Clinical and Genomic Risk to Guide the Use of Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer may be guided by clinicopathological factors and a score based on a 21-gene assay to determine the risk of recurrence. Whether the level of clinical risk of breast cancer recurrence adds prognostic information to the recurrence score is not known. METHODS: We performed a prospective trial involving 9427 women with hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer, in whom an assay of 21 genes had been performed, and we classified the clinical risk of recurrence of breast cancer as low or high on the basis of the tumor size and histologic grade. The effect of clinical risk was evaluated by calculating hazard ratios for distant recurrence with the use of Cox proportional-hazards models. The initial endocrine therapy was tamoxifen alone in the majority of the premenopausal women who were 50 years of age or younger. RESULTS: The level of clinical risk was prognostic of distant recurrence in women with an intermediate 21-gene recurrence score of 11 to 25 (on a scale of 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a worse prognosis or a greater potential benefit from chemotherapy) who were randomly assigned to endocrine therapy (hazard ratio for the comparison of high vs. low clinical risk, 2.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.93 to 3.87) or to chemotherapy plus endocrine (chemoendocrine) therapy (hazard ratio, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.66 to 3.48) and in women with a high recurrence score (a score of 26 to 100), all of whom were assigned to chemoendocrine therapy (hazard ratio, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.94 to 5.19). Among women who were 50 years of age or younger who had received endocrine therapy alone, the estimated (±SE) rate of distant recurrence at 9 years was less than 5% (≤1.8±0.9%) with a low recurrence score (a score of 0 to 10), irrespective of clinical risk, and 4.7±1.0% with an intermediate recurrence score and low clinical risk. In this age group, the estimated distant recurrence at 9 years exceeded 10% among women with a high clinical risk and an intermediate recurrence score who received endocrine therapy alone (12.3±2.4%) and among those with a high recurrence score who received chemoendocrine therapy (15.2±3.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical-risk stratification provided prognostic information that, when added to the 21-gene recurrence score, could be used to identify premenopausal women who could benefit from more effective therapy. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00310180.).

Adjuvant Chemotherapy Guided by a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The recurrence score based on the 21-gene breast cancer assay predicts chemotherapy benefit if it is high and a low risk of recurrence in the absence of chemotherapy if it is low; however, there is uncertainty about the benefit of chemotherapy for most patients, who have a midrange score. METHODS: We performed a prospective trial involving 10,273 women with hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer. Of the 9719 eligible patients with follow-up information, 6711 (69%) had a midrange recurrence score of 11 to 25 and were randomly assigned to receive either chemoendocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone. The trial was designed to show noninferiority of endocrine therapy alone for invasive disease-free survival (defined as freedom from invasive disease recurrence, second primary cancer, or death). RESULTS: Endocrine therapy was noninferior to chemoendocrine therapy in the analysis of invasive disease-free survival (hazard ratio for invasive disease recurrence, second primary cancer, or death [endocrine vs. chemoendocrine therapy], 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.24; P=0.26). At 9 years, the two treatment groups had similar rates of invasive disease-free survival (83.3% in the endocrine-therapy group and 84.3% in the chemoendocrine-therapy group), freedom from disease recurrence at a distant site (94.5% and 95.0%) or at a distant or local-regional site (92.2% and 92.9%), and overall survival (93.9% and 93.8%). The chemotherapy benefit for invasive disease-free survival varied with the combination of recurrence score and age (P=0.004), with some benefit of chemotherapy found in women 50 years of age or younger with a recurrence score of 16 to 25. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant endocrine therapy and chemoendocrine therapy had similar efficacy in women with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer who had a midrange 21-gene recurrence score, although some benefit of chemotherapy was found in some women 50 years of age or younger. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; TAILORx ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00310180 .).

Breast cancer after use of estrogen plus progestin in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Following the release of the 2002 report of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial of estrogen plus progestin, the use of menopausal hormone therapy in the United States decreased substantially. Subsequently, the incidence of breast cancer also dropped, suggesting a cause-and-effect relation between hormone treatment and breast cancer. However, the cause of this decrease remains controversial. METHODS: We analyzed the results of the WHI randomized clinical trial--in which one study group received 0.625 mg of conjugated equine estrogens plus 2.5 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate daily and another group received placebo--and examined temporal trends in breast-cancer diagnoses in the WHI observational-study cohort. Risk factors for breast cancer, frequency of mammography, and time-specific incidence of breast cancer were assessed in relation to combined hormone use. RESULTS: In the clinical trial, there were fewer breast-cancer diagnoses in the group receiving estrogen plus progestin than in the placebo group in the initial 2 years of the study, but the number of diagnoses increased over the course of the 5.6-year intervention period. The elevated risk decreased rapidly after both groups stopped taking the study pills, despite a similar frequency of mammography. In the observational study, the incidence of breast cancer was initially about two times as high in the group receiving menopausal hormones as in the placebo group, but this difference in incidence decreased rapidly in about 2 years, coinciding with year-to-year reductions in combined hormone use. During this period, differences in the frequency of mammography between the two groups were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: The increased risk of breast cancer associated with the use of estrogen plus progestin declined markedly soon after discontinuation of combined hormone therapy and was unrelated to changes in frequency of mammography.

Ki67 in breast cancer: prognostic and predictive potential.

The leading parameters that define treatment recommendations in early breast cancer are oestrogen-receptor, progesterone-receptor, and human epidermal growth-factor status. Although some pathologists report Ki67 in addition to other biological markers, the existing guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology do not include Ki67 in the list of required routine biological markers. The advent of new genetic tests has emphasised the role of proliferative genes, including Ki67, as prognostic and predictive markers. Additionally, randomised studies have retrospectively reviewed data and reported on the role of Ki67 in breast cancer. In light of new data, we have re-assessed evidence that could change guidelines to include Ki67 in the standard pathological assessment of early breast cancers. This review provides an update on the current knowledge on Ki67 and of the evidence in the published work about the prognostic and predictive role of this marker, and provides information on the laboratory techniques used to determine Ki67.

Adjuvant chemotherapy and timing of tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive, node-positive breast cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tamoxifen is standard adjuvant treatment for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. We assessed the benefit of adding chemotherapy to adjuvant tamoxifen and whether tamoxifen should be given concurrently or after chemotherapy. METHODS: We undertook a phase 3, parallel, randomised trial (SWOG-8814, INT-0100) in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, node-positive breast cancer to test two major objectives: whether the primary outcome, disease-free survival, was longer with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF) given every 4 weeks for six cycles plus 5 years of daily tamoxifen than with tamoxifen alone; and whether disease-free survival was longer with CAF followed by tamoxifen (CAF-T) than with CAF plus concurrent tamoxifen (CAFT). Overall survival and toxicity were predefined, important secondary outcomes for each objective. Patients in this open-label trial were randomly assigned by a computer algorithm in a 2:3:3 ratio (tamoxifen:CAF-T:CAFT) and analysis was by intention to treat of eligible patients. Groups were compared by stratified log-rank tests, followed by Cox regression analyses adjusted for significant prognostic factors. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00929591. FINDINGS: Of 1558 randomised women, 1477 (95%) were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. After a maximum of 13 years of follow-up (median 8.94 years), 637 women had a disease-free survival event (tamoxifen, 179 events in 361 patients; CAF-T, 216 events in 566 patients; CAFT, 242 events in 550 patients). For the first objective, therapy with the CAF plus tamoxifen groups combined (CAFT or CAF-T) was superior to tamoxifen alone for the primary endpoint of disease-free survival (adjusted Cox regression hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.91; p=0.002) but only marginally for the secondary endpoint of overall survival (HR 0.83, 0.68-1.01; p=0.057). For the second objective, the adjusted HRs favoured CAF-T over CAFT but did not reach significance for disease-free survival (HR 0.84, 0.70-1.01; p=0.061) or overall survival (HR 0.90, 0.73-1.10; p=0.30). Neutropenia, stomatitis, thromboembolism, congestive heart failure, and leukaemia were more frequent in the combined CAF plus tamoxifen groups than in the tamoxifen-alone group. INTERPRETATION: Chemotherapy with CAF plus tamoxifen given sequentially is more effective adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive, node-positive breast cancer than is tamoxifen alone. However, it might be possible to identify some subgroups that do not benefit from anthracycline-based chemotherapy despite positive nodes. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute (US National Institutes of Health).

The decrease in breast-cancer incidence in 2003 in the United States.

An initial analysis of data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries shows that the age-adjusted incidence rate of breast cancer in women in the United States fell sharply (by 6.7%) in 2003, as compared with the rate in 2002. Data from 2004 showed a leveling off relative to the 2003 rate, with little additional decrease. Regression analysis showed that the decrease began in mid-2002 and had begun to level off by mid-2003. A comparison of incidence rates in 2001 with those in 2004 (omitting the years in which the incidence was changing) showed that the decrease in annual age-adjusted incidence was 8.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.8 to 10.4). The decrease was evident only in women who were 50 years of age or older and was more evident in cancers that were estrogen-receptor-positive than in those that were estrogen-receptor-negative. The decrease in breast-cancer incidence seems to be temporally related to the first report of the Women's Health Initiative and the ensuing drop in the use of hormone-replacement therapy among postmenopausal women in the United States. The contributions of other causes to the change in incidence seem less likely to have played a major role but have not been excluded.

Manganese superoxide dismutase polymorphism, treatment-related toxicity and disease-free survival in SWOG 8897 clinical trial for breast cancer.

To date, the few studies of associations between a functional polymorphism in the oxidative stress-related gene manganese superoxide dismutase (SOD2) and breast cancer survival have been inconsistent. In a homogeneous patient population from a large cooperative group trial Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) 8897, we evaluated this polymorphism in relation to both treatment-related toxicity and disease-free survival (DFS). Among 458 women who received cyclophosphamide-containing adjuvant chemotherapy, those with variant C alleles, related to higher antioxidant activity, experienced less grade 3-4 neutropenia (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.29-0.92) but had worse DFS (HR = 1.59, 95% CI = 0.99-2.55) than women with TT genotypes. No associations were observed among 874 women who were followed without adjuvant therapy. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that women with higher SOD2 antioxidant activity may experience less treatment-related toxicity but shorter time to disease recurrence or death after breast cancer adjuvant chemotherapy, supporting the modifying effects of oxidative stress-related enzymes on cancer treatment toxicity and efficacy.

Estrogen plus progestin and breast cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women.

CONTEXT: In the Women's Health Initiative randomized, placebo-controlled trial of estrogen plus progestin, after a mean intervention time of 5.6 (SD, 1.3) years (range, 3.7-8.6 years) and a mean follow-up of 7.9 (SD, 1.4) years, breast cancer incidence was increased among women who received combined hormone therapy. Breast cancer mortality among participants in the trial has not been previously reported. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of therapy with estrogen plus progestin on cumulative breast cancer incidence and mortality after a total mean follow-up of 11.0 (SD, 2.7) years, through August 14, 2009. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 16,608 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years with no prior hysterectomy from 40 US clinical centers were randomly assigned to receive combined conjugated equine estrogens, 0.625 mg/d, plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, 2.5 mg/d, or placebo pill. After the original trial completion date (March 31, 2005), reconsent was required for continued follow-up for breast cancer incidence and was obtained from 12,788 (83%) of the surviving participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Invasive breast cancer incidence and breast cancer mortality. RESULTS: In intention-to-treat analyses including all randomized participants and censoring those not consenting to additional follow-up on March 31, 2005, estrogen plus progestin was associated with more invasive breast cancers compared with placebo (385 cases [0.42% per year] vs 293 cases [0.34% per year]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.46; P = .004). Breast cancers in the estrogen-plus-progestin group were similar in histology and grade to breast cancers in the placebo group but were more likely to be node-positive (81 [23.7%] vs 43 [16.2%], respectively; HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.23-2.58; P = .03). There were more deaths directly attributed to breast cancer (25 deaths [0.03% per year] vs 12 deaths [0.01% per year]; HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.00-4.04; P = .049) as well as more deaths from all causes occurring after a breast cancer diagnosis (51 deaths [0.05% per year] vs 31 deaths [0.03% per year]; HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.01-2.48; P = .045) among women who received estrogen plus progestin compared with women in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Estrogen plus progestin was associated with greater breast cancer incidence, and the cancers are more commonly node-positive. Breast cancer mortality also appears to be increased with combined use of estrogen plus progestin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000611.

Calibration and discriminatory accuracy of prognosis calculation for breast cancer with the online Adjuvant! program: a hospital-based retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant! is a web-based program that calculates individualised 10-year survival probabilities and predicted benefit of adjuvant systemic therapy. The Adjuvant! model has not been validated in any large European series. The aim of our study was to validate Adjuvant! in Dutch patients, investigating both its calibration and discriminatory accuracy. METHODS: Patients who were at least partly treated at the Netherlands Cancer Institute for breast cancer between 1987 and 1998 were included if they met the following criteria: tumour size T1 (< or =2 cm), T2 (2-5 cm), or T3 (>5 cm), invasive breast carcinoma, with information about involvement of axillary lymph nodes available, no distant metastases, primary surgery, axillary staging, and radiotherapy according to national guidelines. Clinicopathological characteristics and adjuvant treatment data were retrieved from hospital records and medical registries and were entered into the Adjuvant! (version 8.0) batch processor with blinding to outcome. Endpoints were overall survival and the proportion of patients that did not die from breast cancer (breast-cancer-specific survival [BCSS]). FINDINGS: 5380 patients were included with median follow-up of 11.7 years (range 0.03-21.8). The 10-year observed overall survival (69.0%) and BCSS (78.6%) and Adjuvant! predicted overall survival (69.1%) and BCSS (77.8%) were not statistically different (p=0.87 and p=0.18, respectively). Moreover, differences between predicted and observed outcomes were within 2% for most relevant clinicopathological subgroups. In patients younger than 40 years, Adjuvant! overestimated overall survival by 4.2% (p=0.04) and BCSS by 4.7% (p=0.01). The concordance index, which indicates discriminatory accuracy at the individual level, was 0.71 for BCSS in the entire cohort. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant! accurately predicted 10-year outcomes in this large-scale Dutch validation study and is of use for adjuvant treatment decision making, although the results may be less reliable in some subgroups.

Association Between 21-Gene Assay Recurrence Score and Locoregional Recurrence Rates in Patients With Node-Positive Breast Cancer.

Importance: The 21-gene assay recurrence score is increasingly used to personalize treatment recommendations for systemic therapy in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor (ER)- or progesterone receptor (PR)-positive, node-positive breast cancer; however, the relevance of the 21-gene assay to radiotherapy decisions remains uncertain. Objective: To examine the association between recurrence score and locoregional recurrence (LRR) in a postmenopausal patient population treated with adjuvant chemotherapy followed by tamoxifen or tamoxifen alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a retrospective analysis of the Southwest Oncology Group S8814, a phase 3 randomized clinical trial of postmenopausal women with ER/PR-positive, node-positive breast cancer treated with tamoxifen alone, chemotherapy followed by tamoxifen, or concurrent tamoxifen and chemotherapy. Patients at North American clinical centers were enrolled from June 1989 to July 1995. Medical records from patients with recurrence score information were reviewed for LRR and radiotherapy use. Primary analysis included 316 patients and excluded 37 who received both mastectomy and radiotherapy, 9 who received breast-conserving surgery without documented radiotherapy, and 5 with unknown surgical type. All analyses were performed from January 22, 2016, to August 9, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The LRR was defined as a recurrence in the breast; chest wall; or axillary, infraclavicular, supraclavicular, or internal mammary lymph nodes. Time to LRR was tested with log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards regression for multivariate models. Results: The final cohort of this study comprised 316 women with a mean (range) age of 60.4 (44-81) years. Median (interquartile range) follow-up for those without LRR was 8.7 (7.0-10.2) years. Seven LRR events (5.8%) among 121 patients with low recurrence score and 27 LRR events (13.8%) among 195 patients with intermediate or high recurrence score occurred. The estimated 10-year cumulative incidence rates were 9.7% for those with a low recurrence score and 16.5% for the group with intermediate or high recurrence score (P = .02). Among patients who had a mastectomy without radiotherapy (n = 252), the differences in the 10-year actuarial LRR rates remained significant: 7.7 % for the low recurrence score group vs 16.8% for the intermediate or high recurrence score group (P = .03). A multivariable model controlling for randomized treatment, number of positive nodes, and surgical type showed that a higher recurrence score was prognostic for LRR (hazard ratio [HR], 2.36; 95% CI, 1.02-5.45; P = .04). In a subset analysis of patients with a mastectomy and 1 to 3 involved nodes who did not receive radiation therapy, the group with a low recurrence score had a 1.5% rate of LRR, whereas the group with an intermediate or high recurrence score had a 11.1% LRR (P = .051). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that higher recurrence scores were associated with increased LRR after adjustment for treatment, type of surgical procedure, and number of positive nodes. This finding suggests that the recurrence score may be used, along with accepted clinical variables, to assess the risk of LRR during radiotherapy decision-making.

The HER-2 receptor and breast cancer: ten years of targeted anti-HER-2 therapy and personalized medicine.

The human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER-2) oncogene encodes a transmembrane tyrosine kinase receptor that has evolved as a major classifier of invasive breast cancer and target of therapy for the disease. The validation of the general prognostic significance of HER-2 gene amplification and protein overexpression in the absence of anti-HER-2 targeted therapy is discussed in a study of 107 published studies involving 39,730 patients, which produced an overall HER-2-positive rate of 22.2% and a mean relative risk for overall survival (OS) of 2.74. The issue of HER-2 status in primary versus metastatic breast cancer is considered along with a section on the features of metastatic HER-2-positive disease. The major marketed slide-based HER-2 testing approaches, immunohistochemistry, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and chromogenic in situ hybridization, are presented and contrasted in detail against the background of the published American Society of Clinical Oncology-College of American Pathologists guidelines for HER-2 testing. Testing issues, such as the impact of chromosome 17 polysomy and local versus central HER-2 testing, are also discussed. Emerging novel HER-2 testing techniques, including mRNA-based testing by real-time polymerase chain reaction and DNA microarray methods, HER-2 receptor dimerization, phosphorylated HER-2 receptors, and HER-2 status in circulating tumor cells, are also considered. A series of biomarkers potentially associated with resistance to trastuzumab is discussed with emphasis on the phosphatase and tensin homologue deleted on chromosome ten/Akt and insulin-like growth factor receptor pathways. The efficacy results for the more recently approved small molecule HER-1/HER-2 kinase inhibitor lapatinib are also presented along with a more limited review of markers of resistance for this agent. Additional topics in this section include combinations of both anti-HER-2 targeted therapies together as well as with novel agents including bevacizumab, everolimus, and tenespimycin. A series of novel HER-2-targeting agents is also presented, including pertuzumab, ertumaxomab, HER-2 vaccines, and recently discovered tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Biomarkers predictive of HER-2 targeted therapy toxicity are included, and the review concludes with a consideration of HER-2 status in the prediction of response to non-HER-2 targeted treatments including hormonal therapy, anthracyclines, and taxanes.

Communicating Risks of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: Getting Beyond the Laundry List.

PURPOSE: According to the Institute of Medicine, high-quality cancer care should include effective communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits, expected response, and impact on quality of life of a recommended therapy. In the delivery of oncology care, the barriers to and facilitators of communication about potential long-term and late effects, post-treatment expectations, and transition to survivorship care have not been fully defined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected qualitative data through semistructured interviews with medical oncologists and focus groups with breast cancer survivors and applied the Theoretical Domains Framework to systematically analyze and identify the factors that may influence oncologists' communication with patients with breast cancer about the long-term and late effects of adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: Eight key informant interviews with medical oncologists and two focus groups with breast cancer survivors provided data. Both oncologists and patients perceived information on long-term effects as valuable in terms of improved clinical communication but had concerns about the feasibility of inclusion before treatment. They described the current approaches to communication of therapy risks as a brief laundry list that emphasized acute adverse effects and minimized more long-term issues. We describe the barriers to communication about potential long-term effects from the perspectives of both groups. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into oncologists' communication with patients with breast cancer regarding the potential long-term and late effects of adjuvant chemotherapy and about setting realistic expectations for life after treatment. Opportunities to improve oncologists' communication about the potential toxicities of therapy, particularly regarding long-term and late effects, should be examined further.

Germline Genetic Variants in GATA3 and Breast Cancer Treatment Outcomes in SWOG S8897 Trial and the Pathways Study.

INTRODUCTION: GATA3 is a critical transcription factor in maintaining the differentiated state of luminal mammary epithelial cells. We sought to determine the prognostic and predictive roles of GATA3 genotypes for breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twelve single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were genotyped in 2 breast cancer cohorts, including the SWOG S8897 trial where patients were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (CAF [cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, 5-fluorouracil] vs. CMF [cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil]) or untreated, and the observational Pathways Study. RESULTS: In the S8897 trial, rs3802604 and rs568727 were associated with disease-free survival and overall survival in the treated group, regardless of chemotherapy regimen. The GG genotype of rs3802604 conferred poorer overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.48-4.05) and disease-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.99) compared with the AA genotype. Similar associations were found for rs568727. In contrast, no association with either SNP was found in the untreated group. Subgroup analyses indicated that these 2 SNPs more strongly influenced outcomes in the patients who also received tamoxifen. However, the associations in the subgroup with tamoxifen treatment were not replicated in the Pathways Study, possibly owing to substantial differences between the 2 patient cohorts, such as chemotherapy regimen and length of follow-up. Results from joint analyses across these 2 cohorts were marginally significant, driven by the results in S8897. Bioinformatic analyses support potential functional disruption of the GATA3 SNPs in breast tissue. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides some evidence for the predictive value of GATA3 genotypes for breast cancer adjuvant therapies. Future replication studies in appropriate patient populations are warranted.

Accuracy of the online prognostication tools PREDICT and Adjuvant! for early-stage breast cancer patients younger than 50 years.

IMPORTANCE: Online prognostication tools such as PREDICT and Adjuvant! are increasingly used in clinical practice by oncologists to inform patients and guide treatment decisions about adjuvant systemic therapy. However, their validity for young breast cancer patients is debated. OBJECTIVE: To assess first, the prognostic accuracy of PREDICT's and Adjuvant! 10-year all-cause mortality, and second, its breast cancer-specific mortality estimates, in a large cohort of breast cancer patients diagnosed <50 years. DESIGN: Hospital-based cohort. SETTING: General and cancer hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A consecutive series of 2710 patients without a prior history of cancer, diagnosed between 1990 and 2000 with unilateral stage I-III breast cancer aged <50 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Calibration and discriminatory accuracy, measured with C-statistics, of estimated 10-year all-cause and breast cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: Overall, PREDICT's calibration for all-cause mortality was good (predicted versus observed) meandifference: -1.1% (95%CI: -3.2%-0.9%; P = 0.28). PREDICT tended to underestimate all-cause mortality in good prognosis subgroups (range meandifference: -2.9% to -4.8%), overestimated all-cause mortality in poor prognosis subgroups (range meandifference: 2.6%-9.4%) and underestimated survival in patients < 35 by -6.6%. Overall, PREDICT overestimated breast cancer-specific mortality by 3.2% (95%CI: 0.8%-5.6%; P = 0.007); and also overestimated it seemingly indiscriminately in numerous subgroups (range meandifference: 3.2%-14.1%). Calibration was poor in the cohort of patients with the lowest and those with the highest mortality probabilities. Discriminatory accuracy was moderate-to-good for all-cause mortality in PREDICT (0.71 [95%CI: 0.68 to 0.73]), and the results were similar for breast cancer-specific mortality. Adjuvant!'s calibration and discriminatory accuracy for both all-cause and breast cancer-specific mortality were in line with PREDICT's findings. CONCLUSIONS: Although imprecise at the extremes, PREDICT's estimates of 10-year all-cause mortality seem reasonably sound for breast cancer patients <50 years; Adjuvant! findings were similar. Prognostication tools should be used with caution due to the intrinsic variability of their estimates, and because the threshold to discuss adjuvant systemic treatment is low. Thus, seemingly insignificant mortality overestimations or underestimations of a few percentages can significantly impact treatment decision-making.

Randomized, controlled trial of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil with and without tamoxifen for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer: treatment results of Intergroup Protocol INT-0102.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the efficacy of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF) in node-negative breast cancer patients with and without tamoxifen (TAM), overall and by hormone receptor (HR) status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Node-negative patients identified by tumor size (> 2 cm), negative HR, or high S-phase fraction (n = 2,690) were randomly assigned to CMF, CAF, CMF + TAM (CMFT), or CAF + TAM (CAFT). Cox regression evaluated overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) for CAF versus CMF and TAM versus no TAM separately. Two-sided CIs and one-sided P values for planned comparisons were calculated. RESULTS: Ten-year estimates indicated that CAF was not significantly better than CMF (P = .13) for the primary outcome of DFS (77% v 75%; HR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.27). CAF had slightly better OS than CMF (85% v 82%, HR = 1.19 for CMF v CAF; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.43); values were statistically significant in the planned one-sided test (P = .03). Toxicity was greater with CAF and did not increase with TAM. Overall, TAM had no benefit (DFS, P = .16; OS, P = .37), but the TAM effect differed by HR groups. For HR-positive patients, TAM was beneficial (DFS, HR = 1.32 for no TAM v TAM; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.61; P = .003; OS, HR = 1.26; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.61; P = .03), but not for HR-negative patients (DFS, HR = 0.81 for no TAM v TAM; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.03; OS, HR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.05). CONCLUSION: CAF did not improve DFS compared with CMF; there was a slight effect on OS. Given greater toxicity, we cannot conclude CAF to be superior to CMF. TAM is effective in HR-positive disease, but not in HR-negative disease.

Population-based validation of the prognostic model ADJUVANT! for early breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant! (www.adjuvantonline.com) is a web-based tool that predicts 10-year breast cancer outcomes with and without adjuvant systemic therapy, but it has not been independently validated. METHODS: Using the British Columbia Breast Cancer Outcomes Unit (BCOU) database, demographic, pathologic, staging, and treatment data on 4,083 women diagnosed between 1989 and 1993 in British Columbia with T1-2, N0-1, M0 breast cancer were abstracted and entered into Adjuvant! to calculate predicted 10-year overall survival (OS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and event-free survival (EFS) for each patient. Individual BCOU observed outcomes at 10 years were independently determined. Predicted and observed outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Across all 4,083 patients, 10-year predicted and observed outcomes were within 1% for OS, BCSS, and EFS (all P > .05). Predicted and observed outcomes were within 2% for most demographic, pathologic, and treatment-defined subgroups. Adjuvant! overestimated OS, BCSS, and EFS in women younger than age 35 years (predicted-observed = 8.6%, 9.6%, and 13.6%, respectively; all P < .001) or with lymphatic or vascular invasion (LVI; predicted-observed = 3.6%, 3.8%, and 4.2%, respectively; all P < .05); these two prognostic factors were not automatically incorporated within the Adjuvant! algorithm. After adjusting for the distribution of LVI, using the prognostic factor impact calculator in Adjuvant!, 10-year predicted and observed outcomes were no longer significantly different. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant! performed reliably. Patients younger than age 35 or with known additional adverse prognostic factors such as LVI require adjustment of risks to derive reliable predictions of prognosis without adjuvant systemic therapy and the absolute benefits of adjuvant systemic therapy.

Prognosis of patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer: impact of clinical and pathologic variables.

The objective of this study was to determine whether AJCC staging, supplemented by additional clinical and pathologic variables could identify a subpopulation of pathologically staged NSCLC patients who had been resected for cure with a low risk (<20%) of 5-year disease specific mortality. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry was analyzed to identify and evaluate the disease specific 5-year mortality of 17,130 patients with resected and pathologically defined Stage I-IIIA disease initially diagnosed from 1988 to 1997. The analyses showed that American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) T and N defined stage Stage I-IIIA subgroups had approximately a 30, 60, and 75% 5-year disease specific mortality, respectively. The 5,366 Stage IA patients were identified as having a 5-year disease specific mortality of 25%. Further multivariate analyses of Stage IA cases showed predictors of favorable outcome to be tumor size (< 10 mm), histologic grade (well differentiated), and histologic subtype (bronchoalveolar cell). Subgroups identified with two or all three of these additional features had an approximately 10% 5-year lung cancer specific mortality. Although nearly all patient subgroups with Stages I-IIIA resected and pathologically staged NSCLC have substantial (>20%) risk of death from their cancer within 5 years of diagnosis, for Stage IA patients additional information (tumor size, histologic grade, and histologic subtype) allows additional refinement in prognostic estimates and identification of some low risk subgroups.

Decreased use of adjuvant breast cancer therapy in a randomized controlled trial of a decision aid with individualized risk information.

OBJECTIVE: Oncology patients often seek involvement in their medical consultations. Such involvement is endorsed by most health care providers and mirrored in practice guidelines. However, oncologists exhibit great variation in how they provide patients with disease-relevant information, and many remain reluctant to do so at all. The authors examined the impact of a patient-specific decision aid on women's decisions about adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. METHOD: 386 women with breast cancer were randomized to receive either an informational pamphlet about adjuvant therapy (usual care) or a patient-specific, evidence-based decision aid about adjuvant therapy. The authors compared rates of adjuvant therapy between the groups controlling for age, education, marital status, race, tumor severity, and practice type of their physician (university-based or community-based). RESULTS: Among women with low tumor severity, only 58% (35/60) of women in the decision aid group chose adjuvant therapy, compared to 87% (33/38) of their counterparts in usual care (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the important impact of medical decision aids on treatment choices, particularly for patients for whom treatment has little benefit. In the case of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, providing individualized, evidence-based risk information for shared decision making resulted in fewer women with low tumor severity choosing adjuvant treatment.

A method for making estimates of the benefit of the late use of letrozole in patients completing 5 years of tamoxifen.

This article discusses the rationale for 2 methods of making estimates of the benefit of letrozole as extended adjuvant hormonal therapy after 5 years of tamoxifen. It uses information from the Overview metaanalyses to develop general rules for making estimates of remaining risk of relapse for women completing 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen without relapse. The first derived method shows that the expected benefit for such a woman is approximately one tenth of her risk of relapse in years 0-10 if untreated. The second method uses a modification of Adjuvant!, a decision support tool, and makes similar estimates. The decision tool supplies needed estimates of initial risk and allows adjustment for competing mortality. Uncertainties involved in making these estimates are also discussed.