TBCRC 039: a phase II study of preoperative ruxolitinib with or without paclitaxel for triple-negative inflammatory breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) have overall poor clinical outcomes, with triple-negative IBC (TN-IBC) being associated with the worst survival, warranting the investigation of novel therapies. Preclinical studies implied that ruxolitinib (RUX), a JAK1/2 inhibitor, may be an effective therapy for TN-IBC. METHODS: We conducted a randomized phase II study with nested window-of-opportunity in TN-IBC. Treatment-naïve patients received a 7-day run-in of RUX alone or RUX plus paclitaxel (PAC). After the run-in, those who received RUX alone proceeded to neoadjuvant therapy with either RUX + PAC or PAC alone for 12 weeks; those who had received RUX + PAC continued treatment for 12 weeks. All patients subsequently received 4 cycles of doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide prior to surgery. Research tumor biopsies were performed at baseline (pre-run-in) and after run-in therapy. Tumors were evaluated for phosphorylated STAT3 (pSTAT3) by immunostaining, and a subset was also analyzed by RNA-seq. The primary endpoint was the percent of pSTAT3-positive pre-run-in tumors that became pSTAT3-negative. Secondary endpoints included pathologic complete response (pCR). RESULTS: Overall, 23 patients were enrolled, of whom 21 completed preoperative therapy. Two patients achieved pCR (8.7%). pSTAT3 and IL-6/JAK/STAT3 signaling decreased in post-run-in biopsies of RUX-treated samples, while sustained treatment with RUX + PAC upregulated IL-6/JAK/STAT3 signaling compared to RUX alone. Both treatments decreased GZMB+ T cells implying immune suppression. RUX alone effectively inhibited JAK/STAT3 signaling but its combination with PAC led to incomplete inhibition. The immune suppressive effects of RUX alone and in combination may negate its growth inhibitory effects on cancer cells. CONCLUSION: In summary, the use of RUX in TN-IBC was associated with a decrease in pSTAT3 levels despite lack of clinical benefit. Cancer cell-specific-targeting of JAK2/STAT3 or combinations with immunotherapy may be required for further evaluation of JAK2/STAT3 signaling as a cancer therapeutic target. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov , NCT02876302. Registered 23 August 2016.

Transforming the oncology data paradigm by creating, capturing, and retrieving structured cancer data at the point of care: A Mayo Clinic pilot.

INTRODUCTION: Structured data capture requires defined languages such as minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE). This pilot assessed the feasibility of capturing 5 mCODE categories (stage, disease status, performance status (PS), intent of therapy and intent to change therapy). METHODS: A tool (SmartPhrase) using existing and custom structured data elements was Built to capture 4 data categories (disease status, PS, intent of therapy and intent to change therapy) typically documented as free-text within notes. Existing functionality for stage was supported by the Build. Participant survey data, presence of data (per encounter), and time in chart were collected prior to go-live and repeat timepoints. The anticipated outcome was capture of >50% sustained over time without undue burden. RESULTS: Pre-intervention (5-weeks before go-live), participants had 1390 encounters (1207 patients). The median percent capture across all participants was 32% for stage; no structured data was available for other categories pre-intervention. During a 6-month pilot with 14 participants across three sites, 4995 encounters (3071 patients) occurred. The median percent capture across all participants and all post-intervention months increased to 64% for stage and 81%-82% for the other data categories post-intervention. No increase in participant time in chart was noted. Participants reported that data were meaningful to capture. CONCLUSIONS: Structured data can be captured (1) in real-time, (2) sustained over time without (3) undue provider burden using note-based tools. Our system is expanding the pilot, with integration of these data into clinical decision support, practice dashboards and potential for clinical trial matching.

The Growing Role of Digital Health Tools in the Care of Patients with Cancer: Current Use, Future Opportunities, and Barriers to Effective Implementation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article aims to describe the ways in which digital health technologies are currently being used to improve the delivery of cancer care, highlight opportunities to expand their use, and discuss barriers to effective and equitable implementation. RECENT FINDINGS: The utilization of digital health tools and development of novel care delivery models that leverage such tools is expanding. Recent studies have shown feasibility and increased implementation in the setting of oncologic care. With technological advances and key policy changes, utilization of digital health tools has greatly increased over the past two decades and transformed how cancer care is delivered. As digital health tools are expanded and refined, there is potential for improved access to and quality and efficiency of cancer care. However, careful consideration should be given to key barriers of digital health tool adoption, such as infrastructural, patient-level, and health systems-level challenges, to ensure equitable access to care and improvement in health outcomes.

Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors in triple-negative invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast.

PURPOSE: Triple-negative invasive lobular carcinoma (TN-ILC) of breast cancer is a rare disease and the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors are not well-defined. METHODS: Women with stage I-III TN-ILC or triple-negative invasive ductal carcinoma (TN-IDC) of the breast undergoing mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery between 2010 and 2018 in the National Cancer Database were included. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression were used to compare overall survival (OS) and evaluate prognostic factors. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to analyze the factors associated with pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: The median age at diagnosis for women with TN-ILC was 67 years compared to 58 years in TN-IDC (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the OS between TN-ILC and TN-IDC in multivariate analysis (HR 0.96, p = 0.44). Black race and higher TNM stage were associated with worse OS, whereas receipt of chemotherapy or radiation was associated with better OS in TN-ILC. Among women with TN-ILC receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the 5-year OS was 77.3% in women with a complete pathological response (pCR) compared to 39.8% in women without any response. The odds of achieving pCR following neoadjuvant chemotherapy were significantly lower in women with TN-ILC compared to TN-IDC (OR 0.53, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Women with TN-ILC are older at diagnosis but have similar OS compared to TN-IDC after adjusting for tumor and demographic characteristics. Administration of chemotherapy was associated with improved OS in TN-ILC, but women with TN-ILC were less likely to achieve complete response to neoadjuvant therapy compared to TN-IDC.

Patient Satisfaction With a Multisite, Multiregional Remote Patient Monitoring Program for Acute and Chronic Condition Management: Survey-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) is an option for continuously managing the care of patients in the comfort of their homes or locations outside hospitals and clinics. Patient engagement with RPM programs is essential for achieving successful outcomes and high quality of care. When relying on technology to facilitate monitoring and shifting disease management to the home environment, it is important to understand the patients' experiences to enable quality improvement. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe patients' experiences and overall satisfaction with an RPM program for acute and chronic conditions in a multisite, multiregional health care system. METHODS: Between January 1, 2021, and August 31, 2022, a patient experience survey was delivered via email to all patients enrolled in the RPM program. The survey encompassed 19 questions across 4 categories regarding comfort, equipment, communication, and overall experience, as well as 2 open-ended questions. Descriptive analysis of the survey response data was performed using frequency distribution and percentages. RESULTS: Surveys were sent to 8535 patients. The survey response rate was 37.16% (3172/8535) and the completion rate was 95.23% (3172/3331). Survey results indicated that 88.97% (2783/3128) of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the program helped them feel comfortable managing their health from home. Furthermore, 93.58% (2873/3070) were satisfied with the RPM program and ready to graduate when meeting the program goals. In addition, patient confidence in this model of care was confirmed by 92.76% (2846/3068) of the participants who would recommend RPM to people with similar conditions. There were no differences in ease of technology use according to age. Those with high school or less education were more likely to agree that the equipment and educational materials helped them feel more informed about their care plans than those with higher education levels. CONCLUSIONS: This multisite, multiregional RPM program has become a reliable health care delivery model for the management of acute and chronic conditions outside hospitals and clinics. Program participants reported an excellent overall experience and a high level of satisfaction in managing their health from the comfort of their home environment.

Clinical management of metastatic hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (MBC) after CDK 4/6 inhibitors: a retrospective single-institution study.

PURPOSE: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6is), in combination with endocrine therapy (ET), are standard either in the first (1L) or second-line (2L) setting for the treatment of hormone receptor (HR) positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, the optimal sequencing of treatments after progression on CDK4/6i remains unknown. We performed a single-institution analysis to identify treatments and outcomes after progression on a CDK4/6i. METHODS: We identified patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative MBC prescribed a CDK4/6i in the 1L or 2L settings from December 2014 to February 2018 at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Outcomes were collected through September 30, 2020. RESULTS: Palbociclib, in combination with letrozole or fulvestrant, was the most prescribed CDK4/6i. The 1L and 2L CDK4/6i cohorts exhibited comparable overall survival (OS), but progression-free survival (PFS) was longer in the 1L than the 2L cohort [28.2 months (95% CI 19.6-34.9) vs 19.8 months (95% CI 15.7-29.6)]. The most common post-CDK4/6i treatments were PI3K/mTOR inhibitors (PI3K/mTORi), single-agent ET, or chemotherapy. PFS in the 1L CDK4/6i cohort following PI3K/mTORi was 8.5 months (95% CI 5.5 months-NE), single-agent ET was 6.0 months (95% CI 3.3-14.0 months), and chemotherapy PFS was 5.4 months (95% CI 3.3 months-NE). CONCLUSIONS: Following progression on a CDK 4/6i, mPFS was short, with similar PFS times comparing chemotherapy and ET, with slightly longer PFS for targeted strategies (PI3K/mTOR). These results highlight a major need to better understand the mechanisms of CDK4/6i resistance and identify new therapeutic strategies for these patients.

Single-nucleotide polymorphism biomarkers of adjuvant anastrozole-induced estrogen suppression in early breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Based on our previous findings that postmenopausal women with estrone (E1) and estradiol (E2) concentrations at or above 1.3 pg/ml and 0.5 pg/ml, respectively, after 6 months of adjuvant anastrozole therapy had a three-fold risk of recurrence, we aimed to identify a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based model that would predict elevated E1 and E2 and then validate it in an independent dataset. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The test set consisted of 322 women from the M3 study and the validation set consisted of 152 patients from MA.27. All patients were treated with adjuvant anastrozole, had on-anastrozole E1 and E2 concentrations and genome-wide genotyping. RESULTS: SNPs were identified from the M3 genome-wide association study. The best model to predict the E1-E2 phenotype with high balanced accuracy was a support vector machine model using clinical factors plus 46 SNPs. We did not have an independent cohort that is similar to the M3 study with clinical, E1-E2 phenotypes and genotype data to test our model. Hence, we chose a nested matched case-control cohort (MA.27 study) for testing. Our E1-E2 model was not validated but we found the MA.27 validation cohort was both clinically and genomically different. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a SNP-based model that had excellent performance characteristics for predicting the phenotype of elevated E1 and E2 in women treated with anastrozole. This model was not validated in an independent dataset but that dataset was clinically and genomically substantially different. The model will need validation in a prospective study.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Capecitabine and Lapatinib with or without IMC-A12 (Cituxumumab) in Patients with HER2-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer Previously Treated with Trastuzumab and Chemotherapy: NCCTG N0733 (Alliance).

PURPOSE: To compare efficacy and safety of capecitabine and lapatinib with or without IMC-A12 (cituxumumab) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with trastuzumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Following an initial safety run-in cohort, patients were randomized 1:2 to Arm A (capecitabine and lapatinib) or to Arm B (capecitabine, lapatinib, and cituxumumab). Given the frequency of non-hematologic grade ≥ 3 adverse events in those receiving the three-drug combination in the safety cohort, lapatinib and capecitabine doses were reduced in Arm B only. The primary objective was to determine if the addition of cituxumumab to capecitabine and lapatinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with capecitabine and lapatinib. Secondary objectives included a comparison between arms of other clinical endpoints, safety, change in overall quality of life (QOL) and self-assessed fatigue, rash, diarrhea, and hand-foot syndrome. RESULTS: From July 2008 to March 2012, 68 patients (out of 142 planned) were enrolled and 63 were evaluable, including 8 for the safety run-in and 55 for the randomized cohort. Study enrollment was stopped early due to slow accrual. The addition of cituxumumab to capecitabine and lapatinib did not improve PFS (HR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.52-1.64). Furthermore, no difference in objective response rate or overall survival (OS) was observed. No difference between arms was observed in grade ≥ 3 adverse events, overall QOL change from baseline after 4 cycles of treatment. CONCLUSION: The addition of cituxumumab to lapatinib and capecitabine did not improve PFS or OS compared with lapatinib and capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive MBC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00684983.

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.).

Phase I trial to evaluate the addition of alisertib to fulvestrant in women with endocrine-resistant, ER+ metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: In estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer models, activation of Aurora A kinase (AURKA) is associated with downregulation of ERα expression and resistance to endocrine therapy. Alisertib is an oral selective inhibitor of AURKA. The primary objectives of this phase I trial were to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and evaluate the toxicities and clinical activity of alisertib combined with fulvestrant in patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: In this standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation phase I study, postmenopausal patients with endocrine-resistant, ER+ MBC previously treated with endocrine therapy were assigned to one of two dose levels of alisertib (40 or 50 mg) in combination with fixed-dose fulvestrant. RESULTS: Ten patients enrolled, of which nine were evaluable for the primary endpoint. The median patient age was 59. All patients had secondary (acquired) endocrine resistance, and all had received prior aromatase inhibitor. Six had experienced disease progression on fulvestrant. There were no severe (grade 3+) toxicities reported during cycle 1 at either dose level. The median progression-free survival time was 12.4 months (95% CI 5.3-not met), and the 6-month clinical benefit rate was 77.8% (95% CI 40.0-87.2%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with endocrine-resistant, ER+ MBC, alisertib in combination with fulvestrant was well tolerated. A favorable safety profile was observed. The RP2D is 50 mg twice daily on days 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 of a 28-day cycle with standard dose fulvestrant. Promising antitumor activity was observed, including activity among patients with prior progression on fulvestrant.

Adherence to Guidelines for Breast Surveillance in Breast Cancer Survivors.

Background: Guidelines recommend annual mammography after curative-intent treatment for breast cancer. The goal of this study was to assess contemporary patterns of breast imaging after breast cancer treatment. Methods: Administrative claims data were used to identify privately insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with nonmetastatic breast cancer who had residual breast tissue (not bilateral mastectomy) after breast surgery between January 2005 and May 2015. We calculated the proportion of patients who had a mammogram, MRI, both, or neither during each of 5 subsequent 13-month periods. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess associations between patient characteristics, healthcare use, and breast imaging in the first and fifth years after surgery. Results: A total of 27,212 patients were followed for a median of 2.9 years (interquartile range, 1.8-4.6) after definitive breast cancer surgery. In year 1, 78% were screened using mammography alone, 1% using MRI alone, and 8% using both tests; 13% did not undergo either. By year 5, the proportion of the remaining cohort (n=4,790) who had no breast imaging was 19%. Older age was associated with an increased likelihood of mammography and a decreased likelihood of MRI during the first and fifth years. Black race, mastectomy, chemotherapy, and no MRI at baseline were all associated with a decreased likelihood of both types of imaging. Conclusions: Even in an insured cohort, a substantial proportion of breast cancer survivors do not undergo annual surveillance breast imaging, particularly as time passes. Understanding factors associated with imaging in cancer survivors may help improve adherence to survivorship care guidelines.

Impact of treatment regimen on acute care use during and after adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The Oncology Care Model was developed, in part, to reduce acute care use during the 6 months after chemotherapy initiation. However, little is known about the impact of chemotherapy regimen on acute care needs, or about later acute care. We sought to assess acute care use over 2 years in patients receiving four contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer. METHODS: Administrative claims data from a large U.S. commercial insurance database (OptumLabs Data Warehouse) were used to retrospectively identify women with early-stage breast cancer who received adjuvant doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC), AC followed or preceded by docetaxel or paclitaxel (AC-T), AC concurrent with docetaxel or paclitaxel (TAC), or docetaxel-cyclophosphamide (TC) between 2008 and 2014. Rates of hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits that did not lead to hospitalizations were compared during four sequential 6-month periods among recipients of these four regimens using negative binomial regression (TC = reference). RESULTS: We identified 8621 eligible patients, 87.2% younger than 65. Over 6 months, 11.9% were hospitalized and 17.1% had ED visits. Over 24 months, 17.9% were hospitalized and 28.3% visited the ED. Adjusted rates of hospitalizations/100 patients were significantly higher in AC-T and TAC compared to TC recipients in the first 6 months (14.9, 21.9, and 11.3, respectively, p < 0.001). There were no hospitalization rate differences among regimens later. ED visit rates did not differ significantly by regimen during any 6-month period. CONCLUSION: Higher rates of hospitalizations in recipients of AC-T and TAC were restricted to the chemotherapy administration period, and did not persist afterwards.

Clinicopathologic features of breast cancers that develop in women with previous benign breast disease.

BACKGROUND: Women with benign breast disease (BBD) have an increased risk of developing breast cancer (BC). Nearly 30% of all BCs develop in women with prior BBD. Information regarding features of the expected number of BCs after BBD would enhance individualized surveillance and prevention strategies for these women. In the current study, the authors sought to characterize BCs developing in a large cohort of women with BBD. METHODS: The current study cohort included 13,485 women who underwent breast biopsy for mammographic or palpable concerns between 1967 and 2001. Biopsy slides were reviewed and classified as nonproliferative disease, proliferative disease without atypia, or atypical hyperplasia. BCs were identified by follow-up questionnaires, medical records, and Tumor Registry data. BC tissues were obtained and reviewed. RESULTS: With median follow-up of 15.8 years, 1273 women developed BC. The majority of BCs were invasive (81%), of which 61% were ductal, 13% were mixed ductal/lobular, and 14% were lobular. Approximately two-thirds of the BC cases were intermediate or high grade, and 29% were lymph node positive. Cancer characteristics were similar across the 3 histologic categories of BBD, with a similar frequency of ductal carcinoma in situ, invasive disease, tumor size, time to invasive BC, histologic type of BC, lymph node positivity, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positivity. Women with atypical hyperplasia were found to have a higher frequency of estrogen receptor-positive BC (91%) compared with women with proliferative disease without atypia (80%) or nonproliferative disease (85%) (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial percentage of all BCs develop in women with prior BBD. The majority of BCs after BBD are invasive tumors of ductal type, with a substantial number demonstrating lymph node positivity. Of all the BCs in the current study, 84% were estrogen receptor positive. Prevention therapy should be strongly encouraged in higher-risk women with BBD.

Landscape of neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy provides clinical outcomes equivalent to those achieved when the same regimen is provided in the adjuvant setting. The therapeutic response to neoadjuvant treatment may include a reduction in tumor burden that alleviates the morbidity associated with locoregional therapy. Important prognostic information can be gained based on the response to treatment and knowing the quantity and biology of the residual disease. The evaluation of investigational agents in the neoadjuvant setting is of particular value for accelerating drug development. This review highlights landmark trials and contemporary perspectives on neoadjuvant chemotherapy and hormonal therapy, treatment response as a prognostic biomarker, use of the neoadjuvant paradigm for new drug development, and clinical advances in neoadjuvant therapy by molecular subtype of breast cancer.

Anastrozole dose escalation for optimal estrogen suppression in postmenopausal early-stage breast cancer: A prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that postmenopausal women with ER+ breast cancer (BC) receiving adjuvant anastrozole 1 mg/day (ANA1) with estrone (E1) ≥1.3 pg/mL and estradiol (E2) ≥0.5 (inadequate estrogen suppression [IES]) had a 3.0-fold increased risk of a BC event. The objective of this study was to determine if increasing anastrozole to 10 mg/day (ANA10) could result in adequate estrogen suppression (AES: E1 <1.3 pg/mL and/or E2 <0.5) among those with IES on ANA1. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with ER+ BC planning to receive adjuvant ANA1 were eligible. E1 and E2 were assessed pre- and post-8-10 weeks of ANA1. Those with IES were switched to 8-10 week cycles of ANA10 followed by letrozole 2.5 mg/day. E1 and E2 were assessed after each cycle. Anastrozole concentrations were measured post-ANA1 and post-ANA10. Primary analyses included patients who documented taking at least 80% of planned treatment (adherent cohort). RESULTS: 132 (84.6%) of 156 eligible patients were ANA1-adherent. IES occurred in 40 (30.3%) adherent patients. 25 (78.1%) of 32 patients who began ANA10 were adherent, and AES was achieved in 19 (76.0%; 90%CI: 58.1-89.0%) patients. Anastrozole concentrations post-ANA1 and post-ANA10 did not differ by estrogen suppression status among adherent patients. AES was maintained/attained in 21 (91.3%) of 23 letrozole-adherent patients. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 30% of ANA1-adherent patients had IES. Among those who switched to ANA10 and were adherent, 76% had AES. Further studies are required to validate emerging data that ANA1 results in IES for some patients and to determine the clinical benefit of switching to ANA10 or an alternative AI.

Data-Driven and Technology-Enabled Trial Innovations Toward Decentralization of Clinical Trials: Opportunities and Considerations.

Traditional trial designs have well-recognized inefficiencies and logistical barriers to participation. Decentralized trials and digital health solutions have been suggested as potential solutions and have certainly risen to the challenge during the pandemic. Clinical trial designs are now increasingly data driven. The use of distributed clinical data networks and digitization has helped to fundamentally upgrade existing research systems. A trial design may vary anywhere from fully decentralized to hybrid to traditional on-site. Various decentralization components are available for stakeholders to increase the reach and pace of their trials, such as electronic informed consent, remote interviews, administration, outcome assessment, monitoring, and laboratory and imaging modalities. Furthermore, digital health technologies can be included to enrich study conduct. However, careful consideration is warranted, including assessing verification and validity through usability studies and having various contingencies in place through dedicated risk assessment. Selecting the right combination depends not just on the ability to handle patient care and the medical know-how but also on the availability of appropriate technologic infrastructure, skills, and human resources. Throughout this process, quality of evidence generation and physician-patient relation must not be undermined. Here we also address some knowledge gaps, cost considerations, and potential impact of decentralization and digitization on inclusivity, recruitment, engagement, and retention. Last, we mention some future directions that may help drive the necessary change in the right direction.

Advances in the care of breast cancer survivors.

Breast cancer survivors may experience significant after effects from diagnoses of breast cancer and cancer directed therapies. This review synthesizes the evidence about optimal management of the sequelae of a diagnosis of breast cancer. It describes the side effects of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy and evidence based strategies for management of such effects, with particular attention to effects of therapies with curative intent. It includes strategies to promote health and wellness among breast cancer survivors, along with data to support the use of integrative oncology strategies. In addition, this review examines models of survivorship care and ways in which digital tools may facilitate communication between clinicians and patients. The strategies outlined in this review are paramount to supporting breast cancer survivors' quality of life.

Association of Anthracycline With Heart Failure in Patients Treated for Breast Cancer or Lymphoma, 1985-2010.

Importance: Anthracyclines increase the risk for congestive heart failure (CHF); however, long-term cumulative incidence and risk factors for CHF after anthracycline therapy are not well defined in population-based studies. Objective: To compare the long-term cumulative incidence of CHF in patients with breast cancer or lymphoma treated with anthracycline therapy compared with healthy controls from the same community. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective population-based case-control study included data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Participants included residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, diagnosed with breast cancer or lymphoma from January 1985 through December 2010 matched for age, sex, and comorbidities with healthy controls, with a final ratio of 1 case to 1.5 controls. Statistical analysis was performed between July 2017 and February 2022. Exposures: Cancer treatment and CHF risk factors. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was new-onset CHF, as defined by the modified Framingham criteria. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) to compare the risk of CHF in participants with cancer vs controls, adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, obesity, and smoking history. Results: A total of 2196 individuals were included, with 812 patients with cancer and 1384 participants without cancer. The mean (SD) age was 52.62 (14.56) years and 1704 participants (78%) were female. Median (IQR) follow-up was 8.6 (5.2-13.4) years in the case group vs 12.5 (8.7-17.5) years in the control group. Overall, patients with cancer had higher risk of CHF compared with the control cohort even after adjusting for age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and smoking status (HR, 2.86 [95% CI, 1.90-4.32]; P < .001). After adjusting for the same variables, CHF risk was greater for patients with cancer receiving anthracycline (HR, 3.25 [95% CI, 2.11-5.00]; P < .001) and was attenuated and lost statistical significance for patients with cancer not receiving anthracyclines (HR, 1.78 [95% CI, 0.83-3.81]; P = .14). Higher cumulative incidence for patients treated with anthracyclines vs comparator cohort was observed at 1 year (1.81% vs 0.09%), 5 years (2.91% vs 0.79%), 10 years (5.36% vs 1.74%), 15 years (7.42% vs 3.18%), and 20 years (10.75% vs 4.98%) (P < .001). There were no significant differences in risk of CHF for patients receiving anthracycline at a dose of less than 180 mg/m2 compared with those at a dose of 180 to 250 mg/m2 (HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.19-1.51]) or at a dose of more than 250 mg/m2 (HR, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.52-2.91]). At diagnosis, age was an independent risk factor associated with CHF (HR per 10 years, 2.77 [95% CI, 1.99-3.86]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective population-based case-control study, anthracyclines were associated with an increased risk of CHF early during follow-up, and the increased risk persisted over time. The cumulative incidence of CHF in patients with breast cancer or lymphoma treated with anthracyclines at 15 years was more than 2-fold that of the control group.

Patient- and Provider-Level Factors Associated With Telehealth Utilization Across a Multisite, Multiregional Cancer Practice From 2019 to 2021.

PURPOSE: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many cancer practices rapidly adopted telehealth services. However, there is a paucity of data regarding ongoing telehealth visit utilization beyond this initial response. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in variables associated with telehealth visit utilization over time. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, year-over-year, retrospective analysis of telehealth visits conducted across a multisite, multiregional cancer practice in the United States. Multivariable models examined the association of patient- and provider-level variables with telehealth utilization across outpatient visits conducted over three 8-week periods from July to August in 2019 (n = 32,537), 2020 (n = 33,399), and 2021 (n = 35,820). RESULTS: The rate of telehealth utilization increased from <0.01% (2019) to 11% (2020) to 14% (2021). The most significant patient-level factors associated with increased telehealth utilization included nonrural residence and age ≤65 years. Among patients residing in rural settings, video visit utilization rates were significantly lower and phone visit utilization rates were significantly higher compared with patients from nonrural residences. Regarding provider-level factors, widening differences in telehealth utilization were observed at tertiary versus community-based practice settings. Increased telehealth utilization was not associated with duplicative care as per-patient and per-physician visit volumes in 2021 remained consistent with prepandemic levels. CONCLUSION: We observed continuous expansion in telehealth visit utilization from 2020 to 2021. Our experiences suggest that telehealth can be integrated into cancer practices without evidence of duplicative care. Future work should examine sustainable reimbursement structures and policies to ensure accessibility of telehealth as a means to facilitate equitable, patient-centered cancer care.