ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1.

BACKGROUND: The ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) version 1.0 (v1.0) was published in May 2015 and was the first version of a validated and reproducible tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit from new cancer therapies. The ESMO-MCBS was designed to be a dynamic tool with planned revisions and updates based upon recognition of expanding needs and shortcomings identified since the last review. METHODS: The revision process for the ESMO-MCBS incorporates a nine-step process: Careful review of critiques and suggestions, and identification of problems in the application of v1.0; Identification of shortcomings for revision in the upcoming version; Proposal and evaluation of solutions to address identified shortcomings; Field testing of solutions; Preparation of a near-final revised version for peer review for reasonableness by members of the ESMO Faculty and Guidelines Committee; Amendments based on peer review for reasonableness; Near-final review by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board; Final amendments; Final review and approval by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board. RESULTS: Twelve issues for revision or amendment were proposed for consideration; proposed amendments were formulated for eight identified shortcomings. The proposed amendments are classified as either structural, technical, immunotherapy triggered or nuanced. All amendments were field tested in a wide range of studies comparing scores generated with ESMO-MCBS v1.0 and version 1.1 (v1.1). CONCLUSIONS: ESMO-MCBS v1.1 incorporates 10 revisions and will allow for scoring of single-arm studies. Scoring remains very stable; revisions in v1.1 alter the scores of only 12 out of 118 comparative studies and facilitate scoring for single-arm studies.

Characterisation of multifocal breast cancer using the 70-gene signature in clinical low-risk patients enrolled in the EORTC 10041/BIG 03-04 MINDACT trial.

BACKGROUND: In multifocal breast cancer, guidelines recommend basing adjuvant systemic treatment decisions on characteristics of the largest lesion, disregarding multifocality as an independent prognosticator. We assessed the association between multifocal disease and both the 70-gene signature (70-GS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in clinical low-risk breast cancer patients enrolled in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10041/BIG 03-04 Microarray In Node-negative and 1 to 3 positive lymph node Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy (MINDACT) trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The analysed population consisted of enrolled patients in the MINDACT trial with clinical low-risk disease, defined by a modified Adjuvant! Online cut-off for the 10-year risk of recurrent disease or death. Eligibility criteria of MINDACT dictate that patients with multifocal disease could be included if the different lesions had similar pathological characteristics. The presence of multifocal disease was deducted from the case report form (CRF)-question for sum of diameter for all invasive tumour foci. Clinicopathological characteristics and gene expression of patients with unifocal and multifocal (largest lesion) disease were compared. Subsequently, the association between multifocal disease and the 70-GS was evaluated as well as the association between multifocality and 5-year DMFS. RESULTS: The study included 3090 clinical low-risk patients with unifocal and 238 patients with multifocal disease. Apart from a higher prevalence of lobular tumours (21.8% versus 10.8%, by local pathology), we did not observe differences in baseline characteristics between multifocal and unifocal tumours. Patients with multifocal tumours were more likely to be at high genomic risk as compared to patients with unifocal tumours (22.7% versus 17.3%, odds ratio [OR] 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-2.07, P = 0.038). We did not find a significant association between tumour focality and DMFS (97.1% for unifocal versus 96.9% for multifocal, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.55, 95% CI 0.68-3.46, P = 0.172), nor a signal for a potential interaction between the prognostic effect of the 70-GS and focality of the tumour regarding DMFS. CONCLUSION: In the group of clinical low-risk MINDACT patients, multifocal tumours were more likely to have a high-risk 70-GS profile compared to unifocal tumours. We did not observe a significant interaction between multifocality and the 70-GS with respect to survival without distant metastasis in these patients.

ESMO - Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale V.1.0 questions and answers.

The ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a standardised, generic, validated tool to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anticancer therapies. The ESMO-MCBS is intended to both assist oncologists in explaining the likely benefits of a particular treatment to their patients as well as to aid public health decision makers' prioritise therapies for reimbursement. From its inception the ESMO-MCBS Working Group has invited questions and critiques to promote understanding and to address misunderstandings regarding the nuanced use of the scale, and to identify shortcomings in the scale to be addressed in future planned revisions and updates. The ESMO-MCBS V.1.0 has attracted many questions regarding its development, structure and potential applications. These questions, together with responses from the ESMO-MCBS Working Group, have been edited and collated, and are herein presented as a supplementary resource.

The current use and attitudes towards tumor genome sequencing in breast cancer.

There is increasing availability of technologies that can interrogate the genomic landscape of an individual tumor; however, their impact on daily practice remains uncertain. We conducted a 28-item survey to investigate the current attitudes towards the integration of tumor genome sequencing in breast cancer management. A link to the survey was communicated via newsletters of several oncological societies, and dedicated mailing by academic research groups. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was carried out to determine the relationship between predictors and outcomes. 215 physicians participated to the survey. The majority were medical oncologists (88%), practicing in Europe (70%) and working in academic institutions (66%). Tumor genome sequencing was requested by 82 participants (38%), of whom 21% reported low confidence in their genomic knowledge, and 56% considered tumor genome sequencing to be poorly accessible. In multivariable analysis, having time allocated to research (OR 3.37, 95% CI 1.84-6.15, p < 0.0001), working in Asia (OR 5.76, 95% CI 1.57 - 21.15, p = 0.01) and having institutional guidelines for molecular sequencing (OR 2.09, 95% 0.99-4.42, p = 0.05) were associated with a higher probability of use. In conclusion, our survey indicates that tumor genome sequencing is sometimes used, albeit not widely, in guiding management of breast cancer patients.

A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).

The value of any new therapeutic strategy or treatment is determined by the magnitude of its clinical benefit balanced against its cost. Evidence for clinical benefit from new treatment options is derived from clinical research, in particular phase III randomised trials, which generate unbiased data regarding the efficacy, benefit and safety of new therapeutic approaches. To date, there is no standard tool for grading the magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer therapies, which may range from trivial (median progression-free survival advantage of only a few weeks) to substantial (improved long-term survival). Indeed, in the absence of a standardised approach for grading the magnitude of clinical benefit, conclusions and recommendations derived from studies are often hotly disputed and very modest incremental advances have often been presented, discussed and promoted as major advances or 'breakthroughs'. Recognising the importance of presenting clear and unbiased statements regarding the magnitude of the clinical benefit from new therapeutic approaches derived from high-quality clinical trials, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed a validated and reproducible tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit for cancer medicines, the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). This tool uses a rational, structured and consistent approach to derive a relative ranking of the magnitude of clinically meaningful benefit that can be expected from a new anti-cancer treatment. The ESMO-MCBS is an important first step to the critical public policy issue of value in cancer care, helping to frame the appropriate use of limited public and personal resources to deliver cost-effective and affordable cancer care. The ESMO-MCBS will be a dynamic tool and its criteria will be revised on a regular basis.

Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes are prognostic in triple negative breast cancer and predictive for trastuzumab benefit in early breast cancer: results from the FinHER trial.

BACKGROUND: We have previously shown the prognostic importance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in newly diagnosed triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) using tumor samples from a large clinical trial cohort. In this study, we aimed to validate these findings and also investigate associations with trastuzumab benefit in HER2-overexpressing disease (HER2+). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective-retrospective study was conducted using samples from the FinHER adjuvant, phase III trial that enrolled 1010 early-stage BC patients, 778 of whom were HER2-nonamplified. Those with HER2+ disease (n = 232) were randomized to 9 weeks of trastuzumab or no trastuzumab in addition to chemotherapy. Two pathologists independently quantified stromal TILs in 935 (92.6%) available slides. The primary end point of distant disease-free survival (DDFS) and interactions with trastuzumab were studied in Cox regression models. RESULTS: Confirming our previous findings, in TNBC (n = 134) each 10% increase in TILs was significantly associated with decreased distant recurrence in TNBC; for DDFS the hazard ratio adjusted for clinicopathological factors: 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.98, P = 0.02. In HER2+ BC (n = 209), each 10% increase in lymphocytic infiltration was significantly associated with decreased distant recurrence in patients randomized to the trastuzumab arm (DDFS P interaction = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of TILs present at diagnosis were significantly associated with decreased distant recurrence rates in primary TNBC. These results confirm our previous data and further support that TILs should be considered as a robust prognostic factor in this BC subtype. We also report for the first time an association between higher levels of TILs and increased trastuzumab benefit in HER2+ disease. Further research into why some TN and HER2+ BCs can or cannot generate a host antitumor immune response and how trastuzumab can favorably alter the immune microenvironment is warranted.