFS of 3.8 months with placebo, we had 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.58 (corresponding to a median PFS of at least 6.5 months with ribociclib) with 120 patients randomly assigned using a one-sided log-rank test and significance level set at 2.5%. RESULTS: Of the 119 randomly assigned participants, 103 (86.5%) previously received palbociclib and 14 participants received ribociclib (11.7%). There was a statistically significant PFS improvement for patients randomly assigned to switched ET plus ribociclib (median, 5.29 months; 95% CI, 3.02 to 8.12 months) versus switched ET plus placebo (median, 2.76 months; 95% CI, 2.66 to 3.25 months) HR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.85); P = .006. At 6 and 12 months, the PFS rate was 41.2% and 24.6% with ribociclib, respectively, compared with 23.9% and 7.4% with placebo. CONCLUSION: In this randomized trial, there was a significant PFS benefit for patients with HR+/HER2- MBC who switched ET and received ribociclib compared with placebo after previous CDK4/6i and different ET.

Racial Disparities in COVID-19 Outcomes Among Black and White Patients With Cancer.

Importance: Non-Hispanic Black individuals experience a higher burden of COVID-19 than the general population; hence, there is an urgent need to characterize the unique clinical course and outcomes of COVID-19 in Black patients with cancer. Objective: To investigate racial disparities in severity of COVID-19 presentation, clinical complications, and outcomes between Black patients and non-Hispanic White patients with cancer and COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry from March 17, 2020, to November 18, 2020, to examine the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 in Black patients with cancer. Data analysis was performed from December 2020 to February 2021. Exposures: Black and White race recorded in patient's electronic health record. Main Outcomes and Measures: An a priori 5-level ordinal scale including hospitalization intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause death. Results: Among 3506 included patients (1768 women [50%]; median [IQR] age, 67 [58-77] years), 1068 (30%) were Black and 2438 (70%) were White. Black patients had higher rates of preexisting comorbidities compared with White patients, including obesity (480 Black patients [45%] vs 925 White patients [38%]), diabetes (411 Black patients [38%] vs 574 White patients [24%]), and kidney disease (248 Black patients [23%] vs 392 White patients [16%]). Despite the similar distribution of cancer type, cancer status, and anticancer therapy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, Black patients presented with worse illness and had significantly worse COVID-19 severity (unweighted odds ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.15-1.58]; weighted odds ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.11-1.33]). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that Black patients with cancer experience worse COVID-19 outcomes compared with White patients. Understanding and addressing racial inequities within the causal framework of structural racism is essential to reduce the disproportionate burden of diseases, such as COVID-19 and cancer, in Black patients.

Assessment of Regional Variability in COVID-19 Outcomes Among Patients With Cancer in the United States.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a distinct spatiotemporal pattern in the United States. Patients with cancer are at higher risk of severe complications from COVID-19, but it is not well known whether COVID-19 outcomes in this patient population were associated with geography. Objective: To quantify spatiotemporal variation in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients with a historical diagnosis of invasive malignant neoplasm and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March and November 2020. Data were collected from cancer care delivery centers in the United States. Exposures: Patient residence was categorized into 9 US census divisions. Cancer center characteristics included academic or community classification, rural-urban continuum code (RUCC), and social vulnerability index. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary composite outcome consisted of receipt of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and all-cause death. Multilevel mixed-effects models estimated associations of center-level and census division-level exposures with outcomes after adjustment for patient-level risk factors and quantified variation in adjusted outcomes across centers, census divisions, and calendar time. Results: Data for 4749 patients (median [IQR] age, 66 [56-76] years; 2439 [51.4%] female individuals, 1079 [22.7%] non-Hispanic Black individuals, and 690 [14.5%] Hispanic individuals) were reported from 83 centers in the Northeast (1564 patients [32.9%]), Midwest (1638 [34.5%]), South (894 [18.8%]), and West (653 [13.8%]). After adjustment for patient characteristics, including month of COVID-19 diagnosis, estimated 30-day mortality rates ranged from 5.2% to 26.6% across centers. Patients from centers located in metropolitan areas with population less than 250 000 (RUCC 3) had lower odds of 30-day mortality compared with patients from centers in metropolitan areas with population at least 1 million (RUCC 1) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.84). The type of center was not significantly associated with primary or secondary outcomes. There were no statistically significant differences in outcome rates across the 9 census divisions, but adjusted mortality rates significantly improved over time (eg, September to November vs March to May: aOR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17-0.58). Conclusions and Relevance: In this registry-based cohort study, significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes across US census divisions were not observed. However, substantial heterogeneity in COVID-19 outcomes across cancer care delivery centers was found. Attention to implementing standardized guidelines for the care of patients with cancer and COVID-19 could improve outcomes for these vulnerable patients.