Validation of the RSClin risk calculator in the National Cancer Data Base.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend the use of genomic assays such as OncotypeDx to aid in decisions regarding the use of chemotherapy for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer. The RSClin prognostic tool integrates OncotypeDx and clinicopathologic features to predict distant recurrence and chemotherapy benefit, but further validation is needed before broad clinical adoption. METHODS: This study included patients from the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) who were diagnosed with stage I-III HR+/HER2- breast cancer from 2010 to 2020 and received adjuvant endocrine therapy with or without chemotherapy. RSClin-predicted chemotherapy benefit was stratified into low (<3% reduction in distant recurrence), intermediate (3%-5%), and high (>5%). Cox models were used to model mortality adjusted for age, comorbidity index, insurance, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: A total of 285,441 patients were identified for inclusion from the NCDB, with an average age of 60 years and a median follow-up of 58 months. Chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival only for those predicted to have intermediate (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.79) and high benefit per RSClin (aHR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.61-0.72). Consistent benefit was seen in the subset with a low OncotypeDx score (<26) and intermediate (aHR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53-0.82) or high (aHR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.86) RSClin-predicted benefit. No survival benefit with chemotherapy was seen in patients with a high OncotypeDx score (≥26) and low benefit per RSClin (aHR, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.41-6.99). CONCLUSIONS: RSClin may identify high-risk patients who benefit from treatment intensification more accurately than OncotypeDx, and further prospective study is needed.

Aspirin vs Placebo as Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer: The Alliance A011502 Randomized Trial.

Importance: Observational studies of survivors of breast cancer and prospective trials of aspirin for cardiovascular disease suggest improved breast cancer survival among aspirin users, but prospective studies of aspirin to prevent breast cancer recurrence are lacking. Objective: To determine whether aspirin decreases the risk of invasive cancer events among survivors of breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A011502, a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial conducted in the United States and Canada with 3020 participants who had high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer, enrolled participants from 534 sites from January 6, 2017, through December 4, 2020, with follow-up to March 4, 2023. Interventions: Participants were randomized (stratified for hormone receptor status [positive vs negative], body mass index [≤30 vs >30], stage II vs III, and time since diagnosis [<18 vs ≥18 months]) to receive 300 mg of aspirin (n = 1510) or placebo once daily (n = 1510) for 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival. Overall survival was a key secondary outcome. Results: A total of 3020 participants were randomized when the data and safety monitoring committee recommended suspending the study at the first interim analysis because the hazard ratio had crossed the prespecified futility bound. By median follow-up of 33.8 months (range, 0.1-72.6 months), 253 invasive disease-free survival events were observed (141 in the aspirin group and 112 in the placebo group), yielding a hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.99-1.63; P = .06). All invasive disease-free survival events, including death, invasive progression (both distant and locoregional), and new primary events, were numerically higher in the aspirin group, although the differences were not statistically significant. There was no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.72). Rates of grades 3 and 4 adverse events were similar in both groups. Conclusion and Relevance: Among participants with high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer, daily aspirin therapy did not improve risk of breast cancer recurrence or survival in early follow-up. Despite its promise and wide availability, aspirin should not be recommended as an adjuvant breast cancer treatment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02927249.

The impact of race and age on response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term outcomes in Black and White women with early-stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: There are a paucity of data and a pressing need to evaluate response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and determine long-term outcomes in young Black women with early-stage breast cancer (EBC). METHODS: We analyzed data from 2196 Black and White women with EBC treated at the University of Chicago over the last 2 decades. Patients were divided into groups based on race and age at diagnosis: Black women [Formula: see text] 40 years, White women [Formula: see text] 40 years, Black women [Formula: see text] 55 years, and White women [Formula: see text] 55 years. Pathological complete response rate (pCR) was analyzed using logistic regression. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard and piecewise Cox models. RESULTS: Young Black women had the highest risk of recurrence, which was 22% higher than young White women (p = 0.434) and 76% higher than older Black women (p = 0.008). These age/racial differences in recurrence rates were not statistically significant after adjusting for subtype, stage, and grade. In terms of OS, older Black women had the worst outcome. In the 397 women receiving NACT, 47.5% of young White women achieved pCR, compared to 26.8% of young Black women (p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Black women with EBC had significantly worse outcomes compared to White women in our cohort study. There is an urgent need to understand the disparities in outcomes between Black and White breast cancer patients, particularly in young women where the disparity in outcome is the greatest.

Adapting a Medical School Cancer Research Education Program to the Virtual Environment: a Mixed-Methods Study.

With cancer incidence increasing worldwide, physicians with cancer research training are needed. The Scholars in Oncology-Associated Research (SOAR) cancer research education program was developed to train medical students in cancer research while exposing them to the breadth of clinical oncology. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, SOAR transitioned from in-person in 2019 to virtual in 2020 and hybrid in 2021. This study investigates positive and negative aspects of the varying educational formats. A mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate the educational formats. Pre- and post-surveys were collected from participants to assess their understanding of cancer as a clinical and research discipline. Structured interviews were conducted across all three cohorts, and thematic analysis was used to generate themes. A total of 37 students participated in SOAR and completed surveys (2019 n = 11, 2020 n = 14, and 2021 n = 12), and 18 interviews were conducted. Understanding of oncology as a clinical (p < 0.01 for all) and research discipline (p < 0.01 for all) improved within all three cohorts. There was no difference between each cohort's improvement in research understanding (p = 0.6). There was no difference between each cohort's understanding of oncology-related disciplines as both clinical and research disciplines (p > 0.1 for all). Thematic analysis demonstrated that hybrid and in-person formats were favored over a completely virtual one. Our findings demonstrate that a medical student cancer research education program is effective using in-person or hybrid formats for research education, although virtual experiences may be suboptimal to learning about clinical oncology.

Hematologic safety of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy in patients with benign ethnic neutropenia and advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors, including palbociclib, are approved to treat hormone receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) and are associated with hematologic toxicity. African American women, who are underrepresented in CDK4/6 inhibitor clinical trials, may experience worse neutropenia because of benign ethnic neutropenia. The authors specifically investigated the hematologic safety of palbociclib in African American women with HR-positive/HER2-negative ABC. METHODS: PALINA was a single-arm, open-label, investigator-initiated study of palbociclib (125 mg daily; 21 days on and 7 days off) plus endocrine therapy (ET) in African American women who had HR-positive/HER2-negative ABC and a baseline absolute neutrophil count ≥1000/mm3 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02692755). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who completed 12 months of therapy without experiencing febrile neutropenia or treatment discontinuation because of neutropenia. Single nucleotide polymorphism analysis was used to assess Duffy polymorphism status. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients received ≥1 dose of palbociclib plus ET; 19 had a Duffy null polymorphism (cytosine/cytosine). There were no reports of febrile neutropenia or permanent study discontinuation because of neutropenia. Significantly more patients with the Duffy null versus the wild-type variant had grade 3 and 4 neutropenia (72.2% vs 23.1%; P = .029) and required a palbociclib dose reduction (55.6% vs 7.7%; P = .008). Patients with the Duffy null versus the wild-type variant had lower overall relative dose intensity (mean ± SD, 81.89% ± 15.87 and 95.67% ± 5.89, respectively; P = .0026) and a lower clinical benefit rate (66.7% and 84.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that palbociclib is well tolerated in African American women with HR-positive/HER2-negative ABC. Duffy null status may affect the incidence of grade 3 neutropenia, dose intensity, and possibly clinical benefit.

Baseline Testosterone Levels in Men with Clinically Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Radical Prostatectomy with or without Neoadjuvant Chemohormonal Therapy (Alliance).

PURPOSE: Men with low serum testosterone at the time of prostate cancer diagnosis are frequently considered to have more aggressive disease. We examined treatment outcomes in men with clinically localized high-risk cancer to determine if baseline testosterone level identified men at higher risk for cancer progression after treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Alliance/CALGB 90203 randomized men with clinically localized high-risk prostate cancer to radical prostatectomy alone or neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy and radical prostatectomy. Men with available baseline testosterone levels who had not received androgen deprivation prior to study enrollment were studied (656). Testosterone level was examined as a continuous variable, as quartiles, and separately in men with an absolute testosterone level above/below 150 ng/dl. Outcomes evaluated were overall survival and event-free survival with events defined by biochemical recurrence, secondary treatment, prostate cancer metastasis, and death. RESULTS: We were unable to demonstrate a difference between baseline serum testosterone level measured as a continuous variable, as quartiles, or as a dichotomous variable (above/below 150 ng/dl) with the outcomes measured. This finding was observed in both arms of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline serum testosterone level did not predict outcomes in men with clinically localized high-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy alone or neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy and radical prostatectomy.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Clinical Trials.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had widespread impact on healthcare, resulting in modifications to how we perform cancer research, including clinical trials for cancer. The impact of some healthcare workers and study coordinators working remotely and patients minimizing visits to medical facilities impacted clinical trial participation. Clinical trial accrual dropped at the onset of the pandemic, with improvement over time. Adjustments were made to some trial protocols, allowing telephone or video-enabled consent. Certain study activities were permitted to be performed by local healthcare providers or at local laboratories to maximize patients' ability to continue on study during these challenging times. We discuss the impact of COVID-19 on cancer clinical trials and changes at the local, cooperative group, and national level.

Goals of care discussions: perceptions of radiation and medical oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Goals of care discussions (GOCD) are essential when counseling patients with cancer. Respective roles of radiation oncologists (RO) and medical oncologists (MO) in GOCD can be unclear. This study aims to clarify the dynamics and barriers to GOCD. METHODS: Five hundred and fifty-four ROs and 1604 MOs at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers were sent an anonymous electronic survey regarding demographics, opinions, training in GOCD, GOCD frequency, and three vignettes. Response formats were Yes/No, Likert-type, and free response. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed. Likert-type scores were reported as median [interquartile range]. RESULTS: There were 76 (13.7%) RO and 153 (9.5%) MO who completed surveys. Sixty-three percent of RO and 66% of MO reported GOCD with > 50% of patients (p = 0.90). GOCD were initiated for declining performance status (74%) and poor life expectancy (69%). More MO (42%) received formal GOCD training compared to RO (18%) (p < 0.01). MO were more comfortable conducting GOCD than RO (p < 0.01). RO-conducted GOCD were rated to be less important by MO compared to RO (p < 0.05). Thirty-six percent of MO reported being "not at all" or "somewhat" comfortable with RO-conducted GOCD. RO-initiated GOCD with new patients were rated less appropriate by RO compared to MO perceptions of RO-initiated GOCD (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: While MO and RO conduct GOCD with similar frequency, MO are more comfortable conducting GOCD and are more likely to have formal training. MO rate importance of RO involvement lower than RO. Further research is needed to understand interdisciplinary dynamics that may impact GOCD and subsequent patient care outcomes.

Clinical evaluation of germline polymorphisms associated with capecitabine toxicity in breast cancer: TBCRC-015.

PURPOSE: Capecitabine is important in breast cancer treatment but causes diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome (HFS), affecting adherence and quality of life. We sought to identify pharmacogenomic predictors of capecitabine toxicity using a novel monitoring tool. METHODS: Patients with metastatic breast cancer were prospectively treated with capecitabine (2000 mg/m2/day, 14 days on/7 off). Patients completed in-person toxicity questionnaires (day 1/cycle) and automated phone-in assessments (days 8, 15). Correlation of genotypes with early and overall toxicity was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-nine patients were enrolled (14 institutions). Diarrhea and HFS occurred in 52% (17% grade 3) and 69% (9% grade 3), respectively. Only 29% of patients completed four cycles without dose reduction/interruption. In 39%, the highest toxicity grade was captured via phone. Three single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with diarrhea-DPYD*5 (odds ratio [OR] 4.9; P = 0.0005), a MTHFR missense SNP (OR 3.3; P = 0.02), and a SNP upstream of MTRR (OR 3.0; P = 0.03). GWAS elucidated a novel HFS SNP (OR 3.0; P = 0.0007) near TNFSF4 (OX40L), a gene implicated in autoimmunity including autoimmune skin diseases never before implicated in HFS. Genotype-gene expression analyses of skin tissues identified rs11158568 (associated with HFS via GWAS) with expression of CHURC1, a transcriptional activator controlling fibroblast growth factor (beta = - 0.74; P = 1.46 × 10-23), representing a previously unidentified mechanism for HFS. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first cancer pharmacogenomic study to use phone-in self-reporting, permitting augmented toxicity characterization. Three germline toxicity SNPs were replicated, and several novel SNPs/genes having strong functional relevance were discovered. If further validated, these markers could permit personalized capecitabine dosing.

Effect of a Behavioral Intervention to Increase Vegetable Consumption on Cancer Progression Among Men With Early-Stage Prostate Cancer: The MEAL Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Guidelines endorsing vegetable-enriched diets to improve outcomes for prostate cancer survivors are based on expert opinion, preclinical studies, and observational data. Objective: To determine the effect of a behavioral intervention that increased vegetable intake on cancer progression in men with early-stage prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Men's Eating and Living (MEAL) Study (CALGB 70807 [Alliance]) was a randomized clinical trial conducted at 91 US urology and medical oncology clinics that enrolled 478 men aged 50 to 80 years with biopsy-proven prostate adenocarcinoma (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group = 1 in those <70 years and ≤2 in those ≥70 years), stage cT2a or less, and serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level less than 10 ng/mL. Enrollment occurred from January 2011 to August 2015; 24-month follow-up occurred from January 2013 to August 2017. Interventions: Patients were randomized to a counseling behavioral intervention by telephone promoting consumption of 7 or more daily vegetable servings (MEAL intervention; n = 237) or a control group, which received written information about diet and prostate cancer (n = 241). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to progression; progression was defined as PSA level of 10 ng/mL or greater, PSA doubling time of less than 3 years, or upgrading (defined as increase in tumor volume or grade) on follow-up prostate biopsy. Results: Among 478 patients randomized (mean [SD] age, 64 [7] years; mean [SD] PSA level, 4.9 [2.1] ng/mL), 443 eligible patients (93%) were included in the primary analysis. There were 245 progression events (intervention: 124; control: 121). There were no significant differences in time to progression (unadjusted hazards ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.24]; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.25]). The 24-month Kaplan-Meier progression-free percentages were 43.5% [95% CI, 36.5% to 50.6%] and 41.4% [95% CI, 34.3% to 48.7%] for the intervention and control groups, respectively (difference, 2.1% [95% CI, -8.1% to 12.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among men with early-stage prostate cancer managed with active surveillance, a behavioral intervention that increased vegetable consumption did not significantly reduce the risk of prostate cancer progression. The findings do not support use of this intervention to decrease prostate cancer progression in this population, although the study may have been underpowered to identify a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01238172.

Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib for Untreated Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma of Intermediate or Poor Risk: Subgroup Analysis of the Alliance A031203 CABOSUN trial.

Cabozantinib treatment prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and improved objective response rate (ORR) compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of intermediate or poor risk by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria in the phase II CABOSUN trial (NCT01835158). In the trial, 157 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or sunitinib, stratified by IMDC risk group and presence of bone metastases. Here, PFS and ORR, both determined by independent radiology committee (IRC), were analyzed by subgroups of baseline characteristics. Cabozantinib treatment was generally associated with improved PFS and ORR versus sunitinib across subgroups, including in groups defined by IMDC risk group, bone metastases, age, and tumor burden. Clinical trial identification number NCT01835158.

Implementation of a Novel Medical School Multidisciplinary and Interprofessional Oncology Curriculum: a Mixed Method Study.

As the population of patients with cancer and survivors grows, physician knowledge of oncology clinical care and research is increasingly important. Despite this patient population growth, medical students and non-oncology physicians report insufficient oncologic and survivorship care training. First-year students at a single US medical school completing a summer research experience were invited to participate in integrated Scholars in Oncology-Associated Research (SOAR) program. SOAR seeks to broaden students' understanding of multidisciplinary and interprofessional oncology clinical care and research. SOAR consists of three components: structured didactics, multidisciplinary tumor board attendance, and interprofessional shadowing. A mixed-methods approach investigated whether student knowledge improved after SOAR. Thirty-three students enrolled in SOAR (20 in 2015, 13 in 2016) and completed pre-assessments. Twenty-five (75.8%) students completed SOAR and post-assessments. Self-reported understanding of clinical (2[2, 3] vs. 4[4], p < 0.01) and research oncology (2[2, 3] vs. 4[4], p < 0.01) improved after SOAR. Understanding of individual disciplines also significantly improved. When describing clinical oncology, responses written post-SOAR were more comprehensive, averaging 3.7 themes per response vs. 2.8 on pre-assessments (p = 0.03). There were more references to "survivorship" as a component of oncology on post-assessments (0[0.0%] vs. 7[28.0%], p < 0.01) and "screening/prevention" (2[6.1%] vs. 7[28.0%], p = 0.03). Additionally, students more often described cancer care as a continuum on post-assessments (4[12.1%] vs. 11[44.0%], p = 0.01). A structured didactic and experiential introduction to oncology, SOAR, was successfully piloted. SOAR improved participant understanding of oncology and its distinct clinical and research disciplines. Future work will focus on expanding SOAR into a longitudinal oncology curriculum.

Identification of risk factors for toxicity in patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer treated with bevacizumab plus letrozole: a CALGB 40503 (alliance) correlative study.

BACKGROUND: In hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, a progression-free survival benefit was reported with addition of bevacizumab to first-line letrozole. However, increased toxicity was observed. We hypothesized that functional age measures could be used to identify patients at risk for toxicity while receiving letrozole plus bevacizumab for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. METHODS: CALGB 40503 was a phase III trial that enrolled patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer randomized to letrozole with or without bevacizumab. Patients randomized to bevacizumab were approached to complete a validated assessment tool evaluating physical function, comorbidity, cognition, psychological state, social support, and nutritional status. The relationship between pretreatment assessment measures and the incidence of grade ≥ 3 (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 3.0) adverse events was determined. RESULTS: One hundred thirteen (58%) of 195 patients treated with letrozole plus bevacizumab completed the pretreatment assessment questionnaire. One patient was excluded due to missing adverse event data. The median age of patients was 56. Frequently reported grade ≥ 3 adverse events were hypertension (26%), pain (20%), and proteinuria (7%). Two hemorrhagic events (one grade 5) and 1 thrombosis event occurred. Age ≥ 65 years (p < 0.01), decreased vision (p = 0.04), and poorer pretreatment physical function measures (p < 0.05) were found on univariate analysis to be significantly associated with increased incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events. Upon multivariate analysis, age ≥ 65 years (p = 0.01) and decreased vision (p = 0.04) remained significant. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models demonstrated associations between age, vision, the ability to walk up flights of stairs, and grade ≥ 3 adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Age (≥ 65 years), decreased vision, and impairments in physical function correlated with increased incidence of toxicity in patients receiving first-line letrozole plus bevacizumab. When evaluating therapy likely to increase toxicity, functional assessment measures can identify patients at increased risk for side effects who may benefit from closer monitoring.

Men's Eating and Living (MEAL) study (CALGB 70807 [Alliance]): recruitment feasibility and baseline demographics of a randomized trial of diet in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of performing national, randomized trials of dietary interventions for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: The Men's Eating and Living (MEAL) study (CALGB 70807 [Alliance]) is a phase III clinical trial testing the efficacy of a high-vegetable diet to prevent progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS). Participants were randomized to a validated diet counselling intervention or to a control condition. Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis analyses were used to assess between-group differences at baseline. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2015, 478 (103%) of a targeted 464 patients were randomized at 91 study sites. At baseline, the mean (sd) age was 64 (6) years and mean (sd) PSA concentration was 4.9 (2.1) ng/mL. Fifty-six (12%) participants were African-American, 17 (4%) were Hispanic/Latino, and 16 (3%) were Asian-American. There were no significant between-group differences for age (P = 0.98), race/ethnicity (P = 0.52), geographic region (P = 0.60), time since prostate cancer diagnosis (P = 0.85), PSA concentration (P = 0.96), clinical stage (T1c or T2a; P = 0.27), or Gleason sum (Gleason 6 or 3+4 = 7; P = 0.76). In a pre-planned analysis, the baseline prostate biopsy samples of the first 50 participants underwent central pathology review to confirm eligibility, with an expectation that <10% would become ineligible. One of 50 participants (2%) became ineligible. CONCLUSION: The MEAL study shows the feasibility of implementing national, multi-institutional phase III clinical trials of diet for prostate cancer and of testing interventions to prevent disease progression in AS.

Interdisciplinary Oncology Education: a National Survey of Trainees and Program Directors in the United States.

Oncologists must have a strong understanding of collaborating specialties in order to deliver optimal cancer care. The objective of this study was to quantify current interdisciplinary oncology education among oncology training programs across the USA, identify effective teaching modalities, and assess communication skills training. Web-based surveys were sent to oncology trainees and program directors (PDs) across the USA on April 1, 2013 and October 8, 2013, respectively. Question responses were Yes/No, five-point Likert scales (1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = moderately, 4 = quite, 5 = extremely), or free response. Respondents included the following (trainees/PDs): 254/55 medical oncology, 160/42 surgical oncology, 102/24 radiation oncology, and 41/20 hospice and palliative medicine (HPM). Trainees consistently reported lower rates of interdisciplinary education for each specialty compared with PDs as follows: medical oncology 57 vs. 77% (p < 0.01), surgical oncology 30 vs. 44% (p < 0.01), radiation oncology 70 vs. 89% (p < 0.01), geriatric oncology 19 vs. 30% (p < 0.01), and HPM 55 vs. 74% (p < 0.01). The predominant teaching method used (lectures vs. rotations vs. tumor board attendance vs. workshop vs. other) varied according to which discipline was being taught. The usefulness of each teaching method was rated statistically different by trainees for learning about select disciplines. Furthermore, statistically significant differences were found between PDs and trainees for the perceived usefulness of several teaching modalities. This study highlights a deficiency of interdisciplinary education among oncology training programs in the USA. Efforts to increase interdisciplinary education opportunities during training may ultimately translate into improved collaboration and quality of cancer care.

Medical Student Knowledge of Oncology and Related Disciplines: a Targeted Needs Assessment.

Despite increasing numbers of cancer survivors, non-oncology physicians report discomfort and little training regarding oncologic and survivorship care. This pilot study assesses medical student comfort with medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, hospice/palliative medicine, and survivorship care. A survey was developed with input from specialists in various fields of oncologic care at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. The survey included respondent demographics, reports of experience with oncology, comfort ratings with oncologic care, and five clinical vignettes. Responses were yes/no, multiple choice, Likert scale, or free response. The survey was distributed via email to medical students (MS1-4) at two US medical schools. The 105 respondents were 34 MS1s (32 %), 15 MS2s and MD/PhDs (14 %), 26 MS3s (25 %), and 30 MS4s (29 %). Medical oncology, surgical oncology, and hospice/palliative medicine demonstrated a significant trend for increased comfort from MS1 to MS4, but radiation oncology and survivorship care did not. MS3s and MS4s reported the least experience with survivorship care and radiation oncology. In the clinical vignettes, students performed the worst on the long-term chemotherapy toxicity and hospice/palliative medicine questions. Medical students report learning about components of oncologic care, but lack overall comfort with oncologic care. Medical students also fail to develop an increased self-assessed level of comfort with radiation oncology and survivorship care. These pilot results support development of a formalized multidisciplinary medical school oncology curriculum at these two institutions. An expanded national survey is being developed to confirm these preliminary findings.

Endocrine-Sensitive Disease Rate in Postmenopausal Patients With Estrogen Receptor-Rich/ERBB2-Negative Breast Cancer Receiving Neoadjuvant Anastrozole, Fulvestrant, or Their Combination: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Adding fulvestrant to anastrozole (A+F) improved survival in postmenopausal women with advanced estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative breast cancer. However, the combination has not been tested in early-stage disease. Objective: To determine whether neoadjuvant fulvestrant or A+F increases the rate of pathologic complete response or ypT1-2N0/N1mic/Ki67 2.7% or less residual disease (referred to as endocrine-sensitive disease) over anastrozole alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: A phase 3 randomized clinical trial assessing differences in clinical and correlative outcomes between each of the fulvestrant-containing arms and the anastrozole arm. Postmenopausal women with clinical stage II to III, ER-rich (Allred score 6-8 or >66%)/ERBB2-negative breast cancer were included. All analyses were based on data frozen on March 2, 2023. Interventions: Patients received anastrozole, fulvestrant, or a combination for 6 months preoperatively. Tumor Ki67 was assessed at week 4 and optionally at week 12, and if greater than 10% at either time point, the patient switched to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or immediate surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the endocrine-sensitive disease rate (ESDR). A secondary outcome was the percentage change in Ki67 after 4 weeks of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) (week 4 Ki67 suppression). Results: Between February 2014 and November 2018, 1362 female patients (mean [SD] age, 65.0 [8.2] years) were enrolled. Among the 1298 evaluable patients, ESDRs were 18.7% (95% CI, 15.1%-22.7%), 22.8% (95% CI, 18.9%-27.1%), and 20.5% (95% CI, 16.8%-24.6%) with anastrozole, fulvestrant, and A+F, respectively. Compared to anastrozole, neither fulvestrant-containing regimen significantly improved ESDR or week 4 Ki67 suppression. The rate of week 4 or week 12 Ki67 greater than 10% was 25.1%, 24.2%, and 15.7% with anastrozole, fulvestrant, and A+F, respectively. Pathologic complete response/residual cancer burden class I occurred in 8 of 167 patients and 17 of 167 patients, respectively (15.0%; 95% CI, 9.9%-21.3%), after switching to neoadjuvant chemotherapy due to week 4 or week 12 Ki67 greater than 10%. PAM50 subtyping derived from RNA sequencing of baseline biopsies available for 753 patients (58%) identified 394 luminal A, 304 luminal B, and 55 nonluminal tumors. A+F led to a greater week 4 Ki67 suppression than anastrozole alone in luminal B tumors (median [IQR], -90.4% [-95.2 to -81.9%] vs -76.7% [-89.0 to -55.6%]; P < .001), but not luminal A tumors. Thirty-six nonluminal tumors (65.5%) had a week 4 or week 12 Ki67 greater than 10%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, neither fulvestrant nor A+F significantly improved the 6-month ESDR over anastrozole in ER-rich/ERBB2-negative breast cancer. Aromatase inhibition remains the standard-of-care NET. Differential NET response by PAM50 subtype in exploratory analyses warrants further investigation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01953588.

Clinicopathologic Characteristics and Prognosis of ERBB2-Low Breast Cancer Among Patients in the National Cancer Database.

Importance: Given conflicting results regarding the prognosis of erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2; formerly HER2 or HER2/neu)-low breast cancer, a large-scale, nationally applicable comparison of ERBB2-low vs ERBB2-negative breast cancer is needed. Objective: To investigate whether ERBB2-low breast cancer is a clinically distinct subtype in terms of epidemiological characteristics, prognosis, and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Design/Participants/Setting: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using the National Cancer Database, including 1 136 016 patients in the US diagnosed with invasive breast cancer from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, who had ERBB2-negative disease and had immunohistochemistry results available. ERBB2-low tumors were classified as having an immunohistochemistry score of 1+, or 2+ with a negative in situ hybridization test. Data were analyzed from November 1, 2021, through November 30, 2022. Exposures: Standard therapy according to routine clinical practice. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), reported as adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs), and pathologic complete response, reported as adjusted odds ratios (aORs), for ERBB2-negative vs ERBB2-low breast cancer, controlling for age, sex, race and ethnicity, Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index score, treatment facility type, tumor grade, tumor histology, hormone receptor status, and cancer stage. Results: The study identified 1 136 016 patients (mean [SD] age, 62.4 [13.1] years; 99.1% female; 78.6% non-Hispanic White), of whom 392 246 (34.5%) were diagnosed with ERBB2-negative and 743 770 (65.5%) with ERBB2-low breast cancer. The mean (SD) age of the ERBB2-negative group was 62.1 (13.2) years and 62.5 (13.0) years for the ERBB2-low group. Higher estrogen receptor expression was associated with increased rates of ERBB2-low disease (aOR, 1.15 per 10% increase). Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, of whom 66.1% were diagnosed with ERBB2-low breast cancer, fewer non-Hispanic Black (62.8%) and Hispanic (61.0%) patients had ERBB2-low disease, although in non-Hispanic Black patients this was mediated by differences in rates of triple-negative disease and other confounders. A slightly lower rate of pathologic complete response was seen in patients with ERBB2-low disease vs patients with ERBB2-negative disease on multivariable analysis (aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.92; P < .001). ERBB2-low status was also associated with small improvements in OS for stage III (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.96; P < .001) and stage IV (aHR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.96; P < .001) triple-negative breast cancer, although this amounted to only a 2.0% (stage III) and 0.4% (stage IV) increase in 5-year OS. Conclusions and Relevance: This large-scale retrospective cohort analysis found minimal prognostic differences between ERBB2-low and ERBB2-negative breast cancer. These findings suggest that, moving forward, outcomes in ERBB2-low breast cancer will be driven by ERBB2-directed antibody-drug conjugates, rather than intrinsic differences in biological characteristics associated with low-level ERBB2 expression. These findings do not support the classification of ERBB2-low breast cancer as a unique disease entity.

The Impact of Race and Age on Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy and Long-Term Outcomes in Black and White Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: There are a paucity of data and a pressing need to evaluate response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and determine long-term outcomes in young Black women with early-stage breast cancer (EBC). METHODS: We analyzed data from 2,196 Black and White women with EBC treated at the University of Chicago over the last 2 decades. Patients were divided into groups based on race and age at diagnosis: Black women 40 years, White women 40 years, Black women 55 years, and White women 55 years. Pathological complete response rate (pCR) was analyzed using logistic regression. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard and piecewise Cox models. RESULTS: Young Black women had the highest risk of recurrence, which was 22% higher than young White women (p=0.434) and 76% higher than older Black women (p=0.008). These age/racial differences in recurrence rates were not statistically significant after adjusting for subtype, stage, and grade. In terms of OS, older Black women had the worst outcome. In the 397 women receiving NACT, 47.5% of young White women achieved pCR, compared to 26.8% of young Black women (p=0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Black women with EBC had significantly worse outcomes compared to White women in our cohort study. There is an urgent need to understand the disparities in outcomes between Black and White breast cancer patients, particularly in young women where the disparity in outcome is the greatest.

Local Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Therapy in Patients With Multiple Ipsilateral Breast Cancer: Results From ACOSOG Z11102 (Alliance).

PURPOSE: Breast-conserving therapy (BCT) is the preferred treatment for unifocal breast cancer (BC). The oncologic safety of BCT for multiple ipsilateral breast cancer (MIBC) has not been demonstrated in a prospective study. ACOSOG Z11102 (Alliance) is a phase II, single-arm, prospective trial designed to evaluate oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing BCT for MIBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women age 40 years and older with two to three foci of biopsy-proven cN0-1 BC were eligible. Patients underwent lumpectomies with negative margins followed by whole breast radiation with boost to all lumpectomy beds. The primary end point was cumulative incidence of local recurrence (LR) at 5 years with an a priori rate of clinical acceptability of <8%. RESULTS: Among 270 women enrolled between November 2012 and August 2016, there were 204 eligible patients who underwent protocol-directed BCT. The median age was 61 years (range, 40-87 years). At a median follow-up of 66.4 months (range, 1.3-90.6 months), six patients developed LR for an estimated 5-year cumulative incidence of LR of 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3 to 6.4). Patient age, number of sites of preoperative biopsy-proven BC, estrogen receptor status and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status, and pathologic T and N categories were not associated with LR risk. Exploratory analysis showed that the 5-year LR rate in patients without preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; n = 15) was 22.6% compared with 1.7% in patients with a preoperative MRI (n = 189; P = .002). CONCLUSION: The Z11102 clinical trial demonstrates that breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiation that includes lumpectomy site boosts yields an acceptably low 5-year LR rate for MIBC. This evidence supports BCT as a reasonable surgical option for women with two to three ipsilateral foci, particularly among patients with disease evaluated with preoperative breast MRI.