Are we assuming too much with our statistical assumptions? Lessons learned from the ALTTO trial.

BACKGROUND: Design, conduct, and analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with time to event end points rely on a variety of assumptions regarding event rates (hazard rates), proportionality of treatment effects (proportional hazards), and differences in intensity and type of events over time and between subgroups. DESIGN AND METHODS: In this article, we use the experience of the recently reported Adjuvant Lapatinib and/or Trastuzumab Treatment Optimization (ALTTO) RCT, which enrolled 8381 patients with human epidermal growth factor 2-positive early breast cancer between June 2007 and July 2011, to highlight how routinely applied statistical assumptions can impact RCT result reporting. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that (i) futility stopping rules are important to protect patient safety, but stopping early for efficacy can be misleading as short-term results may not imply long-term efficacy, (ii) biologically important differences between subgroups may drive clinically different treatment effects and should be taken into account, e.g. by pre-specifying primary subgroup analyses and restricting end points to events which are known to be affected by the targeted therapies, (iii) the usual focus on the Cox model may be misleading if we do not carefully consider non-proportionality of the hazards. The results of the accelerated failure time model illustrate that giving more weight to later events (as in the log rank test) can affect conclusions, (iv) the assumption that accruing additional events will always ensure gain in power needs to be challenged. Changes in hazard rates and hazard ratios over time should be considered, and (v) required family-wise control of type 1 error ≤ 5% in clinical trials with multiple experimental arms discourages investigations designed to answer more than one question. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT00490139.

RAD51 foci as a functional biomarker of homologous recombination repair and PARP inhibitor resistance in germline BRCA-mutated breast cancer.

Background: BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2)-deficient tumors display impaired homologous recombination repair (HRR) and enhanced sensitivity to DNA damaging agents or to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi). Their efficacy in germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-mutated metastatic breast cancers has been recently confirmed in clinical trials. Numerous mechanisms of PARPi resistance have been described, whose clinical relevance in gBRCA-mutated breast cancer is unknown. This highlights the need to identify functional biomarkers to better predict PARPi sensitivity. Patients and methods: We investigated the in vivo mechanisms of PARPi resistance in gBRCA1 patient-derived tumor xenografts (PDXs) exhibiting differential response to PARPi. Analysis included exome sequencing and immunostaining of DNA damage response proteins to functionally evaluate HRR. Findings were validated in a retrospective sample set from gBRCA1/2-cancer patients treated with PARPi. Results: RAD51 nuclear foci, a surrogate marker of HRR functionality, were the only common feature in PDX and patient samples with primary or acquired PARPi resistance. Consistently, low RAD51 was associated with objective response to PARPi. Evaluation of the RAD51 biomarker in untreated tumors was feasible due to endogenous DNA damage. In PARPi-resistant gBRCA1 PDXs, genetic analysis found no in-frame secondary mutations, but BRCA1 hypomorphic proteins in 60% of the models, TP53BP1-loss in 20% and RAD51-amplification in one sample, none mutually exclusive. Conversely, one of three PARPi-resistant gBRCA2 tumors displayed BRCA2 restoration by exome sequencing. In PDXs, PARPi resistance could be reverted upon combination of a PARPi with an ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) inhibitor. Conclusion: Detection of RAD51 foci in gBRCA tumors correlates with PARPi resistance regardless of the underlying mechanism restoring HRR function. This is a promising biomarker to be used in the clinic to better select patients for PARPi therapy. Our study also supports the clinical development of PARPi combinations such as those with ATM inhibitors.

The use of breast imaging for predicting response to neoadjuvant lapatinib, trastuzumab and their combination in HER2-positive breast cancer: Results from Neo-ALTTO.

AIM: To determine the value of mammography and breast ultrasound (US) in predicting outcomes in HER2 positive breast cancer patients (pts) within Neo-ALTTO trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Mammography and US were required at baseline, week 6 and surgery. Two independent blinded investigators reviewed the measurements and assigned the corresponding response category. Pts showing complete or partial response according to RECIST (v1.1) were classified as responders. The association between imaging response at week 6 or prior to surgery was evaluated with respect to pathological complete response (pCR) and event-free Survival (EFS). RESULTS: Of the 455 pts enrolled in the trial, 267 (61%) and 340 (77%) had evaluable mammography and US at week 6; 248 (56%) and 309 (70%) pts had evaluable mammography and US prior to surgery. At week 6, 32% and 43% of pts were classified as responders by mammography and US, respectively. pCR rates were twice as high for responders than non-responders (week 6: 46% versus 23% by US, p < 0.0001; 41% versus 24% by mammography, p = 0.007). Positive and negative predictive values of mammography and US prior to surgery were 37% and 35%, and 82% and 70%, respectively. No significant correlation was found between response by mammography and/or US at week 6/surgery and EFS. CONCLUSIONS: Mammography and US were underused in Neo-ALTTO although US had the potential to assess early response whereas mammography to detect residual disease prior to surgery. Our data still emphasise the need for further imaging studies on pts treated with neoadjuvant HER2-targeted therapy.

Oncologist use and perception of large panel next-generation tumor sequencing.

BACKGROUND: Genomic profiling is increasingly incorporated into oncology research and the clinical care of cancer patients. We sought to determine physician perception and use of enterprise-scale clinical sequencing at our center, including whether testing changed management and the reasoning behind this decision-making. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All physicians who consented patients to MSK-IMPACT, a next-generation hybridization capture assay, in tumor types where molecular profiling is not routinely performed were asked to complete a questionnaire for each patient. Physician determination of genomic 'actionability' was compared to an expertly curated knowledgebase of somatic variants. Reported management decisions were compared to chart review. RESULTS: Responses were received from 146 physicians pertaining to 1932 patients diagnosed with 1 of 49 cancer types. Physicians indicated that sequencing altered management in 21% (331/1593) of patients in need of a treatment change. Among those in whom treatment was not altered, physicians indicated the presence of an actionable alteration in 55% (805/1474), however, only 45% (362/805) of these cases had a genomic variant annotated as actionable by expert curators. Further evaluation of these patients revealed that 66% (291/443) had a variant in a gene associated with biologic but not clinical evidence of actionability or a variant of unknown significance in a gene with at least one known actionable alteration. Of the cases annotated as actionable by experts, physicians identified an actionable alteration in 81% (362/445). In total, 13% (245/1932) of patients were enrolled to a genomically matched trial. CONCLUSION: Although physician and expert assessment differed, clinicians demonstrate substantial awareness of the genes associated with potential actionability and report using this knowledge to inform management in one in five patients. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT01775072.