A phase II trial of ixabepilone and cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant therapy for patients with HER2-negative breast cancer: correlation of pathologic complete response with the 21-gene recurrence score.

Ixabepilone and the taxanes have similar activity in the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer, and ixabepilone is sometimes effective in taxane-refractory patients. We conducted a phase 2 trial to evaluate ixabepilone in combination with cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant treatment for patients with locally advanced HER2-negative breast cancer. Response to neoadjuvant treatment was correlated with the baseline 21-gene Recurrence Score® (Oncotype DX; Genomic Health Inc, Redwood City, CA). Eligible women with HER2-negative locally advanced breast cancer received ixabepilone 40 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Following 6 cycles, patients underwent definitive surgery. Primary endpoint was rate of pathologic complete response (pCR). Breast biopsy tumor samples were obtained at pretreatment and at surgery in patients with residual disease. Tumor specimens were analyzed using the 21-gene assay. One hundred sixty-eight patients (median age 52 years; 45 % triple-negative) were enrolled; 161 (96 %) underwent definitive surgery following neoadjuvant ixabepilone/cyclophosphamide. Overall, 27 patients (17 %) achieved pCR, including 19 of 73 (26 %) triple-negative patients. The most frequently occurring grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (98 patients; 58 %). Recurrence Scores were highly correlated with achievement of pCR (0/36 with low or intermediate Recurrence Scores vs. 19/72 with high Recurrence Scores; p = 0.002). There was high concordance between baseline and post-treatment Recurrence Scores in the 72 patients with paired samples. The combination of ixabepilone and cyclophosphamide yielded a pCR rate of 17 %, similar to other neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens. Pathologic complete responses occurred only in patients with high-risk baseline Recurrence Scores.

Exploring Bias in Scientific Peer Review: An ASCO Initiative.

PURPOSE: To investigate implicit bias (IB) in the peer review process across ASCO and Conquer Cancer Foundation and to propose potential mitigation strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We, ASCO Working Group on Implicit Bias, selected four data sources: (1) literature search [(a) defining IB in peer review, (b) evidence of IB in peer review, and (c) strategies to mitigate IB]; (2) created and analyzed an ASCO database for sex, race, and institutional affiliation regarding peer review success; (3) constructed and conducted qualitative interviews of key stakeholders within the ASCO board, publications, and grants committee, on experience with IB within ASCO; and (4) constructed, delivered, and analyzed results of member survey on perception of IB within ASCO. RESULTS: Historically uncommon, PubMed articles on IB in peer review subsequently increased exponentially in the past 2 decades. Qualitative interviews of ASCO key stakeholders reveal that system changes and IB training were priorities. The committee member survey reported that their peer review decisions could be affected by IB and that mitigating IB should be a priority. Most reported having never been trained on IB. Available data from ASCO database support stakeholder findings, suggesting that there exists a disproportionate representation of males and better-known institutions among both reviewer positions and awardees. Ethnicity/race data were insufficiently reported. Limited data on interventions/strategies to mitigate IB in the peer-reviewed literature suggest that there are feasible processes for grants, program committees, and journals. CONCLUSION: Limited data reveal that the peer review process at ASCO is not exempt from IB and suggest association with sex and institutional affiliation. Working Group on Implicit Bias recommends three actions to mitigate IB within peer review: (1) create awareness and a culture of inclusivity, (2) create systems to reduce IB, and (3) collect data for ongoing analysis.

Breast cancer associated pathogenic variants among women 61 years and older with triple negative breast cancer.

Women with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) have a high prevalence of BRCA1 mutations, and current clinical guidelines recommend genetic testing for patients with TNBC aged ≤60 years. However, studies supporting this recommendation have included few older women with TNBC. METHODS: Genetic testing results from women aged >60 years with TNBC enrolled in the Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network (CCGCRN) registry were included in this analysis. Prevalence of breast cancer-associated pathogenic variants (PVs) was compared across age groups. RESULTS: We identified 151 women with TNBC aged >60 years (median 65 years; SD 5.3). Of these, 130 (86%) underwent genetic testing, and a breast cancer-associated PV was identified in 16 (12.3%; 95% CI 7-19): BRCA1 (n = 6), BRCA2 (n = 5), PALB2 (n = 2), ATM (n = 1) and RAD51C (n = 2). We found no differences in the proportion of patients with close blood relatives with breast (≤50 years) or ovarian cancer (any age) between PV carriers (37.5%) and non-carriers (34.2%) (p = 0.79). Among PV's carriers, the proportion of older women with a BRCA1 PV was lower when compared to younger women (37.5% vs 77.2%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Breast cancer-associated PVs were found in an important proportion of women aged >60 years with TNBC undergoing genetic testing, including greater representation of BRCA2. These results suggest that older women with TNBC should be offered genetic testing, and that their exclusion based on chronologic age alone may not be appropriate.

The Burden of Breast Cancer Predisposition Variants Across The Age Spectrum Among 10 000 Patients.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Women diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) at an older age are less likely to undergo genetic cancer risk assessment and genetic testing since the guidelines and referrals are biased toward earlier age at diagnosis. Thus, we determined the prevalence and type of pathogenic cancer predisposition variants among women with a history of BC diagnosed at the age of 65 years or older vs younger than 65 years. DESIGN: Prospective registration cohort. SETTING: The Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network, including 40 community-based clinics in the United States and 5 in Latin America. PARTICIPANTS: Women with BC and genetic testing results. MEASUREMENTS: Sociodemographic characteristics, clinical variables, and genetic profiles were compared between women aged 65 years and older and those younger than 65 years at BC diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 588 women diagnosed with BC and aged 65 years and older and 9412 diagnosed at younger than 65 years, BC-associated pathogenic variants (PVs) were detected in 5.6% of those aged 65 years and older (n = 33) and 14.2% of those younger than 65 years (n = 1340) (P < .01). PVs in high-risk genes (eg, BRCA1 and BRCA2) represented 81.1% of carriers among women aged 65 years and older (n = 27) and 93.1% of those younger than 65 years (n = 1248) (P = .01). BRCA2 PVs represented 42.4% of high-risk gene findings for those aged 65 years and older, whereas BRCA1 PVs were most common among carriers younger than 65 years (49.7%). PVs (n = 7) in moderate-risk genes represented 21.2% for carriers aged 65 years and older and 7.3% of those younger than 65 years (n = 98; P < .01). CHEK2 PVs were the most common moderate-risk gene finding in both groups. CONCLUSION: Clinically actionable BC susceptibility PVs, particularly in BRCA2 and CHEK2, were relatively prevalent among older women undergoing genetic testing. The significant burden of PVs for older women with BC provides a critical reminder to recognize the full spectrum of eligibility and provide genetic testing for older women, rather than exclusion based on chronological age alone. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:884-888, 2019.

Double-Blind Phase III Trial of Adjuvant Chemotherapy With and Without Bevacizumab in Patients With Lymph Node-Positive and High-Risk Lymph Node-Negative Breast Cancer (E5103).

Purpose Bevacizumab improves progression-free survival but not overall survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer. E5103 tested the effect of bevacizumab in the adjuvant setting in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative disease. Patients and Methods Patients were assigned 1:2:2 to receive placebo with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) followed by weekly paclitaxel (arm A), bevacizumab only during AC and paclitaxel (arm B), or bevacizumab during AC and paclitaxel followed by bevacizumab monotherapy for 10 cycles (arm C). Random assignment was stratified and bevacizumab dose adjusted for choice of AC schedule. Radiation and hormonal therapy were administered concurrently with bevacizumab in arm C. The primary end point was invasive disease-free survival (IDFS). Results Four thousand nine hundred ninety-four patients were enrolled. Median age was 52 years; 64% of patients were estrogen receptor positive, 27% were lymph node negative, and 78% received dose-dense AC. Chemotherapy-associated adverse events including myelosuppression and neuropathy were similar across all arms. Grade ≥ 3 hypertension was more common in bevacizumab-treated patients, but thrombosis, proteinuria, and hemorrhage were not. The cumulative incidence of clinical congestive heart failure at 15 months was 1.0%, 1.9%, and 3.0% in arms A, B, and C, respectively. Bevacizumab exposure was less than anticipated, with approximately 24% of patients in arm B and approximately 55% of patients in arm C discontinuing bevacizumab before completing planned therapy. Five-year IDFS was 77% (95% CI, 71% to 81%) in arm A, 76% (95% CI, 72% to 80%) in arm B, and 80% (95% CI, 77% to 83%) in arm C. Conclusion Incorporation of bevacizumab into sequential anthracycline- and taxane-containing adjuvant therapy does not improve IDFS or overall survival in patients with high-risk human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer. Longer duration bevacizumab therapy is unlikely to be feasible given the high rate of early discontinuation.

Improving adherence with oral antiemetic agents in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: In this small breast cancer-dedicated solo practice, a retrospective medical record review disclosed the following: significant rate of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting and discordance between patient-reported compliance with prescribed antiemetics and medical record documentation of compliance. As part of the curriculum for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Quality Training Program, a quality improvement project was developed to improve adherence to oral antiemetics in our patients with breast cancer receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The following steps were undertaken in plan-do-study-act cycles to improve adherence: enhanced patient education at time of chemotherapy consent, implementation of standardized in-person or e-mail contact with our patients receiving chemotherapy, and improvement of our electronic health record documentation of adherence to oral antiemetics. A run chart was generated to analyze our data. RESULTS: After our interventions, the percentage of patients who took their antiemetics as prescribed rose from a baseline of 49% to 79%. CONCLUSION: Significant improvement in adherence to oral antiemetics among patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy was achieved and sustained in this small-practice setting using the framework provided by participation in the ASCO Quality Training Program.

National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Symptom management in cancer: pain, depression, and fatigue, July 15-17, 2002.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in early detection and effective treatment, cancer remains one of the most feared diseases. Among the most common side effects of cancer and treatments for cancer are pain, depression, and fatigue. Although research is producing increasingly hopeful insights into the causes and cures for cancer, efforts to manage the side effects of the disease and its treatments have not kept pace. The challenge that faces us is how to increase awareness of the importance of recognizing and actively addressing cancer-related distress. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) convened a State-of-the-Science Conference on Symptom Management in Cancer: Pain, Depression, and Fatigue to examine the current state of knowledge regarding the management of pain, depression, and fatigue in individuals with cancer and to identify directions for future research. Specifically, the conference examined how to identify individuals who are at risk for cancer-related pain, depression, and/or fatigue; what treatments work best to address these symptoms when they occur; and what is the best way to deliver interventions across the continuum of care. STATE-OF-THE-SCIENCE PROCESS: A non-advocate, non-Federal, 14-member panel of experts representing the fields of oncology, radiology, psychology, nursing, public health, social work, and epidemiology prepared the statement. In addition, 24 experts in medical oncology, geriatrics, pharmacology, psychology, and neurology presented data to the panel and to the conference audience during the first 1.5 days of the conference. The panel then prepared its statement, addressing the five predetermined questions and drawing on submitted literature, the speakers' presentations, and discussions held at the conference. The statement was presented to the conference audience, followed by a press conference to allow the panel to respond to questions from the media. After its release at the conference, the draft statement was made available on the Internet. The panel's final statement is available at http://consensus.nih.gov. CONCLUSIONS: The panel concluded that the available evidence supports a variety of interventions for treating cancer patients' pain, depression, and fatigue. Clinicians should routinely use brief assessment tools to ask patients about pain, depression, and fatigue and to initiate evidence-based treatments. Assessment should include discussion about common symptoms experienced by cancer patients, and these discussions should continue over the duration of the illness. Impediments to effective symptom management in cancer patients can arise from different sources and interactions among providers, patients and their families, and the health care system. Numerous factors could interfere with adequate symptom management. Among these factors are incomplete effectiveness of some treatments, a lack of sufficient knowledge regarding effective treatment strategies, patient reluctance to report symptoms to caregivers, a belief that such symptoms are simply a part of the cancer experience that must be tolerated, and inadequate coverage and reimbursement for some treatments. Additional research is needed on the definition, occurrence, the treatment of pain, depression, and fatigue, alone and in combination, in adequately funded prospective studies. The panel also concluded that the state of the science in cancer symptom management should be reassessed periodically.

High-priority topics for cancer quality measure development: results of the 2012 American Society of Clinical Oncology Collaborative Cancer Measure Summit.

PURPOSE: Most cancer quality measures focus on individual cancers, assess specific providers, and evaluate processes of care. Although important, these efforts are not sufficient. A more comprehensive measure set is needed to address gaps in care, focus on patients rather than providers, and assess the cross-cutting aspects of care that are relevant to all patients with cancer throughout the trajectory of their illness. METHODS: With the long-term goal of developing a more comprehensive oncology measure set, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) organized a collaborative measure summit that used an iterative consensus approach to identify priorities for the development of new cancer quality measures. The summit, which included professional societies and patient/consumer advocacy organizations, was held during the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in December 2012. RESULTS: This effort, which brought together 12 diverse stakeholders, identified 10 high-priority topics for cancer quality measure development that cross-cut cancer diagnoses and care settings and addressed patient-centered concerns. Topics of particular interest included planning and counseling before therapy, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary coordinated care, comprehensive symptom assessment, patient experience of care, and use of palliative care and hospice services. CONCLUSION: This is an important first step in the development of patient-centered, cross-cutting cancer quality measures. Addressing the high-priority topics identified by this effort will help fill the gaps left by existing cancer quality measures, including care coordination and transitions, quality of life, safety, experience of care, and outcomes. More work will be needed to specify, implement, and validate measures based on these topics.

National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Symptom Management in Cancer: Pain, Depression, and Fatigue, July 15-17, 2002.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in early detection and effective treatment, cancer remains one of the most feared diseases. Among the most common side effects of cancer and treatments for cancer are pain, depression, and fatigue. Although research is producing increasingly hopeful insights into the causes and cures for cancer, efforts to manage the side effects of the disease and its treatments have not kept pace. The challenge that faces us is how to increase awareness of the importance of recognizing and actively addressing cancer-related distress. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) convened a State-of-the-Science Conference on Symptom Management in Cancer: Pain, Depression, and Fatigue to examine the current state of knowledge regarding the management of pain, depression, and fatigue in individuals with cancer and to identify directions for future research. Specifically, the conference examined how to identify individuals who are at risk for cancer-related pain, depression, and/or fatigue; what treatments work best to address these symptoms when they occur; and what is the best way to deliver interventions across the continuum of care. State-of-the-Science Process: A non-advocate, non-Federal, 14-member panel of experts representing the fields of oncology, radiology, psychology, nursing, public health, social work, and epidemiology prepared the statement. In addition, 24 experts in medical oncology, geriatrics, pharmacology, psychology, and neurology presented data to the panel and to the conference audience during the first 1.5 days of the conference. The panel then prepared its statement, addressing the five predetermined questions and drawing on submitted literature, the speakers' presentations, and discussions held at the conference. The statement was presented to the conference audience, followed by a press conference to allow the panel to respond to questions from the media. After its release at the conference, the draft statement was made available on the Internet. The panel's final statement is available at http://consensus.nih.gov. CONCLUSIONS: The panel concluded that the available evidence supports a variety of interventions for treating cancer patients' pain, depression, and fatigue. Clinicians should routinely use brief assessment tools to ask patients about pain, depression, and fatigue and to initiate evidence-based treatments. Assessment should include discussion about common symptoms experienced by cancer patients, and these discussions should continue over the duration of the illness. Impediments to effective symptom management in cancer patients can arise from different sources and interactions among providers, patients and their families, and the health care system. Numerous factors could interfere with adequate symptom management. Among these factors are incomplete effectiveness of some treatments, a lack of sufficient knowledge regarding effective treatment strategies, patient reluctance to report symptoms to caregivers, a belief that such symptoms are simply a part of the cancer experience that must be tolerated, and inadequate coverage and reimbursement for some treatments. Additional research is needed on the definition, occurrence, the treatment of pain, depression, and fatigue, alone and in combination, in adequately funded prospective studies. The panel also concluded that the state of the science in cancer symptom management should be reassessed periodically.