Outcomes and clinicopathologic characteristics associated with disseminated tumor cells in bone marrow after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk early stage breast cancer: the I-SPY SURMOUNT study.

PURPOSE: Disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) expressing epithelial markers in the bone marrow are associated with recurrence and death, but little is known about risk factors predicting their occurrence. We detected EPCAM+/CD45- cells in bone marrow from early stage breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in the I-SPY 2 Trial and examined clinicopathologic factors and outcomes. METHODS: Patients who signed consent for SURMOUNT, a sub-study of the I-SPY 2 Trial (NCT01042379), had bone marrow collected after NAC at the time of surgery. EPCAM+CD45- cells in 4 mLs of bone marrow aspirate were enumerated using immunomagnetic enrichment/flow cytometry (IE/FC). Patients with > 4.16 EPCAM+CD45- cells per mL of bone marrow were classified as DTC-positive. Tumor response was assessed using the residual cancer burden (RCB), a standardized approach to quantitate the extent of residual invasive cancer present in the breast and the axillary lymph nodes after NAC. Association of DTC-positivity with clinicopathologic variables and survival was examined. RESULTS: A total of 73 patients were enrolled, 51 of whom had successful EPCAM+CD45- cell enumeration. Twenty-four of 51 (47.1%) were DTC-positive. The DTC-positivity rate was similar across receptor subtypes, but DTC-positive patients were significantly younger (p = 0.0239) and had larger pretreatment tumors compared to DTC-negative patients (p = 0.0319). Twenty of 51 (39.2%) achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR). While DTC-positivity was not associated with achieving pCR, it was significantly associated with higher RCB class (RCB-II/III, 62.5% vs. RCB-0/I; 33.3%; Chi-squared p = 0.0373). No significant correlation was observed between DTC-positivity and distant recurrence-free survival (p = 0.38, median follow-up = 3.2 years). CONCLUSION: DTC-positivity at surgery after NAC was higher in younger patients, those with larger tumors, and those with residual disease at surgery.

Mobilizing the clinical trial ecosystem to drive adoption of master protocols.

Master protocol studies typically use an overarching protocol to answer several questions by guiding a variety of sub-studies. These sub-studies can incorporate multiple diseases, therapies, or both. Although this innovative approach offers many benefits, including the ability to deliver clinical research that is more patient-centric and efficient, several common barriers curtail widespread adoption. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) convened industry representatives, regulatory agencies, patient groups, and academic institutions to identify emerging best practices and develop resources designed to help sponsors and other stakeholders overcome these challenges. We first identify some broad changes needed in the clinical trials ecosystem to facilitate mainstream adoption of master protocol studies, and we subsequently summarize CTTI's resources designed to support this effort.

Effect of Electronic Symptom Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene. Objective: To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021. Interventions: In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available. Results: Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006). Conclusions and Relevance: In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090.

Adaptive Randomization of Neratinib in Early Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The heterogeneity of breast cancer makes identifying effective therapies challenging. The I-SPY 2 trial, a multicenter, adaptive phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk clinical stage II or III breast cancer, evaluated multiple new agents added to standard chemotherapy to assess the effects on rates of pathological complete response (i.e., absence of residual cancer in the breast or lymph nodes at the time of surgery). METHODS: We used adaptive randomization to compare standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor neratinib with control. Eligible women were categorized according to eight biomarker subtypes on the basis of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, hormone-receptor status, and risk according to a 70-gene profile. Neratinib was evaluated against control with regard to 10 biomarker signatures (prospectively defined combinations of subtypes). The primary end point was pathological complete response. Volume changes on serial magnetic resonance imaging were used to assess the likelihood of such a response in each patient. Adaptive assignment to experimental groups within each disease subtype was based on Bayesian probabilities of the superiority of the treatment over control. Enrollment in the experimental group was stopped when the 85% Bayesian predictive probability of success in a confirmatory phase 3 trial of neoadjuvant therapy reached a prespecified threshold for any biomarker signature ("graduation"). Enrollment was stopped for futility if the probability fell to below 10% for every biomarker signature. RESULTS: Neratinib reached the prespecified efficacy threshold with regard to the HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-negative signature. Among patients with HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-negative cancer, the mean estimated rate of pathological complete response was 56% (95% Bayesian probability interval [PI], 37 to 73%) among 115 patients in the neratinib group, as compared with 33% among 78 controls (95% PI, 11 to 54%). The final predictive probability of success in phase 3 testing was 79%. CONCLUSIONS: Neratinib added to standard therapy was highly likely to result in higher rates of pathological complete response than standard chemotherapy with trastuzumab among patients with HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-negative breast cancer. (Funded by QuantumLeap Healthcare Collaborative and others; I-SPY 2 TRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01042379.).

Adaptive Randomization of Veliparib-Carboplatin Treatment in Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The genetic and clinical heterogeneity of breast cancer makes the identification of effective therapies challenging. We designed I-SPY 2, a phase 2, multicenter, adaptively randomized trial to screen multiple experimental regimens in combination with standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. The goal is to match experimental regimens with responding cancer subtypes. We report results for veliparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, combined with carboplatin. METHODS: In this ongoing trial, women are eligible for participation if they have stage II or III breast cancer with a tumor 2.5 cm or larger in diameter; cancers are categorized into eight biomarker subtypes on the basis of status with regard to human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), hormone receptors, and a 70-gene assay. Patients undergo adaptive randomization within each biomarker subtype to receive regimens that have better performance than the standard therapy. Regimens are evaluated within 10 biomarker signatures (i.e., prospectively defined combinations of biomarker subtypes). Veliparib-carboplatin plus standard therapy was considered for HER2-negative tumors and was therefore evaluated in 3 signatures. The primary end point is pathological complete response. Tumor volume changes measured by magnetic resonance imaging during treatment are used to predict whether a patient will have a pathological complete response. Regimens move on from phase 2 if and when they have a high Bayesian predictive probability of success in a subsequent phase 3 neoadjuvant trial within the biomarker signature in which they performed well. RESULTS: With regard to triple-negative breast cancer, veliparib-carboplatin had an 88% predicted probability of success in a phase 3 trial. A total of 72 patients were randomly assigned to receive veliparib-carboplatin, and 44 patients were concurrently assigned to receive control therapy; at the completion of chemotherapy, the estimated rates of pathological complete response in the triple-negative population were 51% (95% Bayesian probability interval [PI], 36 to 66%) in the veliparib-carboplatin group versus 26% (95% PI, 9 to 43%) in the control group. The toxicity of veliparib-carboplatin was greater than that of the control. CONCLUSIONS: The process used in our trial showed that veliparib-carboplatin added to standard therapy resulted in higher rates of pathological complete response than standard therapy alone specifically in triple-negative breast cancer. (Funded by the QuantumLeap Healthcare Collaborative and others; I-SPY 2 TRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01042379.).

Understanding the functions and operations of data monitoring committees: Survey and focus group findings.

BACKGROUND: The use of data monitoring committees in the conduct of clinical trials has increased and evolved, but there is a lack of published information on when data monitoring committees are needed and utilized, the acceptable range of data monitoring committee practices, and appropriate qualifications of data monitoring committee members. METHODS: To gain a better understanding of data monitoring committee operations and areas for improvement, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative conducted a survey and set of focus groups. A total of 143 respondents completed the online survey: 76 data monitoring committee members, 52 sponsors involved with organization of data monitoring committees, and 15 statistical data analysis center representatives. There were 42 focus group participants, including data monitoring committee members; patients and/or patient advocate data monitoring committee members; institutional review board and US Food and Drug Administration representatives; industry, government, and non-profit sponsors; and statistical data analysis center representatives. RESULTS: Participants indicated that the primary responsibility of a data monitoring committee is to be an independent advisory body representing the interests of trial participants by assessing the risk and benefit ratio in ongoing trials. They noted that data monitoring committees must have access to unmasked data in order to perform this role. No clear consensus emerged regarding specific criteria for requiring a data monitoring committee for a given trial, and some participants felt data monitoring committees may be overused. Respondents offered suggestions for the data monitoring committee charter and communications with sponsors, institutional review boards, and regulators. Overall, data monitoring committee members reported that they are able to function independently and their recommendations are almost always accepted by the sponsor. Participants indicated that there are no standards or guidelines pertaining to qualifications of data monitoring committee members. Furthermore, only 8% (6/72) of data monitoring committee member survey respondents received any formal training, and 94% (68/72) were not aware of any training programs. CONCLUSION: Findings from the survey and focus groups provide a better understanding of contemporary data monitoring committee operations and insights regarding challenges and best practices. Overall, it was clear that increased training will be needed to prepare the next generation of qualified data monitoring committee members to meet the growing demand. These findings can be used by Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative and others to develop recommendations and tools to improve data monitoring committee operations and the overall quality of trial oversight.

Recommendations for data monitoring committees from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative.

Background/aims Use of data monitoring committees to oversee clinical trials was first proposed nearly 50 years ago. Since then, data monitoring committee use in clinical trials has increased and evolved. Nonetheless, there are no well-defined criteria for determining the need for a data monitoring committee, and considerable variability exists in data monitoring committee composition and conduct. To understand and describe the role and function of data monitoring committees, and establish best practices for data monitoring committee trial oversight, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative-a public-private partnership to improve clinical trials-launched a multi-stakeholder project. Methods The data monitoring committee project team included 16 individuals charged with (1) clarifying the purpose of data monitoring committees, (2) identifying best practices for independent data monitoring committee conduct, (3) describing effective communication practices, and (4) developing strategies for training data monitoring committee members. Evidence gathering included a survey, a series of focus group discussions, and a 2-day expert meeting aimed at achieving consensus opinions that form the foundation of our data monitoring committee recommendations. Results We define the role of the data monitoring committee as an advisor to the research sponsor on whether to continue, modify, or terminate a trial based on periodic assessment of trial data. Data monitoring committees should remain independent from the sponsor and be composed of members with no relevant conflicts of interest. Representation on a data monitoring committee generally should include at least one clinician with expertise in the therapeutic area being studied, a biostatistician, and a designated chairperson who has experience with clinical trials and data monitoring. Data monitoring committee meetings are held periodically to evaluate the unmasked data from ongoing trials, but the content and conduct of meetings may vary depending on specific goals or topics for deliberation. To guide data monitoring committee conduct and communication plans, a charter consistent with the protocol's research design and statistical analysis plan should be developed and agreed upon by the sponsor and the data monitoring committee prior to patient enrollment. We recommend concise and flexible charters that explain roles, responsibilities, operational issues, and how data monitoring committee recommendations are generated and communicated. The demand for data monitoring committee members appears to exceed the current pool of qualified individuals. To prepare a new generation of trained data monitoring committee members, we encourage a combination of didactic educational programs, practical experience, and skill development through apprenticeships and mentoring by experienced data monitoring committee members. Conclusion Our recommendations address data monitoring committee use, conduct, communication practices, and member preparation and training. Furthermore recommendations form the foundation for ongoing efforts to improve clinical trial oversight and enhance the safety and integrity of clinical research. These recommendations serve as a call to action for implementation of best practices that benefit study participants, study sponsors, and society.

Cell-free DNA Concentration as a Biomarker of Response and Recurrence in HER2-Negative Breast Cancer Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: We previously demonstrated the clinical significance of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in patients with HER2-negative breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Here, we compared its predictive and prognostic value with cell-free DNA (cfDNA) concentration measured in the same samples from the same patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: 145 patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-negative and 138 triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) with ctDNA data from a previous study were included in the analysis. Associations of serial cfDNA concentration with residual cancer burden (RCB) and distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS) were examined. RESULTS: In TNBC, we observed a modest negative correlation between cfDNA concentration 3 weeks after treatment initiation and RCB, but none of the other timepoints showed significant correlation. In contrast, ctDNA was significantly positively correlated with RCB at all timepoints (all R > 0.3 and P < 0.05). In the HR-positive/HER2-negative group, cfDNA concentration did not associate with response to NAC, but survival analysis showed that high cfDNA shedders at pretreatment had a significantly worse DRFS than low shedders (hazard ratio, 2.12; P = 0.037). In TNBC, the difference in survival between high versus low cfDNA shedders at all timepoints was not statistically significant. In contrast, as previously reported, ctDNA at all timepoints was significantly correlated with DRFS in both subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: In TNBC, cfDNA concentrations during therapy were not strongly correlated with response or prognosis. In the HR-positive/HER2-negative group, pretreatment cfDNA concentration was prognostic for DRFS. Overall, the predictive and prognostic value of cfDNA concentration was more limited than that of ctDNA.

Neoadjuvant Trebananib plus Paclitaxel-based Chemotherapy for Stage II/III Breast Cancer in the Adaptively Randomized I-SPY2 Trial-Efficacy and Biomarker Discovery.

PURPOSE: The neutralizing peptibody trebananib prevents angiopoietin-1 and angiopoietin-2 from binding with Tie2 receptors, inhibiting angiogenesis and proliferation. Trebananib was combined with paclitaxel±trastuzumab in the I-SPY2 breast cancer trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: I-SPY2, a phase II neoadjuvant trial, adaptively randomizes patients with high-risk, early-stage breast cancer to one of several experimental therapies or control based on receptor subtypes as defined by hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 status and MammaPrint risk (MP1, MP2). The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR). A therapy "graduates" if/when it achieves 85% Bayesian probability of success in a phase III trial within a given subtype. Patients received weekly paclitaxel (plus trastuzumab if HER2-positive) without (control) or with weekly intravenous trebananib, followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide and surgery. Pathway-specific biomarkers were assessed for response prediction. RESULTS: There were 134 participants randomized to trebananib and 133 to control. Although trebananib did not graduate in any signature [phase III probabilities: Hazard ratio (HR)-negative (78%), HR-negative/HER2-positive (74%), HR-negative/HER2-negative (77%), and MP2 (79%)], it demonstrated high probability of superior pCR rates over control (92%-99%) among these subtypes. Trebananib improved 3-year event-free survival (HR 0.67), with no significant increase in adverse events. Activation levels of the Tie2 receptor and downstream signaling partners predicted trebananib response in HER2-positive disease; high expression of a CD8 T-cell gene signature predicted response in HR-negative/HER2-negative disease. CONCLUSIONS: The angiopoietin (Ang)/Tie2 axis inhibitor trebananib combined with standard neoadjuvant therapy increased estimated pCR rates across HR-negative and MP2 subtypes, with probabilities of superiority >90%. Further study of Ang/Tie2 receptor axis inhibitors in validated, biomarker-predicted sensitive subtypes is warranted.

Rates of and Factors Associated With Patient Withdrawal of Consent in Cancer Clinical Trials.

Importance: Patient withdrawal of consent from a cancer clinical trial is defined as a patient's volitional cessation of participation in all matters related to a trial. It can undermine the trial's purpose, make the original sample size and power calculations irrelevant, introduce bias between trial arms, and prolong the time to trial completion. Objective: To report rates of and baseline factors associated with withdrawal of consent among patients in cancer clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite observational cohort study was conducted through the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. Patient withdrawal was defined as a patient's voluntary termination of consent to participate anytime during trial conduct. Baseline patient- and trial-based factors were investigated for their associations with patient withdrawal within the first 2 years using logistic regression models. All patients who participated in cancer therapeutic clinical trials conducted within the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology from 2013 through 2019 were included. The data lock date was January 23, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The percentage of patients who withdrew consent in 2 years and factors associated with withdrawal of consent. Results: A total of 11 993 patients (median age, 62 years; 67% female) from 58 trials were included. Within 2 years, 1060 patients (9%) withdrew from their respective trials. Two-year rates of withdrawal were 5.7%, 7.6%, 8.5%, 7.8%, 8.4%, 9.5%, and 9.8% for each of the respective years from 2013 through 2019. In multivariable analyses, Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio [OR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.30-2.15; P < .001), randomized design with placebo (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.38-1.94; P < .001), and patient age 75 years and older (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.72; P = .003) were associated with higher likelihood of withdrawal by 2 years. Use of radiation was associated with patient retention (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, rates of withdrawal of consent were less than 10% and appeared consistent over time. Factors that are associated with withdrawal of consent should be considered when designing trials and should be further studied to learn how they can be favorably modified.

Clinical significance and biology of circulating tumor DNA in high-risk early-stage HER2-negative breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis may improve early-stage breast cancer treatment via non-invasive tumor burden assessment. To investigate subtype-specific differences in the clinical significance and biology of ctDNA shedding, we perform serial personalized ctDNA analysis in hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in the I-SPY2 trial. ctDNA positivity rates before, during, and after NAC are higher in TNBC than in HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer patients. Early clearance of ctDNA 3 weeks after treatment initiation predicts a favorable response to NAC in TNBC only. Whereas ctDNA positivity associates with reduced distant recurrence-free survival in both subtypes. Conversely, ctDNA negativity after NAC correlates with improved outcomes, even in patients with extensive residual cancer. Pretreatment tumor mRNA profiling reveals associations between ctDNA shedding and cell cycle and immune-associated signaling. On the basis of these findings, the I-SPY2 trial will prospectively test ctDNA for utility in redirecting therapy to improve response and prognosis.

Protein signaling and drug target activation signatures to guide therapy prioritization: Therapeutic resistance and sensitivity in the I-SPY 2 Trial.

Molecular subtyping of breast cancer is based mostly on HR/HER2 and gene expression-based immune, DNA repair deficiency, and luminal signatures. We extend this description via functional protein pathway activation mapping using pre-treatment, quantitative expression data from 139 proteins/phosphoproteins from 736 patients across 8 treatment arms of the I-SPY 2 Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01042379). We identify predictive fit-for-purpose, mechanism-of-action-based signatures and individual predictive protein biomarker candidates by evaluating associations with pathologic complete response. Elevated levels of cyclin D1, estrogen receptor alpha, and androgen receptor S650 associate with non-response and are biomarkers for global resistance. We uncover protein/phosphoprotein-based signatures that can be utilized both for molecularly rationalized therapeutic selection and for response prediction. We introduce a dichotomous HER2 activation response predictive signature for stratifying triple-negative breast cancer patients to either HER2 or immune checkpoint therapy response as a model for how protein activation signatures provide a different lens to view the molecular landscape of breast cancer and synergize with transcriptomic-defined signatures.

Management of Advanced Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer and Brain Metastases: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To provide updated evidence- and consensus-based guideline recommendations to practicing oncologists and others on the management of brain metastases for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced breast cancer up to 2021. METHODS: An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review (for both systemic therapy for non-CNS metastases and for CNS metastases of HER2+ guideline updates) that identified 545 articles. Outcomes of interest included overall survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 545 publications identified and reviewed, six on systemic therapy were identified to form the evidentiary basis for the systemic therapy for CNS metastases guideline recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: Patients with brain metastases should receive appropriate local therapy and systemic therapy, if indicated. Local therapies include surgery, whole-brain radiotherapy, and stereotactic radiosurgery. Memantine and hippocampal avoidance should be added to whole-brain radiotherapy when possible. Treatments depend on factors such as patient prognosis, presence of symptoms, resectability, number and size of metastases, prior therapy, and whether metastases are diffuse. Other options include systemic therapy, best supportive care, enrollment onto a clinical trial, and/or palliative care. There are insufficient data to recommend for or against performing routine magnetic resonance imaging to screen for brain metastases; clinicians should have a low threshold for magnetic resonance imaging of the brain because of the high incidence of brain metastases among patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update evidence-based guideline recommendations to practicing oncologists and others on systemic therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced breast cancer. METHODS: An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review (for both systemic treatment and CNS metastases) and identified 545 articles. Outcomes of interest included efficacy and safety. RESULTS: Of the 545 publications identified and reviewed, 14 were identified to form the evidentiary basis for the guideline recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: HER2-targeted therapy is recommended for patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, except for those with clinical congestive heart failure or significantly compromised left ventricular ejection fraction, who should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and taxane for first-line treatment and trastuzumab deruxtecan for second-line treatment are recommended. In the third-line setting, clinicians should offer other HER2-targeted therapy combinations. There is a lack of head-to-head trials; therefore, there is insufficient evidence to recommend one regimen over another. The patient and the clinician should discuss differences in treatment schedule, route, toxicities, etc during the decision-making process. Options include regimens with tucatinib, trastuzumab emtansine, trastuzumab deruxtecan (if either not previously administered), neratinib, lapatinib, chemotherapy, margetuximab, hormonal therapy, and abemaciclib plus trastuzumab plus fulvestrant, and may offer pertuzumab if the patient has not previously received it. Optimal duration of chemotherapy is at least 4-6 months or until maximum response, depending on toxicity and in the absence of progression. HER2-targeted therapy can continue until time of progression or unacceptable toxicities. For patients with HER2-positive and estrogen receptor-positive or progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer, clinicians may recommend either standard first-line therapy or, for selected patients, endocrine therapy plus HER2-targeted therapy or endocrine therapy alone.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Somatic Genomic Testing in Patients With Metastatic or Advanced Cancer: ASCO Provisional Clinical Opinion.

PURPOSE: An ASCO provisional clinical opinion offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This provisional clinical opinion addresses the appropriate use of tumor genomic testing in patients with metastatic or advanced solid tumors. CLINICAL CONTEXT: An increasing number of therapies are approved to treat cancers harboring specific genomic biomarkers. However, there is a lack of clarity as to when tumor genomic sequencing should be ordered, what type of assays should be performed, and how to interpret the results for treatment selection. PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINION: Patients with metastatic or advanced cancer should undergo genomic sequencing in a certified laboratory if the presence of one or more specific genomic alterations has regulatory approval as biomarkers to guide the use of or exclusion from certain treatments for their disease. Multigene panel-based assays should be used if more than one biomarker-linked therapy is approved for the patient's disease. Site-agnostic approvals for any cancer with a high tumor mutation burden, mismatch repair deficiency, or neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) fusions provide a rationale for genomic testing for all solid tumors. Multigene testing may also assist in treatment selection by identifying additional targets when there are few or no genotype-based therapy approvals for the patient's disease. For treatment planning, the clinician should consider the functional impact of the targeted alteration and expected efficacy of genomic biomarker-linked options relative to other approved or investigational treatments.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/assays-and-predictive-markers-guidelines.

Trial Design Considerations to Increase Older Adult Accrual to National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials.

Although adults aged 65 years or older make up a strong majority of cancer patients, their underrepresentation in cancer clinical trials leads to the lack of representative data to guide evidence-based therapeutic decisions in this patient population. The Trial Design Working Group, convened as part of the workshop titled, Engaging Older Adults in the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Network: Challenges and Opportunities, recommended study designs and design elements that could improve accrual of older adults in National Cancer Institute-funded clinical trials. These include trials that are specifically designed to enroll older adults, trials that include a cohort of older patients (parallel cohort, stratified cohort, or embedded cohort), and trials with pragmatic design elements to facilitate enrollment of older adults. This manuscript provides brief descriptions of the recommended designs, examples of successful trials, and considerations for implementation of these designs. As with any clinical trial, the scientific questions and trial objectives should drive the study design, the selection of endpoints and intervention, and eligibility criteria. When designing trials that include older adults, the heterogeneity of fitness levels is an important consideration as fitness can influence accrual rates and outcomes. Appropriately incorporating geriatric assessments can help identify the optimal subset of older patients for inclusion and minimize selection bias. Incorporating pragmatic design elements to reduce the burden on trial participants as well as on accruing sites and retaining essential elements to ensure that the main goal of the trial can be accomplished can enhance enrollment without compromising the integrity of trials.

Redefining breast cancer subtypes to guide treatment prioritization and maximize response: Predictive biomarkers across 10 cancer therapies.

Using pre-treatment gene expression, protein/phosphoprotein, and clinical data from the I-SPY2 neoadjuvant platform trial (NCT01042379), we create alternative breast cancer subtypes incorporating tumor biology beyond clinical hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status to better predict drug responses. We assess the predictive performance of mechanism-of-action biomarkers from ∼990 patients treated with 10 regimens targeting diverse biology. We explore >11 subtyping schemas and identify treatment-subtype pairs maximizing the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate over the population. The best performing schemas incorporate Immune, DNA repair, and HER2/Luminal phenotypes. Subsequent treatment allocation increases the overall pCR rate to 63% from 51% using HR/HER2-based treatment selection. pCR gains from reclassification and improved patient selection are highest in HR+ subsets (>15%). As new treatments are introduced, the subtyping schema determines the minimum response needed to show efficacy. This data platform provides an unprecedented resource and supports the usage of response-based subtypes to guide future treatment prioritization.

Safety and efficacy of HSP90 inhibitor ganetespib for neoadjuvant treatment of stage II/III breast cancer.

HSP90 inhibitors destabilize oncoproteins associated with cell cycle, angiogenesis, RAS-MAPK activity, histone modification, kinases and growth factors. We evaluated the HSP90-inhibitor ganetespib in combination with standard chemotherapy in patients with high-risk early-stage breast cancer. I-SPY2 is a multicenter, phase II adaptively randomized neoadjuvant (NAC) clinical trial enrolling patients with stage II-III breast cancer with tumors 2.5 cm or larger on the basis of hormone receptors (HR), HER2 and Mammaprint status. Multiple novel investigational agents plus standard chemotherapy are evaluated in parallel for the primary endpoint of pathologic complete response (pCR). Patients with HER2-negative breast cancer were eligible for randomization to ganetespib from October 2014 to October 2015. Of 233 women included in the final analysis, 140 were randomized to the standard NAC control; 93 were randomized to receive 150 mg/m2 ganetespib every 3 weeks with weekly paclitaxel over 12 weeks, followed by AC. Arms were balanced for hormone receptor status (51-52% HR-positive). Ganetespib did not graduate in any of the biomarker signatures studied before reaching maximum enrollment. Final estimated pCR rates were 26% vs. 18% HER2-negative, 38% vs. 22% HR-negative/HER2-negative, and 15% vs. 14% HR-positive/HER2-negative for ganetespib vs control, respectively. The predicted probability of success in phase 3 testing was 47% HER2-negative, 72% HR-negative/HER2-negative, and 19% HR-positive/HER2-negative. Ganetespib added to standard therapy is unlikely to yield substantially higher pCR rates in HER2-negative breast cancer compared to standard NAC, and neither HSP90 pathway nor replicative stress expression markers predicted response. HSP90 inhibitors remain of limited clinical interest in breast cancer, potentially in other clinical settings such as HER2-positive disease or in combination with anti-PD1 neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple negative breast cancer.Trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01042379.

Real-World Data for Planning Eligibility Criteria and Enhancing Recruitment: Recommendations from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative.

The growing availability of real-world data (RWD) creates opportunities for new evidence generation and improved efficiency across the research enterprise. To varying degrees, sponsors now regularly use RWD to make data-driven decisions about trial feasibility, based on assessment of eligibility criteria for planned clinical trials. Increasingly, RWD are being used to support targeted, timely, and personalized outreach to potential trial participants that may improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the recruitment process. This paper highlights recommendations and resources, including specific case studies, developed by the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) for applying RWD to planning eligibility criteria and recruiting for clinical trials. Developed through a multi-stakeholder, consensus- and evidence-driven process, these actionable tools support researchers in (1) determining whether RWD are fit for purpose with respect to study planning and recruitment, (2) engaging cross-functional teams in the use of RWD for study planning and recruitment, and (3) understanding patient and site needs to develop successful and patient-centric approaches to RWD-supported recruitment. Future considerations for the use of RWD are explored, including ensuring full patient understanding of data use and developing global datasets.

Updated Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) in Adjuvant Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: STEEP Version 2.0.

PURPOSE: The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007, provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer clinical trial end points. Given the evolution of breast cancer clinical trials and improvements in outcomes, a panel of experts reviewed the STEEP criteria to determine whether modifications are needed. METHODS: We conducted systematic searches of ClinicalTrials.gov for adjuvant systemic and local-regional therapy trials for breast cancer to investigate if the primary end points reported met STEEP criteria. On the basis of common STEEP deviations, we performed a series of simulations to evaluate the effect of excluding non-breast cancer deaths and new nonbreast primary cancers from the invasive disease-free survival end point. RESULTS: Among 11 phase III breast cancer trials with primary efficacy end points, three had primary end points that followed STEEP criteria, four used STEEP definitions but not the corresponding end point names, and four used end points that were not included in the original STEEP manuscript. Simulation modeling demonstrated that inclusion of second nonbreast primary cancer can increase the probability of incorrect inferences, can decrease power to detect clinically relevant efficacy effects, and may mask differences in recurrence rates, especially when recurrence rates are low. CONCLUSION: We recommend an additional end point, invasive breast cancer-free survival, which includes all invasive disease-free survival events except second nonbreast primary cancers. This end point should be considered for trials in which the toxicities of agents are well-known and where the risk of second primary cancer is small. Additionally, we provide end point recommendations for local therapy trials, low-risk populations, noninferiority trials, and trials incorporating patient-reported outcomes.