Nonclinical factors associated with the treatment of older women with newly diagnosed low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is the most common form of noninvasive breast cancer and is associated with an excellent prognosis. As a result, there is concern about overdiagnosis and overtreatment of DCIS because most patients with DCIS are treated as though they have invasive breast cancer and undergo either breast-conserving surgery (BCS)-most commonly followed by radiation therapy (RT)-or mastectomy. Little research to date has focused on nonclinical factors influencing treatments for DCIS. METHODS: Population-based data were analyzed from five state cancer registries (California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Texas) on women aged 65 years and older newly diagnosed with DCIS during the years 2003 to 2014 using a retrospective cohort design and multinominal logistic modeling. The registry records with Medicare enrollment data and fee-for-service claims to obtain treatments (BCS alone, BCS with RT, or mastectomy) were merged. Surgeon practice structure was identified through physician surveys and internet searches. RESULTS: Patients of surgeons employed by cancer centers or health systems were less likely to receive BCS with RT or mastectomy than patients of surgeons in single specialty or multispecialty practices. There also was substantial geographic variation in treatments, with patients in New York, New Jersey, and California being less likely to receive BCS with RT or mastectomy than patients in Texas or Florida. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest nonclinical factors including the culture of the practice and/or financial incentives are significantly associated with the types of treatment received for DCIS. Increasing awareness and targeted efforts to educate physicians about DCIS management among older women with low-grade DCIS could reduce patient harm and yield substantial cost savings.

Assessment of Residual Cancer Burden and Event-Free Survival in Neoadjuvant Treatment for High-risk Breast Cancer: An Analysis of Data From the I-SPY2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Residual cancer burden (RCB) distributions may improve the interpretation of efficacy in neoadjuvant breast cancer trials. OBJECTIVE: To compare RCB distributions between randomized control and investigational treatments within subtypes of breast cancer and explore the relationship with survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The I-SPY2 is a multicenter, platform adaptive, randomized clinical trial in the US that compares, by subtype, investigational agents in combination with chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone in adult women with stage 2/3 breast cancer at high risk of early recurrence. Investigational treatments graduated in a prespecified subtype if there was 85% or greater predicted probability of higher rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) in a confirmatory, 300-patient, 1:1 randomized, neoadjuvant trial in that subtype. Evaluation of a secondary end point was reported from the 10 investigational agents tested in the I-SPY2 trial from March 200 through 2016, and analyzed as of September 9, 2020. The analysis plan included modeling of RCB within subtypes defined by hormone receptor (HR) and ERBB2 status and compared control treatments with investigational treatments that graduated and those that did not graduate. INTERVENTIONS: Neoadjuvant paclitaxel plus/minus 1 of several investigational agents for 12 weeks, then 12 weeks of cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin chemotherapy followed by surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Residual cancer burden (pathological measure of residual disease) and event-free survival (EFS). RESULTS: A total of 938 women (mean [SD] age, 49 [11] years; 66 [7%] Asian, 103 [11%] Black, and 750 [80%] White individuals) from the first 10 investigational agents were included, with a median follow-up of 52 months (IQR, 29 months). Event-free survival worsened significantly per unit of RCB in every subtype of breast cancer (HR-positive/ERBB2-negative: hazard ratio [HZR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.45-2.16; HR-positive/ERBB2-positive: HZR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.18-2.05; HR-negative/ERBB2-positive: HZR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.64-3.49; HR-negative/ERBB2-negative: HZR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.71-2.31). Prognostic information from RCB was similar from treatments that graduated (HZR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.57-2.55; 254 [27%]), did not graduate (HZR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.61-2.17; 486 [52%]), or were control (HZR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.42-2.26; 198 [21%]). Investigational treatments significantly lowered RCB in HR-negative/ERBB2-negative (graduated and nongraduated treatments) and ERBB2-positive subtypes (graduated treatments), with improved EFS (HZR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41-0.93) in the exploratory analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, the prognostic significance of RCB was consistent regardless of subtype and treatment. Effective neoadjuvant treatments shifted the distribution of RCB in addition to increasing pCR rate and appeared to improve EFS. Using a standardized quantitative method to measure response advances the interpretation of efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01042379.

Long-term follow-up assessment of cardiac safety in SAFE-HEaRt, a clinical trial evaluating the use of HER2-targeted therapies in patients with breast cancer and compromised heart function.

PURPOSE: HER2-targeted therapies are associated with cardiotoxicity which is usually asymptomatic and reversible. We report the updated cardiac safety assessment of patients with compromised heart function receiving HER2-targeted therapy for breast cancer, enrolled in the SAFE-HEaRt trial, at a median follow-up of 3.5 years. METHODS: Thirty patients with stage I-IV HER2-positive breast cancer receiving trastuzumab with or without pertuzumab, or ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), with asymptomatic LVEF (left ventricular ejection fraction) 40-49%, were started on cardioprotective medications, with the primary endpoint being completion of HER2-targeted therapy without cardiac events (CE) or protocol-defined asymptomatic worsening of LVEF. IRB-approved follow-up assessment included 23 patients. RESULTS: Median follow-up as of June 2020 is 42 months. The study met its primary endpoint with 27 patients (90%) completing their HER2-targeted therapies without cardiac issues. Of the 23 evaluable patients at long-term f/u, 14 had early stage breast cancer, and 9 had metastatic disease, 8 of whom remained on HER2-targeted therapies. One patient developed symptomatic heart failure with no change in LVEF. There were no cardiac deaths. The mean LVEF improved to 52.1% from 44.9% at study baseline, including patients who remained on HER2-targeted therapy, and those who received prior anthracyclines. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of the SAFE-HEaRt study continues to provide safety data of HER2-targeted therapy use in patients with compromised heart function. The late development of cardiac dysfunction is uncommon and continued multi-disciplinary oncologic and cardiac care of patients is vital for improved patient outcomes.

Use of 18F-FDG PET/CT as an Initial Staging Procedure for Stage II-III Breast Cancer: A Multicenter Value Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic staging imaging is not recommended for asymptomatic patients with stage I-II breast cancer. Greater distant metastatic disease risk may warrant baseline imaging in patients with stage II-III with high-risk biologic subtypes. NCCN Guidelines recommend considering CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis (CT CAP) and bone scan in appropriate patients. CT CAP and bone scan are considered standard of care (SoC), although PET/CT is a patient-centered alternative. METHODS: Data were available for 799 high-risk patients with clinical stage II-III disease who initiated screening for the I-SPY2 trial at 4 institutions. A total of 564 complete records were reviewed to compare PET/CT versus SoC. Costs were determined from the payer perspective using the national 2018 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and representative reimbursements to the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) measured cost of using PET/CT per percent of patients who avoided a false-positive (FP). RESULTS: The de novo metastatic disease rate was 4.6%. Imaging varied across the 4 institutions (P<.0001). The FP rate was higher using SoC versus PET/CT (22.1% vs 11.1%; P=.0009). Mean time between incidental finding on baseline imaging to FP determination was 10.8 days. Mean time from diagnosis to chemotherapy initiation was 44.3 days with SoC versus 37.5 days with PET/CT (P=.0001). Mean cost per patient was $1,132 (SoC) versus $1,477 (PET/CT) using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, with an ICER of $31. Using representative reimbursements to UCSF, mean cost per patient was $1,236 (SoC) versus $1,073 (PET/CT) for Medicare, and $3,083 (SoC) versus $1,656 (PET/CT) for a private payer, with ICERs of -$15 and -$130, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation exists in metastatic staging practices. PET/CT reduced FP risk by half and decreased workup of incidental findings, allowing for earlier treatment start. PET/CT may be cost-effective, and at one institution was shown to be cost-saving. Better alignment is needed between hospital pricing strategies and payer coverage policies to deliver high-value care.

Cost Effectiveness of Gene Expression Profile Testing in Community Practice.

Purpose Gene expression profile (GEP) testing can support chemotherapy decision making for patients with early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative breast cancers. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of one GEP test, Onco type DX (Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA), in community practice with test-eligible patients age 40 to 79 years. Methods A simulation model compared 25-year societal incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of community Onco type DX use from 2005 to 2012 versus usual care in the pretesting era (2000 to 2004). Inputs included Onco type DX and chemotherapy data from an integrated health care system and national and published data on Onco type DX accuracy, chemotherapy effectiveness, utilities, survival and recurrence, and Medicare and patient costs. Sensitivity analyses varied individual parameters; results were also estimated for ideal conditions (ie, 100% testing and adherence to test-suggested treatment, perfect test accuracy, considering test effects on reassurance or worry, and lowest costs). Results Twenty-four percent of test-eligible patients had Onco type DX testing. Testing was higher in younger patients and patients with stage I disease ( v stage IIA), and 75.3% and 10.2% of patients with high and low recurrence risk scores received chemotherapy, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratio for testing ( v usual care) was $188,125 per QALY. Considering test effects on worry versus reassurance decreased the cost-effectiveness ratio to $58,431 per QALY. With perfect test accuracy, the cost-effectiveness ratio was $28,947 per QALY, and under ideal conditions, it was $39,496 per QALY. Conclusion GEP testing is likely to have a high cost-effectiveness ratio on the basis of community practice patterns. However, realistic variations in assumptions about key variables could result in GEP testing having cost-effectiveness ratios in the range of other accepted interventions. The differences in cost-effectiveness ratios on the basis of community versus ideal conditions underscore the importance of considering real-world implementation when assessing the new technology.

Information and support needs of young women regarding breast cancer risk and genetic testing: adapting effective interventions for a novel population.

Young women from hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) families face a unique set of challenges in managing their HBOC risk, where obtaining essential information to inform decision making is key. Previous work suggests that this need for specific health information also comes at a time of heightened distress and greater individuation from family. In this report, we describe our adaptation of a previously-studied behavioral intervention for this population, utilizing a systematic approach outlined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. First, we assessed the information needs and levels of distress in this population and correlates of this distress. These data then were used to inform the adaptation and piloting of a three-session telephone-based peer coaching intervention. One hundred young women (M age = 25 years) who were first or second degree relatives of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers participated. Sixty-three percent of the sample endorsed unmet HBOC information needs and they, on average, reported moderate levels of cancer-related distress (M = 21.9, SD = 14.6). Greater familial disruption was associated with greater cancer-related distress in multivariable models (p < .05). Ten women who participated in the survey completed the intervention pilot. They reported lower distress from pre- to post- (15.8 vs. 12.0), as well as significantly lower decisional conflict (p < .05) and greater endorsement of an array of healthy coping strategies (i.e., active coping, instrumental coping, positive reframing, planning, p's < .05). Our survey results suggest that young adult women from HBOC families have unmet cancer genetic information and support needs. Our pilot intervention was able to reduce levels of decisional conflict and promote the use of effective coping strategies. This approach needs to be further tested in a larger randomized trial.

Characteristics and outcomes of breast cancer patients enrolled in the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program sponsored phase I clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer (BC) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death among women. Given the availability of approved therapies and abundance of phase II and III clinical trials, historically few BC patients have been referred for consideration of participation on a phase I trial. We were interested in determining whether clinical benefit rates differed in patients with BC from other patients enrolled in phase I trials. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) sponsored phase I trials from 1993 to 2012. We report an analysis of demographic variables, rates of response to treatment, grade 4 toxicities, and treatment-related deaths. RESULTS: De-identified data from 8087 patients were analyzed, with 1,376 having a diagnosis of BC. The median time from initial cancer diagnosis to enrollment in a CTEP-sponsored phase I clinical trial was 614 days for all patients. Breast cancer patients were enrolled on average 790 days after initial diagnosis, while non-BC patients had a median enrollment time of 582 days (p < 0.001). Breast cancer patients had more clinical responses than non-BC patients (18.3% vs. 4.3%, respectively). Along with the higher rate of response, BC patients remained on phase I trials longer than non-BC patients with a median of 70 days while the latter were on trial for a median of 57 days. The overall rate of death related to the treatment drugs was 0.47%. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm our hypothesis that when compared to a general population of patients with cancer enrolled on phase I clinical trials, BC patients tend to derive clinical benefit from these therapies with similar toxicity profile. This evidence further supports enrollment of BC patients on phase I trials.

Understanding the Needs of Young Women Regarding Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Genetic Testing: Convergence and Divergence among Patient-Counselor Perceptions and the Promise of Peer Support.

Young women from hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) families face a series of medical decisions regarding their cancer risk management and integrating this information into their life planning. This presents unique medical and psychosocial challenges that exist without comprehensive intervention. To help lay the groundwork for intervention, we conducted a qualitative study among young women from HBOC families (N = 12; Mean age = 22) and cancer genetic counselors (N = 12) to explicate domains most critical to caring for this population. Women and counselors were interviewed by telephone. The predominant interview themes included preventative care planning and risk management, decision making around the pros and cons of cancer risk assessment, medical management, and psychosocial stresses experienced. Young women endorsed psychosocial stress significantly more frequently than did counselors. Both groups noted the short- and long-term decision making challenges and the support and conflict engendered among familial relationships. Our results suggest young women value the support they receive from their families and their genetic counselors, but additional, external supports are needed to facilitate adaptation to HBOC risk. In feedback interviews focused on intervention planning with a subset of these young women (N = 9), they endorsed the predominant interview themes discovered as important intervention content, a structure that would balance discussion of medical information and psychosocial skill-building that could be tailored to the young women's needs, and delivery by trained peers familiar with HBOC risk.

Preliminary Development and Evaluation of an Algorithm to Identify Breast Cancer Chemotherapy Toxicities Using Electronic Medical Records and Administrative Data.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer chemotherapy toxicity is not well documented outside of randomized trials. We developed and conducted preliminary evaluation of an algorithm to detect grade 3 and 4 toxicities using electronic data from a large integrated managed care organization. METHODS: The algorithm used administrative, pharmacy, and electronic data from outpatient, emergency room, and inpatient records of 99 women diagnosed with breast cancer from 2006 to 2009 who underwent chemotherapy. Data were abstracted for 12 months post-treatment initiation (24 months for trastuzumab recipients). An oncology nurse independently blindly reviewed records; these results were the "gold standard." Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for overall toxicity, categories of toxicities, and toxicity by age or regimen. The algorithm was applied to an independent sample of 1,575 patients with breast cancer diagnosed during the study period to estimate prevalence rates. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity for detecting chemotherapy-related toxicity was 89% (95% CI, 77% to 95%). The highest sensitivity was for identification of hematologic toxicities (97%; 95% CI, 84% to 99%). There were good sensitivities for infectious toxicity, but rates dropped for GI and neurological toxicities. Specificity was high within each category (89% to 99%), but when combined to measure any toxicity, it was lower (70%; 95% CI, 57% to 81%). When applied to an independent chemotherapy sample, the algorithm estimates a 26% rate of hematologic toxicity; rates were higher among patients age ≥ 65 years versus less than 65 years. CONCLUSIONS: If validated in other samples and health care settings, algorithms to capture toxicity could be useful in comparative and cost-effectiveness evaluations of community practice-delivered treatment.

Disparities in uptake of BRCA1/2 genetic testing in a randomized trial of telephone counseling.

PURPOSE: As genetic counseling and testing become more fully integrated into clinical care, alternative delivery models are increasingly prominent. This study examines predictors of genetic testing for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer among high-risk women in a randomized trial of in-person versus telephone-based genetic counseling. METHODS: Methods include multivariable logistic regression and interaction analyses. RESULTS: Of the 669 participants, 600 completed counseling and 523 received test results. As previously reported, participants randomized to telephone counseling were significantly less likely to be tested. In intention-to-treat analyses, completion of counseling and testing was associated with: race/ethnicity (odds ratio (OR) = 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20-3.20), perceived stress (OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81-0.98), knowledge (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.02-1.23), and randomization group (OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.01-2.16). Further, race/ethnicity moderated the association between randomization group and testing; minority women receiving telephone counseling were least likely to complete testing. CONCLUSION: Evidence for logistical and communication-based explanations for this interaction is presented. The overall increased access made possible with telephone genetic counseling should be considered in light of the possibility that this may also lead to lower rates of testing among high-risk minority women. Additional care should be taken to assess and address potential barriers when services are delivered by telephone.Genet Med 17 6, 467-475.

Randomized noninferiority trial of telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: Although guidelines recommend in-person counseling before BRCA1/BRCA2 gene testing, genetic counseling is increasingly offered by telephone. As genomic testing becomes more common, evaluating alternative delivery approaches becomes increasingly salient. We tested whether telephone delivery of BRCA1/2 genetic counseling was noninferior to in-person delivery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants (women age 21 to 85 years who did not have newly diagnosed or metastatic cancer and lived within a study site catchment area) were randomly assigned to usual care (UC; n = 334) or telephone counseling (TC; n = 335). UC participants received in-person pre- and post-test counseling; TC participants completed all counseling by telephone. Primary outcomes were knowledge, satisfaction, decision conflict, distress, and quality of life; secondary outcomes were equivalence of BRCA1/2 test uptake and costs of delivering TC versus UC. RESULTS: TC was noninferior to UC on all primary outcomes. At 2 weeks after pretest counseling, knowledge (d = 0.03; lower bound of 97.5% CI, -0.61), perceived stress (d = -0.12; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.21), and satisfaction (d = -0.16; lower bound of 97.5% CI, -0.70) had group differences and confidence intervals that did not cross their 1-point noninferiority limits. Decision conflict (d = 1.1; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 3.3) and cancer distress (d = -1.6; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.27) did not cross their 4-point noninferiority limit. Results were comparable at 3 months. TC was not equivalent to UC on BRCA1/2 test uptake (UC, 90.1%; TC, 84.2%). TC yielded cost savings of $114 per patient. CONCLUSION: Genetic counseling can be effectively and efficiently delivered via telephone to increase access and decrease costs.

Proceedings of the international consensus conference on breast cancer risk, genetics, & risk management, April, 2007.

A consensus conference including thirty experts was held in April, 2007, to discuss risk factors for breast cancer and their management. Four categories of risk were outlined, from breast cancer "average" through "very high" risk, the latter including individuals with high penetrance BRCA1/2 gene mutations. Guidelines for management of patients in each of these categories were discussed, with the major portion of the conference being devoted to individuals with BRCA1/2 mutations. Prevalence of these mutations in the general populations was estimated to be 1 in 250-500 individuals, with an increased prevalence in Ashkenazic Jews and other founder groups. Risk reduction strategies for these individuals include surveillance, with or without chemoprevention drugs, or surgical procedures to remove the organs at risk, i.e., bilateral mastectomy and/or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. These risk reduction strategies were evaluated fully, and recommendations were made for the care of patients in each of the risk categories. These guidelines for patient care were approved by the entire group of experts.

Evaluation and management of women with BRCA1/2 mutations.

Genetic counseling and testing for susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer is often an integral component of management for women with a personal and/or family history of these malignancies. In this article, we will briefly review the function and genetic epidemiology of the two major susceptibility genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. We will then address approaches to risk assessment for women at high risk with respect to the probability that they harbor a deleterious mutation in one of these genes, and the likelihood that they will develop cancer if such a mutation is identified. The process of genetic counseling and testing is discussed, including a summary of the potential benefits, limitations, and risks of testing as well as a summary of test result interpretation. We conclude with a review and appraisal of the various options for breast and ovarian cancer risk reduction and screening options for women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.