Adjunctive Statistical Standardization of Adjuvant Estrogen Receptor and Progesterone Receptor in Canadian Cancer Trials Group MA.27 Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Trial of Exemestane Versus Anastrozole.

PURPOSE: ASCO/College of American Pathologists guidelines recommend reporting estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) as positive with (1%-100%) staining. Statistically standardized quantitated positivity could indicate differential associations of positivity with breast cancer outcomes. METHODS: MA.27 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00066573) was a phase III adjuvant trial of exemestane versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Immunochemistry ER and PgR HSCORE and % positivity (%+) were centrally assessed by machine image quantitation and statistically standardized to mean 0 and standard deviation (SD) 1 after Box-Cox variance stabilization transformations of square for ER; for PgR, (1) natural logarithm (0.1 added to 0 HSCOREs and 0%+) and (2) square root. Our primary end point was MA.27 distant disease-free survival (DDFS) at a median 4.1-year follow-up, and secondary end point was event-free survival (EFS). Univariate survival with cut points at SDs about a mean of 0 (≤-1; (-1, 0]; (0, 1]; >1) was described with Kaplan-Meier plots and examined with Wilcoxon (Peto-Prentice) test statistic. Adjusted Cox multivariable regressions had two-sided Wald tests and nominal significance P < .05. RESULTS: Of 7,576 women accrued, 3,048 women's tumors had machine-quantitated image analysis results: 2,900 (95%) for ER, 2,726 (89%) for PgR, and 2,582 (85% of 3,048) with both ER and PgR. Higher statistically standardized ER and PgR HSCORE and %+ were associated with better univariate DDFS and EFS (P < .001). In multivariable assessments, ER HSCORE and %+ were not significantly associated (P = .52-.88) with DDFS in models with PgR, whereas higher PgR HSCORE and %+ were significantly associated with better DDFS (P = .001) in models with ER. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive statistical standardization differentiated quantitated levels of ER and PgR. Patients with higher ER- and PgR-standardized units had superior DDFS compared with those with HSCOREs and %+ ≤-1.

Canadian cancer trials group LY.17: A randomized phase II study evaluating novel salvage therapy pre-autologous stem cell transplant in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma-outcome of rituximab-dose-intensive cyclophosphamide, etoposide, cisplatin (R-DICEP) versus R-GDP.

The Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) LY.17 is an ongoing multi-arm randomized phase II trial evaluating novel salvage therapies compared with R-GDP (rituximab, gemcitabine, dexamethasone and cisplatin) in autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT)-eligible patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (RR-DLBCL). This component of the LY.17 trial evaluated a dose-intensive chemotherapy approach using a single cycle of inpatient R-DICEP (rituximab, dose-intensive cyclophosphamide, etoposide and cisplatin) to achieve both lymphoma response and stem cell mobilization, shortening time to ASCT. This report is the result of the protocol-specified second interim analysis of the 67 patients who were randomized to either 1 cycle of R-DICEP or to 3 cycles of R-GDP. The overall response rate (ORR) was 65.6% for R-DICEP and 48.6% for R-GDP. The ASCT rate was 71.9% versus 54.3%, and 1-year progression-free survival rate was 42% versus 32%, respectively, for R-DICEP versus R-GDP. Although the improvement in ORR for R-DICEP versus R-GDP exceeded the pre-specified 10% threshold to proceed to full accrual of 64 patients/arm, higher rates of grade 3-5 toxicities, and the need for hospitalization led to the decision to stop this arm of the study. CCTG LY.17 will continue to evaluate different salvage regimens that incorporate novel agents.

Simple versus Radical Hysterectomy in Women with Low-Risk Cervical Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective data suggest that the incidence of parametrial infiltration is low in patients with early-stage low-risk cervical cancer, which raises questions regarding the need for radical hysterectomy in these patients. However, data from large, randomized trials comparing outcomes of radical and simple hysterectomy are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing radical hysterectomy with simple hysterectomy including lymph-node assessment in patients with low-risk cervical cancer (lesions of ≤2 cm with limited stromal invasion). The primary outcome was cancer recurrence in the pelvic area (pelvic recurrence) at 3 years. The prespecified noninferiority margin for the between-group difference in pelvic recurrence at 3 years was 4 percentage points. RESULTS: Among 700 patients who underwent randomization (350 in each group), the majority had tumors that were stage IB1 according to the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) criteria (91.7%), that had squamous-cell histologic features (61.7%), and that were grade 1 or 2 (59.3%). With a median follow-up time of 4.5 years, the incidence of pelvic recurrence at 3 years was 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group and 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group (an absolute difference of 0.35 percentage points; 90% confidence interval, -1.62 to 2.32). Results were similar in a per-protocol analysis. The incidence of urinary incontinence was lower in the simple hysterectomy group than in the radical hysterectomy group within 4 weeks after surgery (2.4% vs. 5.5%; P = 0.048) and beyond 4 weeks (4.7% vs. 11.0%; P = 0.003). The incidence of urinary retention in the simple hysterectomy group was also lower than that in the radical hysterectomy group within 4 weeks after surgery (0.6% vs. 11.0%; P<0.001) and beyond 4 weeks (0.6% vs. 9.9%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy was not inferior to radical hysterectomy with respect to the 3-year incidence of pelvic recurrence and was associated with a lower risk of urinary incontinence or retention. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01658930.).