Clinical characteristics, racial inequities, and outcomes in patients with breast cancer and COVID-19: A COVID-19 and cancer consortium (CCC19) cohort study.

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

XENERA-1: a randomised double-blind Phase II trial of xentuzumab in combination with everolimus and exemestane versus everolimus and exemestane in patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and non-visceral disease.

BACKGROUND: Xentuzumab is a humanised monoclonal antibody that binds to IGF-1 and IGF-2, neutralising their proliferative activity and restoring inhibition of AKT by everolimus. This study evaluated the addition of xentuzumab to everolimus and exemestane in patients with advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, Phase II study was undertaken in female patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease who had received prior endocrine therapy with or without CDK4/6 inhibitors. Patients received a weekly intravenous infusion of xentuzumab (1000 mg) or placebo in combination with everolimus (10 mg/day orally) and exemestane (25 mg/day orally). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were randomised and 101 were treated (n = 50 in the xentuzumab arm and n = 51 in the placebo arm). The trial was unblinded early due to high rates of discordance between independent and investigator assessment of PFS. Per independent assessment, median PFS was 12.7 (95% CI 6.8-29.3) months with xentuzumab and 11.0 (7.7-19.5) months with placebo (hazard ratio 1.19; 95% CI 0.55-2.59; p = 0.6534). Per investigator assessment, median PFS was 7.4 (6.8-9.7) months with xentuzumab and 9.2 (5.6-14.4) months with placebo (hazard ratio 1.23; 95% CI 0.69-2.20; p = 0.4800). Tolerability was similar between the arms, with diarrhoea (33.3-56.0%), fatigue (33.3-44.0%) and headache (21.6-40.0%) being the most common treatment-emergent adverse events. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 hyperglycaemia was similar between the xentuzumab (2.0%) and placebo (5.9%) arms. CONCLUSIONS: While this study demonstrated that xentuzumab could be safely combined with everolimus and exemestane in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease, there was no PFS benefit with the addition of xentuzumab. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03659136. Prospectively registered, September 6, 2018.

Operational Metrics for the ELAINE 2 Study Combining a Traditional Approach With a Just-in-TIME Model.

PURPOSE: There are numerous barriers to enrollment in oncology biomarker-driven studies. METHODS: The ELAINE 2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04432454) is an open-label phase 2 study of lasofoxifene combined with abemaciclib in patients with advanced or metastatic estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation. ELAINE 2 opened clinical sites by using a Traditional approach, which activated a site before patient identification, and the Tempus TIME Trial network, which opened a site only after identifying an eligible patient. This manuscript presents the operational metrics comparing the Traditional and TIME Trial site data. RESULTS: The study enrolled patients over 34 weeks and 16 sites (six Traditional and 10 TIME Trial) participated. Duration for full clinical trial agreement execution for Traditional sites and TIME Trial sites averaged 200.5 (range, 142-257) and 7.6 days (range, 2-14), respectively. Institutional review board approval time for Traditional sites and TIME Trial sites was 27.5 (range, 12-71) and 3.0 days (range, 1-12), respectively. Duration from study activation to first consent was 33.3 (range, 18-58) and 8.8 days (range, 1-35) for Traditional and TIME Trial sites, respectively. The first patient on study was at a TIME Trial site 115 days before a Traditional site and the first seven patients enrolled were at TIME Trial sites. Traditional sites consented 23 and enrolled 16 patients, while TIME Trial sites consented 16 and enrolled 13. The trial enrolled 29 patients in 8.5 months with the anticipated enrollment duration being 12-18 months. CONCLUSION: The TIME Trial network opened earlier and enrolled the first study patients. These results demonstrate that the Just-in-TIME model, along with a Traditional model, can improve enrollment in biomarker-driven studies.

Clinical Characteristics, Racial Inequities, and Outcomes in Patients with Breast Cancer and COVID-19: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Cohort Study.

Background: Limited information is available for patients with breast cancer (BC) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially among underrepresented racial/ethnic populations. Methods: This is a COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry-based retrospective cohort study of females with active or history of BC and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosed between March 2020 and June 2021 in the US. Primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on a five-level ordinal scale, including none of the following complications, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression model identified characteristics associated with COVID-19 severity. Results: 1,383 female patient records with BC and COVID-19 were included in the analysis, the median age was 61 years, and median follow-up was 90 days. Multivariable analysis revealed higher odds of COVID-19 severity for older age (aOR per decade, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.32 - 1.67]); Black patients (aOR 1.74; 95 CI 1.24-2.45), Asian Americans and Pacific Islander patients (aOR 3.40; 95 CI 1.70 - 6.79) and Other (aOR 2.97; 95 CI 1.71-5.17) racial/ethnic groups; worse ECOG performance status (ECOG PS ≥2: aOR, 7.78 [95% CI, 4.83 - 12.5]); pre-existing cardiovascular (aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.63 - 3.15])/pulmonary comorbidities (aOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.20 - 2.29]); diabetes mellitus (aOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.66 - 3.04]); and active and progressing cancer (aOR, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.89 - 22.6]). Hispanic ethnicity, timing and type of anti-cancer therapy modalities were not significantly associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The total all-cause mortality and hospitalization rate for the entire cohort was 9% and 37%, respectively however, it varied according to the BC disease status. Conclusions: Using one of the largest registries on cancer and COVID-19, we identified patient and BC related factors associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, underrepresented racial/ethnic patients experienced worse outcomes compared to Non-Hispanic White patients.

Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections among patients with cancer following two and three doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: a retrospective observational study from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium.

Background: Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections following vaccination against COVID-19 are of international concern. Patients with cancer have been observed to have worse outcomes associated with COVID-19 during the pandemic. We sought to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with cancer who developed breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after 2 or 3 doses of mRNA vaccines. Methods: We evaluated the clinical characteristics of patients with cancer who developed breakthrough infections using data from the multi-institutional COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19; NCT04354701). Analysis was restricted to patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed in 2021 or 2022, to allow for a contemporary unvaccinated control population; potential differences were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression model after inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for potential baseline confounding variables. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality, with key secondary endpoints of hospitalization and ICU and/or mechanical ventilation (ICU/MV). Findings: The analysis included 2486 patients, of which 564 and 385 had received 2 or 3 doses of an mRNA vaccine prior to infection, respectively. Hematologic malignancies and recent receipt of systemic anti-neoplastic therapy were more frequent among vaccinated patients. Vaccination was associated with improved outcomes: in the primary analysis, 2 doses (aOR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44-0.88) and 3 doses (aOR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.11-0.36) were associated with decreased 30-day mortality. There were similar findings for the key secondary endpoints of ICU/MV (aOR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.45-0.82 and 0.37, 95% CI: 0.24-0.58) and hospitalization (aOR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48-0.75 and 0.35, 95% CI: 0.26-0.46) for 2 and 3 doses, respectively. Importantly, Black patients had higher rates of hospitalization (aOR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.12-1.92), and Hispanic patients presented with higher rates of ICU/MV (aOR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.06-2.44). Interpretation: Vaccination against COVID-19, especially with additional doses, is a fundamental strategy in the prevention of adverse outcomes including death, among patients with cancer. Funding: This study was partly supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to C-YH, YS, SM, JLW; T32-CA236621 and P30-CA046592 to C.R.F; CTSA 2UL1TR001425-05A1 to TMW-D; ACS/FHI Real-World Data Impact Award, P50 MD017341-01, R21 CA242044-01A1, Susan G. Komen Leadership Grant Hunt to MKA. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH).

A real-world study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of three injectable neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist formulations for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Three different injectable neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist formulations (CINVANTI® [C] vs. intravenous Emend® [E] vs. generic formulations of fosaprepitant [GFF]) were compared with respect to nausea and vomiting control, use of rescue therapy, and the development of infusion reactions over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis from 17 community oncology practices across the USA was conducted on patients who received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The co-primary endpoints were the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) from days 1 to 5 over all cycles and the frequency of infusion-related reactions. Propensity score weighted multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to compare complete CINV control, the use of rescue therapy, and the risk of infusion reactions between groups. RESULTS: The study enrolled 294 patients (C = 101, E = 101, GFF = 92) who received 1432 cycles of chemotherapy. Using CINVANTI® as the reference group, comparative effectiveness was suggested in CINV control over all chemotherapy cycles (odds ratio (OR): E vs. C = 1.00 [0.54 to 1.86] and GFF vs. C = 1.12 [0.54 to 2.32]). However, use of rescue therapy was significantly higher in the EMEND® group relative to CINVANTI® (OR = 2.69; 95%CI: 1.06 to 6.84). Infusion reactions were also numerically higher in the EMEND® group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (OR = 4.35; 95%CI: 0.83 to 22.8). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world analysis, patients receiving CINVANTI® had a reduced need for CINV rescue therapy and a numerically lower incidence of infusion reactions.

Safety, Feasibility, and Merits of Longitudinal Molecular Testing of Multiple Metastatic Sites to Inform mTNBC Patient Treatment in the Intensive Trial of Omics in Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) have poor outcomes. The Intensive Trial of Omics in Cancer (ITOMIC) sought to determine the feasibility and potential efficacy of informing treatment decisions through multiple biopsies of mTNBC deposits longitudinally over time, accompanied by analysis using a distributed network of experts. METHODS: Thirty-one subjects were enrolled and 432 postenrollment biopsies performed (clinical and study-directed) of which 332 were study-directed. Molecular profiling included whole-genome sequencing or whole-exome sequencing, cancer-associated gene panel sequencing, RNA-sequencing, and immunohistochemistry. To afford time for analysis, subjects were initially treated with cisplatin (19 subjects), or another treatment they had not received previously. The results were discussed at a multi-institutional ITOMIC Tumor Board, and a report transmitted to the subject's oncologist who arrived at the final treatment decision in conjunction with the subject. Assistance was provided to access treatments that were predicted to be effective. RESULTS: Multiple biopsies in single settings and over time were safe, and comprehensive analysis was feasible. Two subjects were found to have lung cancer, one had carcinoma of unknown primary site, tumor samples from three subjects were estrogen receptor-positive and from two others, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive. Two subjects withdrew. Thirty-four of 112 recommended treatments were accessed using approved drugs, clinical trials, and single-patient investigational new drugs. After excluding the three subjects with nonbreast cancers and the two subjects who withdrew, 22 of 26 subjects (84.6%) received at least one ITOMIC Tumor Board-recommended treatment. CONCLUSION: Further exploration of this approach in patients with mTNBC is merited.

Impact of Augmented Intelligence on Utilization of Palliative Care Services in a Real-World Oncology Setting.

PURPOSE: For patients with advanced cancer, timely referral to palliative care (PC) services can ensure that end-of-life care aligns with their preferences and goals. Overestimation of life expectancy may result in underutilization of PC services, counterproductive treatment measures, and reduced quality of life for patients. We assessed the impact of a commercially available augmented intelligence (AI) tool to predict 30-day mortality risk on PC service utilization in a real-world setting. METHODS: Patients within a large hematology-oncology practice were scored weekly between June 2018 and October 2019 with an AI tool to generate insights into short-term mortality risk. Patients identified by the tool as being at high or medium risk were assessed for a supportive care visit and further referred as appropriate. Average monthly rates of PC and hospice referrals were calculated 5 months predeployment and 17 months postdeployment of the tool in the practice. RESULTS: The mean rate of PC consults increased from 17.3 to 29.1 per 1,000 patients per month (PPM) pre- and postdeployment, whereas the mean rate of hospice referrals increased from 0.2 to 1.6 per 1,000 PPM. Eliminating the first 6 months following deployment to account for user learning curve, the mean rate of PC consults nearly doubled over baseline to 33.0 and hospice referrals increased 12-fold to 2.4 PPM. CONCLUSION: Deployment of an AI tool at a hematology-oncology practice was found to be feasible for identifying patients at high or medium risk for short-term mortality. Insights generated by the tool drove clinical practice changes, resulting in significant increases in PC and hospice referrals.

Secret Sauce-How Diverse Practices Succeed in Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Oncology Care Model.

PURPOSE: CMS' Oncology Care Model (OCM) is an episode-based alternative payment model designed to incent high-value care through the use of monthly payments for enhanced services and performance-based payments on the basis of decreases in spending compared with risk-adjusted historical benchmarks. Transitioning from a fee-for-service model to a value-based, alternative payment model in oncology can be difficult; some practices will perform better than others. We present detailed experiences of four successful OCM practices, each operating under diverse business models and in different geographic areas. METHODS: Practices that achieved success in OCM, on the basis of financial metrics, describe pathways to success. The practices represent distinct business models: a medium-sized community oncology practice, a large statewide community oncology practice, a hospital-affiliated practice, and a large academic medical center. RESULTS: Practices describe effective changes in practice culture such as new administrative flexibilities, physician champions, improved communication, changes in physician compensation, and increased physician-level transparency. New or improved clinical services include acute care clinics, care coordination, phone triage, end-of-life care programs, and adoption of treatment pathways that identify high-value drug use, including better use of supportive care drugs. CONCLUSION: There is no one thing that will ensure success in OCM. Success requires whole practice transformation, encompassing both administrative and clinical changes. Communication between administrative and clinical teams is vital, along with improved data sharing and transparency. Clinical support services must expand to manage problems and symptoms in a timely way to prevent costly emergency department visits and hospitalizations, while constant attention must be paid to making high-value therapeutic choices in both oncolytic and supportive drug categories.

Final results of the double-blind placebo-controlled randomized phase 2 LOTUS trial of first-line ipatasertib plus paclitaxel for inoperable locally advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: In LOTUS (NCT02162719), adding the oral AKT inhibitor ipatasertib to first-line paclitaxel for locally advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (aTNBC) improved progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint), with an enhanced effect in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered tumors (FoundationOne next-generation sequencing [NGS] assay). We report final overall survival (OS) results. METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable previously untreated aTNBC. Patients were stratified by prior (neo)adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy-free interval, and tumor immunohistochemistry PTEN status, and were randomized 1:1 to paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15) plus ipatasertib 400 mg or placebo (days 1-21) every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. OS (intent-to-treat [ITT], immunohistochemistry PTEN-low, and PI3K/AKT pathway-activated [NGS PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered] populations) was a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 19.0 versus 16.0 months in the ipatasertib-paclitaxel versus placebo-paclitaxel arms, respectively. In the ITT population (n = 124), median OS was numerically longer with ipatasertib-paclitaxel than placebo-paclitaxel (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.50-1.28; median 25.8 vs 16.9 months, respectively; 1-year OS 83% vs 68%). Likewise, median OS favored ipatasertib-paclitaxel in the PTEN-low (n = 48; 23.1 vs 15.8 months; hazard ratio 0.83) and PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered (n = 42; 25.8 vs 22.1 months; hazard ratio 1.13) subgroups. The ipatasertib-paclitaxel safety profile was unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Final OS results show a numerical trend favoring ipatasertib-paclitaxel and median OS exceeding 2 years with ipatasertib-paclitaxel. Overall, results are consistent with the reported PFS benefit; interpretation within biomarker-defined subgroups is complicated by small sample sizes and TNBC heterogeneity.

Telehealth in Oncology: ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations.

PURPOSE: To provide standards and practice recommendations specific to telehealth in oncology. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on telehealth in oncology was performed, including the use of technologies and telecommunications systems, and other electronic methods of care delivery and sharing of information with patients. The evidence base was combined with the opinion of the ASCO Telehealth Expert Panel to develop telehealth standards and guidance. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS: The Expert Panel determined that general guidance on implementing telehealth across general and specialty settings has been published previously and these resources are endorsed. A systematic search for studies on topics specific to oncology resulted in the inclusion of two clinical practice guidelines, 12 systematic reviews, and six primary studies. STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE: Standards and guidance are provided for which patients in oncology can be seen via telehealth, establishment of the doctor-physician relationship, role of allied health professionals, role of advanced practice providers, multidisciplinary cancer conferences, and teletrials in oncology. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/standards.

Augmented intelligence to predict 30-day mortality in patients with cancer.

Aim: An augmented intelligence tool to predict short-term mortality risk among patients with cancer could help identify those in need of actionable interventions or palliative care services. Patients & methods: An algorithm to predict 30-day mortality risk was developed using socioeconomic and clinical data from patients in a large community hematology/oncology practice. Patients were scored weekly; algorithm performance was assessed using dates of death in patients' electronic health records. Results: For patients scored as highest risk for 30-day mortality, the event rate was 4.9% (vs 0.7% in patients scored as low risk; a 7.4-times greater risk). Conclusion: The development and validation of a decision tool to accurately identify patients with cancer who are at risk for short-term mortality is feasible.

Phase I/II Trial of Exemestane, Ribociclib, and Everolimus in Women with HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer after Progression on CDK4/6 Inhibitors (TRINITI-1).

PURPOSE: Standard-of-care treatment for metastatic hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer includes endocrine therapy (ET) combined with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i). Optimal treatment after progression on CDK4/6i is unknown. The TRINITI-1 trial investigated ribociclib, a CDK4/6i that has recently demonstrated significant overall survival benefit in two phase III trials, in combination with everolimus and exemestane in patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC) after progression on a CDK4/6i. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase I/II study included patients with locally advanced/metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at week 24 among patients with ET-refractory disease with progression on a CDK4/6i. Other endpoints included safety and biomarker analysis. RESULTS: Of 104 patients enrolled (phases I and II), 96 had prior CDK4/6i. Recommended phase II doses (all once daily days 1-28 of 28-day cycle) were ribociclib 300 mg, everolimus 2.5 mg, and exemestane 25 mg (group 1) and ribociclib 200 mg, everolimus 5 mg, and exemestane 25 mg (group 2). CBR among 95 efficacy-evaluable patients (phases I and II) at week 24 was 41.1% (95% confidence interval, 31.1-51.6), which met the primary endpoint (predetermined threshold: 10%). Common adverse events included neutropenia (69.2%) and stomatitis (40.4%). No new safety signals were observed; no grade 3/4 QTc prolongation was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary TRINITI-1 safety and efficacy results support further investigation of CDK4/6 blockade and targeting of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway in patients with ET-refractory HR+/HER2- ABC after progression on a CDK4/6i.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Road to Recovery Report: Learning From the COVID-19 Experience to Improve Clinical Research and Cancer Care.

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO's) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.

Efficacy and Safety of Ribociclib With Letrozole in US Patients Enrolled in the MONALEESA-2 Study.

BACKGROUND: In the Mammary Oncology Assessment of LEE011's (Ribociclib's) Efficacy and Safety (MONALEESA-2) study, combination treatment with the selective inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6 ribociclib with letrozole significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus letrozole alone in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC). Herein we present results from the subset of US patients enrolled in MONALEESA-2. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC without previous treatment for advanced disease were randomized (1:1) to ribociclib 600 mg/d (3 weeks on/1 week off) with letrozole 2.5 mg/d (continuous) or placebo with letrozole. The primary end point was locally assessed PFS. RESULTS: Overall, 213 US patients were enrolled in MONALEESA-2 (ribociclib, n = 100; placebo, n = 113). Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups and consistent with the global population. With a median follow-up of 27 months, 38 (38%) and 29 (26%) patients in the ribociclib and placebo groups, respectively, had continued to receive treatment. Median PFS was 27.6 months with ribociclib and 15.0 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.53). The most common all-cause adverse events were neutropenia (ribociclib, 72.0% [n = 72]; placebo, 4.6% [n = 5]), nausea (ribociclib, 69.0% [n = 69]; placebo, 44.0% [n = 48]), and fatigue (ribociclib, 60.0% [n = 60]; placebo, 50.5% [n = 55]). Two patients (ribociclib, 2.0%; placebo, 0%) experienced febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSION: In the US subset of MONALEESA-2, ribociclib with letrozole showed superior efficacy versus letrozole alone. These findings are consistent with the global population and support first-line use of ribociclib with letrozole in patients with HR+/HER2- ABC.

A Phase II Randomized Study of Neoadjuvant Letrozole Plus Alpelisib for Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Breast Cancer (NEO-ORB).

PURPOSE: Addition of alpelisib to fulvestrant significantly extended progression-free survival in PIK3CA-mutant, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced/metastatic breast cancer in the phase III SOLAR-1 study. The combination of alpelisib and letrozole also had promising activity in phase I studies of HR+ advanced/metastatic breast cancer. NEO-ORB aimed to determine whether addition of alpelisib to letrozole could increase response rates in the neoadjuvant setting.Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal women with HR+, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, T1c-T3 breast cancer were assigned to the PIK3CA-wild-type or PIK3CA-mutant cohort according to their tumor PIK3CA status, and randomized (1:1) to 2.5 mg/day letrozole with 300 mg/day alpelisib or placebo for 24 weeks. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and pathologic complete response (pCR) rate for both PIK3CA cohorts. RESULTS: In total, 257 patients were assigned to letrozole plus alpelisib (131 patients) or placebo (126 patients). Grade ≥3 adverse events (≥5% of patients) in the alpelisib arm were hyperglycemia (27%), rash (12%), and maculo-papular rash (8%). The primary objective was not met; ORR in the alpelisib versus placebo arm was 43% versus 45% and 63% versus 61% in the PIK3CA-mutant and wild-type cohorts, respectively. pCR rates were low in all groups. Decreases in Ki-67 were similar across treatment arms and cohorts. In PIK3CA-mutant tumors, alpelisib plus letrozole treatment induced a greater decrease in phosphorylated AKT versus placebo plus letrozole. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to initial results in advanced/metastatic disease, addition of alpelisib to 24-week neoadjuvant letrozole treatment did not improve response in patients with HR+ early breast cancer.

Reducing Cancer Costs Through Symptom Management and Triage Pathways.

PURPOSE: Value-based care infers care that is high quality at a comparatively low total cost. A key strategy for value-based oncology care is to avoid unnecessary emergency room (ER) visits and associated hospitalizations of patients receiving treatment for cancer. Early experience with this strategy showed that symptom management in patients with cancer can result in the reduction of ER events and hospitalizations. However, quantifying the actual savings achieved has been elusive. In this article, we present the impact of symptom management and triage pathways programs deployed at two midsize community oncology practices. We then quantify the actual dollar saving in their Medicare and commercial populations. METHODS: Symptom management records generated through the ER triage programs at the two practices were screened to identify avoided ER events. This approach was validated with an independent analysis using Medicare claim data from the Oncology Care Model program in which both practices participate. Bootstrap simulations were used to test for statistical significance of the ER event rate changes before and after the launch of the program. Average event and annual total cost savings from avoided ER incidents and ER-related hospitalizations were then calculated. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-two avoided ER events were identified, for an estimated net annualized savings generated by the two practices of $3.85 million. Although the ER rate reduction was not statistically significant, these findings are consistent with the observed reduction of ER event rates among a subset of Oncology Care Model beneficiaries at the two practices. CONCLUSION: ER events and associated hospitalizations can be avoided as well as quantified as a result of the deployment of a practice-level integrated platform that incorporates physician-scripted symptom management protocols and telephone triage pathways.

Everolimus Plus Exemestane vs Everolimus or Capecitabine Monotherapy for Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: The BOLERO-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Everolimus plus exemestane and capecitabine are approved second-line therapies for advanced breast cancer. Objective: A postapproval commitment to health authorities to estimate the clinical benefit of everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus or capecitabine monotherapy for estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Design: Open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial of treatment effects in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer that had progressed during treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. Interventions: Patients were randomized to 3 treatment regimens: (1) everolimus (10 mg/d) plus exemestane (25 mg/d); (2) everolimus alone (10 mg/d); and (3) capecitabine alone (1250 mg/m2 twice daily). Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated hazard ratios (HRs) of progression-free survival (PFS) for everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus alone (primary objective) or capecitabine alone (key secondary objective). Safety was a secondary objective. No formal statistical comparisons were planned. Results: A total of 309 postmenopausal women were enrolled, median age, 61 years (range, 32-88 years). Of these, 104 received everolimus plus exemestane; 103, everolimus alone; and 102, capecitabine alone. Median follow-up from randomization to the analysis cutoff (June 1, 2017) was 37.6 months. Estimated HR of PFS was 0.74 (90% CI, 0.57-0.97) for the primary objective of everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus alone and 1.26 (90% CI, 0.96-1.66) for everolimus plus exemestane vs capecitabine alone. Between treatment arms, potential informative censoring was noted, and a stratified multivariate Cox regression model was used to account for imbalances in baseline characteristics; a consistent HR was observed for everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus (0.73; 90% CI, 0.56-0.97), but the HR was closer to 1 for everolimus plus exemestane vs capecitabine (1.15; 90% CI, 0.86-1.52). Grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more frequent with capecitabine (74%; n = 75) vs everolimus plus exemestane (70%; n = 73) or everolimus alone (59%; n = 61). Serious adverse events were more frequent with everolimus plus exemestane (36%; n = 37) vs everolimus alone (29%; n = 30) or capecitabine (29%; n = 30). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that everolimus plus exemestane combination therapy offers a PFS benefit vs everolimus alone, and they support continued use of this therapy in this setting. A numerical PFS difference with capecitabine vs everolimus plus exemestane should be interpreted cautiously owing to imbalances among baseline characteristics and potential informative censoring. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01783444.

Buparlisib plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer progressing on or after mTOR inhibition (BELLE-3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Activation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway occurs frequently in breast cancer that is resistant to endocrine therapy. Approved mTOR inhibitors effectively inhibit cell growth and proliferation but elicit AKT phosphorylation via a feedback activation pathway, potentially leading to resistance to mTOR inhibitors. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of buparlisib plus fulvestrant in patients with advanced breast cancer who were pretreated with endocrine therapy and mTOR inhibitors. METHODS: BELLE-3 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study. Postmenopausal women aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer, who had relapsed on or after endocrine therapy and mTOR inhibitors, were recruited from 200 trial centres in 22 countries. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via interactive response technology (block size of six) to receive oral buparlisib (100 mg per day) or matching placebo starting on day 1 of cycle 1, plus intramuscular fulvestrant (500 mg) on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 of subsequent 28-day cycles. Randomisation was stratified by visceral disease status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by local investigator assessment as per the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 in the full analysis population (all randomised patients, by intention-to-treat). Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of treatment and at least one post-baseline safety assessment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01633060, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15, 2013, and March 31, 2016, 432 patients were randomly assigned to the buparlisib (n=289) or placebo (n=143) groups. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the buparlisib versus placebo group (3·9 months [95% CI 2·8-4·2] vs 1·8 months [1·5-2·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·67, 95% CI 0·53-0·84, one-sided p=0·00030). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events in the buparlisib versus placebo group were elevated alanine aminotransferase (63 [22%] of 288 patients vs four [3%] of 140), elevated aspartate aminotransferase (51 [18%] vs four [3%]), hyperglycaemia (35 [12%] vs none), hypertension (16 [6%] vs six [4%]), and fatigue (ten [3%] vs two [1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 64 (22%) of 288 patients in the buparlisib group versus 23 (16%) of 140 in the placebo group; the most frequent serious adverse events (affecting ≥2% of patients) were elevated aspartate aminotransferase (six [2%] vs none), dyspnoea (six [2%] vs one [1%]), and pleural effusion (six [2%] vs none). On-treatment deaths occurred in ten (3%) of 288 patients in the buparlisib group and in six (4%) of 140 in the placebo group; most deaths were due to metastatic breast cancer, and two were considered treatment-related (cardiac failure [n=1] in the buparlisib group and unknown reason [n=1] in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: The safety profile of buparlisib plus fulvestrant does not support its further development in this setting. Nonetheless, the efficacy of buparlisib supports the rationale for the use of PI3K inhibitors plus endocrine therapy in patients with PIK3CA mutations. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.