Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points in Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: NeoSTEEP.
Litton, Jennifer K; Regan, Meredith M; Pusztai, Lajos; Rugo, Hope S; Tolaney, Sara M; Garrett-Mayer, Elizabeth; Amiri-Kordestani, Laleh; Basho, Reva K; Best, Ana F; Boileau, Jean-Francois; Denkert, Carsten; Foster, Jared C; Harbeck, Nadia; Jacene, Heather A; King, Tari A; Mason, Ginny; O'Sullivan, Ciara C; Prowell, Tatiana M; Richardson, Andrea L; Sepulveda, Karla A; Smith, Mary Lou; Tjoe, Judy A; Turashvili, Gulisa; Woodward, Wendy A; Butler, Lynn Pearson; Schwartz, Elena I; Korde, Larissa A.
Affiliation
  • Litton JK; Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
  • Regan MM; Division of Biostatistics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
  • Pusztai L; Breast Medical Oncology, Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
  • Rugo HS; University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA.
  • Tolaney SM; Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.
  • Garrett-Mayer E; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA.
  • Amiri-Kordestani L; US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
  • Basho RK; The Lawrence J. Ellison Institute for Transformative Medicine, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Best AF; Biometric Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD.
  • Boileau JF; Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Denkert C; Institute of Pathology, Philipps University Marburg and University Hospital Marburg (UKGM), Marburg, Germany.
  • Foster JC; Biometric Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD.
  • Harbeck N; The Breast Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Comprehensive Cancer Center Munich, LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany.
  • Jacene HA; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA.
  • King TA; Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA.
  • Mason G; The Inflammatory Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Broadway, VA.
  • O'Sullivan CC; Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
  • Prowell TM; US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
  • Richardson AL; Women's Malignancies Disease Group, Johns Hopkins Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD.
  • Sepulveda KA; Department of Pathology, John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
  • Smith ML; Department of Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
  • Tjoe JA; Research Advocacy Network, Plano, TX.
  • Turashvili G; Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Novant Health, Greensboro, NC.
  • Woodward WA; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA.
  • Butler LP; Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
  • Schwartz EI; The Emmes Corporation, Rockville, MD.
  • Korde LA; Coordinating Center for Clinical Trials, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD.
J Clin Oncol ; 41(27): 4433-4442, 2023 09 20.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37433103
PURPOSE: The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007 and updated in 2021 (STEEP 2.0), provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer (BC) end points. STEEP 2.0 identified a need to separately address end points for neoadjuvant clinical trials. The multidisciplinary NeoSTEEP working group of experts was convened to critically evaluate and align neoadjuvant BC trial end points. METHODS: The NeoSTEEP working group concentrated on neoadjuvant systemic therapy end points in clinical trials with efficacy outcomes-both pathologic and time-to-event survival end points-particularly for registrational intent. Special considerations for subtypes and therapeutic approaches, imaging, nodal staging at surgery, bilateral and multifocal diseases, correlative tissue collection, and US Food and Drug Administration regulatory considerations were contemplated. RESULTS: The working group recommends a preferred definition of pathologic complete response (pCR) as the absence of residual invasive cancer in the complete resected breast specimen and all sampled regional lymph nodes (ypT0/Tis ypN0 per AJCC staging). Residual cancer burden should be a secondary end point to facilitate future assessment of its utility. Alternative end points are needed for hormone receptor-positive disease. Time-to-event survival end point definitions should pay particular attention to the measurement starting point. Trials should include end points originating at random assignment (event-free survival and overall survival) to capture presurgery progression and deaths as events. Secondary end points adapted from STEEP 2.0, which are defined from starting at curative-intent surgery, may also be appropriate. Specification and standardization of biopsy protocols, imaging, and pathologic nodal evaluation are also crucial. CONCLUSION: End points in addition to pCR should be selected on the basis of clinical and biologic aspects of the tumor and the therapeutic agent investigated. Consistent prespecified definitions and interventions are paramount for clinically meaningful trial results and cross-trial comparison.
Subject(s)

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Breast Neoplasms Type of study: Guideline / Prognostic_studies Limits: Female / Humans Language: En Journal: J Clin Oncol Year: 2023 Type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Breast Neoplasms Type of study: Guideline / Prognostic_studies Limits: Female / Humans Language: En Journal: J Clin Oncol Year: 2023 Type: Article