70-gene signature as an aid for treatment decisions in early breast cancer: updated results of the phase 3 randomised MINDACT trial with an exploratory analysis by age.

BACKGROUND: The MINDACT trial showed excellent 5-year distant metastasis-free survival of 94·7% (95% CI 92·5-96·2) in patients with breast cancer of high clinical and low genomic risk who did not receive chemotherapy. We present long-term follow-up results together with an exploratory analysis by age. METHODS: MINDACT was a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 112 academic and community hospitals in nine European countries. Patients aged 18-70 years, with histologically confirmed primary invasive breast cancer (stage T1, T2, or operable T3) with up to three positive lymph nodes, no distant metastases, and a WHO performance status of 0-1 were enrolled and their genomic risk (using the MammaPrint 70-gene signature) and clinical risk (using a modified version of Adjuvant! Online) were determined. Patients with low clinical and low genomic risk results did not receive chemotherapy, and patients with high clinical and high genomic risk did receive chemotherapy (mostly anthracycline-based or taxane-based, or a combination thereof). Patients with discordant risk results (ie, patients with high clinical risk but low genomic risk, and those with low clinical risk but high genomic risk) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chemotherapy or not based on either the clinical risk or the genomic risk. Randomisation was done centrally and used a minimisation technique that was stratified by institution, risk group, and clinical-pathological characteristics. Treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was to test whether the distant metastasis-free survival rate at 5 years in patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk not receiving chemotherapy had a lower boundary of the 95% CI above the predefined non-inferiority boundary of 92%. In the primary test population of patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk who adhered to the treatment allocation of no chemotherapy and had no change in risk post-enrolment. Here, we present updated follow-up as well as an exploratory analysis of a potential age effect (≤50 years vs >50 years) and an analysis by nodal status for patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative disease. These analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00433589, and the European Clinical Trials database, EudraCT2005-002625-31. Recruitment is complete and further long-term follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2007, and July 11, 2011, 6693 patients were enrolled. On Feb 26, 2020, median follow-up was 8·7 years (IQR 7·8-9·7). The updated 5-year distant metastasis-free survival rate for patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk receiving no chemotherapy (primary test population, n=644) was 95·1% (95% CI 93·1-96·6), which is above the predefined non-inferiority boundary of 92%, supporting the previous analysis and proving MINDACT as a positive de-escalation trial. Patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy (n=749) or not (n=748); this was the intention-to-treat population. The 8-year estimates for distant metastasis-free survival in the intention-to-treat population were 92·0% (95% CI 89·6-93·8) for chemotherapy versus 89·4% (86·8-91·5) for no chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0·66; 95% CI 0·48-0·92). An exploratory analysis confined to the subset of patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative disease (1358 [90.7%] of 1497 randomly assigned patients, of whom 676 received chemotherapy and 682 did not) shows different effects of chemotherapy administration on 8-year distant metastasis-free survival according to age: 93·6% (95% CI 89·3-96·3) with chemotherapy versus 88·6% (83·5-92·3) without chemotherapy in 464 women aged 50 years or younger (absolute difference 5·0 percentage points [SE 2·8, 95% CI -0·5 to 10·4]) and 90·2% (86·8-92·7) versus 90·0% (86·6-92·6) in 894 women older than 50 years (absolute difference 0·2 percentage points [2·1, -4·0 to 4·4]). The 8-year distant metastasis-free survival in the exploratory analysis by nodal status in these patients was 91·7% (95% CI 88·1-94·3) with chemotherapy and 89·2% (85·2-92·2) without chemotherapy in 699 node-negative patients (absolute difference 2·5 percentage points [SE 2·3, 95% CI -2·1 to 7·2]) and 91·2% (87·2-94·0) versus 89·9% (85·8-92·8) for 658 patients with one to three positive nodes (absolute difference 1·3 percentage points [2·4, -3·5 to 6·1]). INTERPRETATION: With a more mature follow-up approaching 9 years, the 70-gene signature shows an intact ability of identifying among women with high clinical risk, a subgroup, namely patients with a low genomic risk, with an excellent distant metastasis-free survival when treated with endocrine therapy alone. For these women the magnitude of the benefit from adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy remains small (2·6 percentage points) and is not enhanced by nodal positivity. However, in an underpowered exploratory analysis this benefit appears to be age-dependent, as it is only seen in women younger than 50 years where it reaches a clinically relevant threshold of 5 percentage points. Although, possibly due to chemotherapy-induced ovarian function suppression, it should be part of informed, shared decision making. Further study is needed in younger women, who might need reinforced endocrine therapy to forego chemotherapy. FUNDING: European Commission Sixth Framework Programme.

70-Gene Signature as an Aid to Treatment Decisions in Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The 70-gene signature test (MammaPrint) has been shown to improve prediction of clinical outcome in women with early-stage breast cancer. We sought to provide prospective evidence of the clinical utility of the addition of the 70-gene signature to standard clinical-pathological criteria in selecting patients for adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: In this randomized, phase 3 study, we enrolled 6693 women with early-stage breast cancer and determined their genomic risk (using the 70-gene signature) and their clinical risk (using a modified version of Adjuvant! Online). Women at low clinical and genomic risk did not receive chemotherapy, whereas those at high clinical and genomic risk did receive such therapy. In patients with discordant risk results, either the genomic risk or the clinical risk was used to determine the use of chemotherapy. The primary goal was to assess whether, among patients with high-risk clinical features and a low-risk gene-expression profile who did not receive chemotherapy, the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the rate of 5-year survival without distant metastasis would be 92% (i.e., the noninferiority boundary) or higher. RESULTS: A total of 1550 patients (23.2%) were deemed to be at high clinical risk and low genomic risk. At 5 years, the rate of survival without distant metastasis in this group was 94.7% (95% confidence interval, 92.5 to 96.2) among those not receiving chemotherapy. The absolute difference in this survival rate between these patients and those who received chemotherapy was 1.5 percentage points, with the rate being lower without chemotherapy. Similar rates of survival without distant metastasis were reported in the subgroup of patients who had estrogen-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, and either node-negative or node-positive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with early-stage breast cancer who were at high clinical risk and low genomic risk for recurrence, the receipt of no chemotherapy on the basis of the 70-gene signature led to a 5-year rate of survival without distant metastasis that was 1.5 percentage points lower than the rate with chemotherapy. Given these findings, approximately 46% of women with breast cancer who are at high clinical risk might not require chemotherapy. (Funded by the European Commission Sixth Framework Program and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00433589; EudraCT number, 2005-002625-31.).

iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics.

Tumours respond differently to immunotherapies compared with chemotherapeutic drugs, raising questions about the assessment of changes in tumour burden-a mainstay of evaluation of cancer therapeutics that provides key information about objective response and disease progression. A consensus guideline-iRECIST-was developed by the RECIST working group for the use of modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST version 1.1) in cancer immunotherapy trials, to ensure consistent design and data collection, facilitate the ongoing collection of trial data, and ultimate validation of the guideline. This guideline describes a standard approach to solid tumour measurements and definitions for objective change in tumour size for use in trials in which an immunotherapy is used. Additionally, it defines the minimum datapoints required from future trials and those currently in development to facilitate the compilation of a data warehouse to use to later validate iRECIST. An unprecedented number of trials have been done, initiated, or are planned to test new immune modulators for cancer therapy using a variety of modified response criteria. This guideline will allow consistent conduct, interpretation, and analysis of trials of immunotherapies.

Survival differences between patients with Hodgkin lymphoma treated inside and outside clinical trials. A study based on the EORTC-Netherlands Cancer Registry linked data with 20 years of follow-up.

The survival of patients diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) has improved from 70% to 90% in clinical trials. However, population-based data has shown lower survival. In this study, clinical trial data were linked with cancer registry to identify trial and non-trial participants and differences in overall survival and associated factors were assessed. In 1986-2004, 27% of HL patients aged 15-70 years participated in clinical trials. Compared to non-trial participants, trial participants were younger (median age, 31 vs. 34 years), had staging registered more accurately and had an 8% higher 20-year survival rate (73% vs. 65%). After adjusting for baseline differences, no differences in survival (hazard ratio = 0·96, 95% confidence interval 0·82-1·12), or in subgroup analysis according to stage, remained. Over time, increased administration of chemotherapy in combination with radiotherapy, together with the decreased use of radiotherapy alone was observed among the trial population. This trend was later followed in non-trial participants, coinciding with a similar 'take-up' in survival. The observed superior survival among patients with HL treated in clinical trials can be largely explained by the differences in baseline characteristics, particularly younger age. High trial participation rate and centralized expertise facilitates the implementation of trial findings to real-world practice.

Discordant assessment of tumor biomarkers by histopathological and molecular assays in the EORTC randomized controlled 10041/BIG 03-04 MINDACT trial breast cancer : Intratumoral heterogeneity and DCIS or normal tissue components are unlikely to be the cause of discordance.

Accurate identification of breast cancer patients most likely to benefit from adjuvant systemic therapies is crucial. Better understanding of differences between methods can lead to an improved ER, PgR, and HER-2 assessment. The purpose of this preplanned translational research is to investigate the correlation of central IHC/FISH assessments with microarray mRNA readouts of ER, PgR, and HER-2 status in the MINDACT trial and to determine if any discordance could be attributed to intratumoral heterogeneity or the DCIS and normal tissue components in the specimens. MINDACT is an international, prospective, randomized, phase III trial investigating the clinical utility of MammaPrint in selecting patients with early breast cancer for adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 6694 patients). Gene-expression data were obtained by TargetPrint; IHC and/or FISH were assessed centrally (n = 5788; 86 %). Macroscopic and microscopic evaluation of centrally submitted FFPE blocks identified 1427 cases for which the very same sample was submitted for gene-expression analysis. TargetPrint ER had a positive agreement of 98 %, and a negative agreement of 95 % with central pathology. Corresponding figures for PgR were 85 and 94 % and for HER-2 72 and 99 %. Agreement of mRNA versus central protein was not different when the same or a different portion of the tumor tissue was analyzed or when DCIS and/or normal tissue was included in the sample subjected to mRNA assays. This is the first large analysis to assess the discordance rate between protein and mRNA analysis of breast cancer markers, and to look into intratumoral heterogeneity, DCIS, or normal tissue components as a potential cause of discordance. The observed difference between mRNA and protein assessment for PgR and HER-2 needs further research; the present analysis does not support intratumoral heterogeneity or the DCIS and normal tissue components being likely causes of the discordance.

Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pathological complete response has been proposed as a surrogate endpoint for prediction of long-term clinical benefit, such as disease-free survival, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS). We had four key objectives: to establish the association between pathological complete response and EFS and OS, to establish the definition of pathological complete response that correlates best with long-term outcome, to identify the breast cancer subtypes in which pathological complete response is best correlated with long-term outcome, and to assess whether an increase in frequency of pathological complete response between treatment groups predicts improved EFS and OS. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Medline for clinical trials of neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. To be eligible, studies had to meet three inclusion criteria: include at least 200 patients with primary breast cancer treated with preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery; have available data for pathological complete response, EFS, and OS; and have a median follow-up of at least 3 years. We compared the three most commonly used definitions of pathological complete response--ypT0 ypN0, ypT0/is ypN0, and ypT0/is--for their association with EFS and OS in a responder analysis. We assessed the association between pathological complete response and EFS and OS in various subgroups. Finally, we did a trial-level analysis to assess whether pathological complete response could be used as a surrogate endpoint for EFS or OS. FINDINGS: We obtained data from 12 identified international trials and 11 955 patients were included in our responder analysis. Eradication of tumour from both breast and lymph nodes (ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0) was better associated with improved EFS (ypT0 ypN0: hazard ratio [HR] 0·44, 95% CI 0·39-0·51; ypT0/is ypN0: 0·48, 0·43-0·54) and OS (0·36, 0·30-0·44; 0·36, 0·31-0·42) than was tumour eradication from the breast alone (ypT0/is; EFS: HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·55-0·66; OS 0·51, 0·45-0·58). We used the ypT0/is ypN0 definition for all subsequent analyses. The association between pathological complete response and long-term outcomes was strongest in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (EFS: HR 0·24, 95% CI 0·18-0·33; OS: 0·16, 0·11-0·25) and in those with HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-negative tumours who received trastuzumab (EFS: 0·15, 0·09-0·27; OS: 0·08, 0·03, 0·22). In the trial-level analysis, we recorded little association between increases in frequency of pathological complete response and EFS (R(2)=0·03, 95% CI 0·00-0·25) and OS (R(2)=0·24, 0·00-0·70). INTERPRETATION: Patients who attain pathological complete response defined as ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0 have improved survival. The prognostic value is greatest in aggressive tumour subtypes. Our pooled analysis could not validate pathological complete response as a surrogate endpoint for improved EFS and OS. FUNDING: US Food and Drug Administration.

Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: If treatment of the axilla is indicated in patients with breast cancer who have a positive sentinel node, axillary lymph node dissection is the present standard. Although axillary lymph node dissection provides excellent regional control, it is associated with harmful side-effects. We aimed to assess whether axillary radiotherapy provides comparable regional control with fewer side-effects. METHODS: Patients with T1-2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy were enrolled in the randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive either axillary lymph node dissection or axillary radiotherapy in case of a positive sentinel node, stratified by institution. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of 5-year axillary recurrence, considered to be not more than 4% for the axillary radiotherapy group compared with an expected 2% in the axillary lymph node dissection group. Analyses were by intention to treat and per protocol. The AMAROS trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00014612. FINDINGS: Between Feb 19, 2001, and April 29, 2010, 4823 patients were enrolled at 34 centres from nine European countries, of whom 4806 were eligible for randomisation. 2402 patients were randomly assigned to receive axillary lymph node dissection and 2404 to receive axillary radiotherapy. Of the 1425 patients with a positive sentinel node, 744 had been randomly assigned to axillary lymph node dissection and 681 to axillary radiotherapy; these patients constituted the intention-to-treat population. Median follow-up was 6·1 years (IQR 4·1-8·0) for the patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes. In the axillary lymph node dissection group, 220 (33%) of 672 patients who underwent axillary lymph node dissection had additional positive nodes. Axillary recurrence occurred in four of 744 patients in the axillary lymph node dissection group and seven of 681 in the axillary radiotherapy group. 5-year axillary recurrence was 0·43% (95% CI 0·00-0·92) after axillary lymph node dissection versus 1·19% (0·31-2·08) after axillary radiotherapy. The planned non-inferiority test was underpowered because of the low number of events. The one-sided 95% CI for the underpowered non-inferiority test on the hazard ratio was 0·00-5·27, with a non-inferiority margin of 2. Lymphoedema in the ipsilateral arm was noted significantly more often after axillary lymph node dissection than after axillary radiotherapy at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years. INTERPRETATION: Axillary lymph node dissection and axillary radiotherapy after a positive sentinel node provide excellent and comparable axillary control for patients with T1-2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy. Axillary radiotherapy results in significantly less morbidity. FUNDING: EORTC Charitable Trust.

Attitudes of young patients with breast cancer toward fertility loss related to adjuvant systemic therapies. EORTC study 10002 BIG 3-98.

OBJECTIVE: Infertility due to anticancer treatments is a major source of distress for young patients with cancer. A survey was performed among breast cancer patients younger than 35 years, to evaluate the acceptance of chemotherapy in the context of infertility risk. METHODS: After obtaining written informed consent, we asked 400 premenopausal, early stage breast cancer patients aged ≤35 years to complete a short, previously pilot-tested questionnaire. Three hundred and eighty-nine patients were evaluable. The association between the explanatory variables and the outcome variables was assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-eight (59%) participants wanted to have (more) children in the future, whereas 158 (41%) did not. Fifty-seven (36%) of the latter did not want additional children because of fear of cancer recurrence. Thirty-two women (8%) stated they would not accept chemotherapy should it reduce their fertility. This was dependent upon already having children, the wish to have (further) children, geographical area, disease stage, and already planned chemotherapy. One hundred and seventy-one women who would agree to chemotherapy (48%) would accept a risk of infertility of 76-100%. This acceptance was dependent on already having children and the wish to have (more) children. Of the 355 participants (91%) accepting chemotherapy, 48 would accept it only for ≥20% gain in cure. CONCLUSION: For the majority of young patients with breast cancer, cure remains their first priority; for this, they are willing to accept a considerable decrease in future fertility, and only less than 10% will forego chances of cure to preserve fertility.

Attitudes of healthcare professionals and drug regulators about progression-free survival as endpoint in the advanced cancer setting.

PURPOSE: To describe the attitudes of healthcare professionals and drug regulators about progression-free survival (PFS) as efficacy endpoint in clinical trials with patients with advanced cancer and to explore to what extent these attitudes influence the willingness to trade between PFS and toxicity. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey with regulators from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and healthcare professionals (HCP) from the "Stichting Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland" (HOVON) collaborative group and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Attitudes towards PFS were elicited using 5-point Likert items. The respondents' willingness to trade between PFS and grade 3 or 4 (G34) toxicity was assessed using the threshold technique and quantified in terms of their maximum acceptable risk (MAR). RESULTS: Responses were collected from 287 HCPs and 64 regulators with mainly clinical expertise. Attitudes towards PFS were often spread out in both groups and related to beliefs about PFS being a likely surrogate for clinical benefit, being an intrinsic benefit to be distinguished from OS, or on the importance given to OS. Being a regulator or holding stronger beliefs about PFS being a likely surrogate or an intrinsic benefit were associated with a higher MAR. Presence of a supportive trend in OS was stated as important but was not associated with MAR. There was agreement on the need to address bias in the adjudication of PFS and the need for improving communication to patients about meaning, strengths, and limitations of improvements in PFS. CONCLUSION: Attitudes towards PFS were spread out and were associated with individual differences in the willingness to trade between toxicity and PFS. There was agreement on the need to address bias in the adjudication of PFS and improving communication to patients.

Tumor Size Is Not Everything: Advancing Radiomics as a Precision Medicine Biomarker in Oncology Drug Development and Clinical Care. A Report of a Multidisciplinary Workshop Coordinated by the RECIST Working Group.

Radiomics, the science of extracting quantifiable data from routine medical images, is a powerful tool that has many potential applications in oncology. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Working Group (RWG) held a workshop in May 2022, which brought together various stakeholders to discuss the potential role of radiomics in oncology drug development and clinical trials, particularly with respect to response assessment. This article summarizes the results of that workshop, reviewing radiomics for the practicing oncologist and highlighting the work that needs to be done to move forward the incorporation of radiomics into clinical trials.

Breast conserving therapy versus mastectomy for stage I-II breast cancer: 20 year follow-up of the EORTC 10801 phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The EORTC 10801 trial compared breast-conserving therapy (BCT) with modified radical mastectomy (MRM) in patients with tumours 5 cm or smaller and axillary node negative or positive disease. Compared with BCT, MRM resulted in better local control, but did not affect overall survival or time to distant metastases. We report 20-year follow-up results. METHODS: The EORTC 10801 trial was open for accrual between 1980 and 1986 in eight centres in the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, and South Africa. 448 patients were randomised to BCT and 420 to MRM. Randomisation was done centrally, stratifying patients by institute, carcinoma stage (I or II), and menopausal status. BCT comprised of lumpectomy and complete axillary clearance, followed by breast radiotherapy and a tumour-bed boost. The primary endpoint was time to distant metastasis. This analysis was done on all eligible patients, as they were randomised. FINDINGS: After a median follow-up of 22·1 years (IQR 18·5-23·8), 175 patients (42%) had distant metastases in the MRM group versus 207 (46%) in the BCT group. Furthermore, 506 patients (58%) died (232 [55%] in the MRM group and 274 [61%] in the BCT group). No significant difference was observed between BCT and MRM for time to distant metastases (hazard ratio 1·13, 95% CI 0·92-1·38; p=0·23) or for time to death (1·11, 0·94-1·33; 0·23). Cumulative incidence of distant metastases at 20 years was 42·6% (95% CI 37·8-47·5) in the MRM group and 46·9% (42·2-51·6) in the BCT group. 20-year overall survival was estimated to be 44·5% (95% CI 39·3-49·5) in the MRM group and 39·1% (34·4-43·9) in the BCT group. There was no difference between the groups in time to distant metastases or overall survival by age (time to distant metastases: <50 years 1·09 [95% CI 0·79-1·51] vs ≥50 years 1·16 [0·90-1·50]; overall survival <50 years 1·17 [0·86-1·59] vs ≥50 years 1·10 [0·89-1·37]). INTERPRETATION: BCT, including radiotherapy, offered as standard care to patients with early breast cancer seems to be justified, since long-term follow-up in this trial showed similar survival to that after mastectomy. FUNDING: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC).

Meta-Analysis of the Test-Retest Repeatability of [18F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose Standardized Uptake Values: Implications for Assessment of Tumor Response.

PURPOSE: Currently, guidelines for PET with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) interpretation for assessment of therapy response in oncology primarily involve visual evaluation of FDG-PET/CT scans. However, quantitative measurements of the metabolic activity in tumors may be even more useful in evaluating response to treatment. Guidelines based on such measurements, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Criteria and PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors, have been proposed. However, more rigorous analysis of response criteria based on FDG-PET measurements is needed to adopt regular use in practice. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Well-defined boundaries of repeatability and reproducibility of quantitative measurements to discriminate noise from true signal changes are a needed initial step. An extension of the meta-analysis from de Langen and colleagues (2012) of the test-retest repeatability of quantitative FDG-PET measurements, including mean, maximum, and peak standardized uptake values (SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVpeak, respectively), was performed. Data from 11 studies in the literature were used to estimate the relationship between the variance in test-retest measurements with uptake level and various study-level, patient-level, and lesion-level characteristics. RESULTS: Test-retest repeatability of percentage fluctuations for all three types of SUV measurement (max, mean, and peak) improved with higher FDG uptake levels. Repeatability in all three SUV measurements varied for different lesion locations. Worse repeatability in SUVmean was also associated with higher tumor volumes. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these results, recommendations regarding SUV measurements for assessing minimal detectable changes based on repeatability and reproducibility are proposed. These should be applied to differentiate between response categories for a future set of FDG-PET-based criteria that assess clinically significant changes in tumor response.

Agreement on risk assessment and chemotherapy recommendations among breast cancer specialists: A survey within the MINDACT cohort.

PURPOSE: Tailored recommendation for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients is of great importance. This survey assessed agreement among oncologists on risk assessment and chemotherapy recommendation, the impact of adding the 70-gene signature to clinical-pathological characteristics, and changes over time. METHODS: A survey consisting of 37 discordant patient cases from the MINDACT trial (T1-3N0-1M0) was sent to European breast cancer specialists for assessment of risk (high or low) and chemotherapy administration (yes or no). In 2015 the survey was sent twice (survey 1 and 2), several weeks apart, and in 2021 a third time (survey 3). Only the second and third surveys included the 70-gene signature result. RESULTS: 41 breast cancer specialists participated in all three surveys. Overall agreement between respondents decreased slightly between survey 1 and 2, but increased again in survey 3. Over time there was an increase in agreement with the 70-gene signature result on risk assessment, 23% in survey 2 versus 1 and 11% in survey 3 versus 2. With information available indicating a low risk 70-gene signature (n = 25 cases), 20% of risk assessments changed from high to low and 19% of recommendations changed from yes to no chemotherapy in survey 2 versus 1, further increasing with 18% and 21%, respectively, in survey 3 versus 2. CONCLUSION: There is a variability in risk assessment of early breast cancer patients among breast cancer specialists. The 70-gene signature provided valuable information, resulting in fewer patients being assessed as high risk and fewer recommendations for chemotherapy, increasing over time.

Defining the role of real-world data in cancer clinical research: The position of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

The emergence of the precision medicine paradigm in oncology has led to increasing interest in the integration of real-world data (RWD) into cancer clinical research. As sources of real-world evidence (RWE), such data could potentially help address the uncertainties that surround the adoption of novel anticancer therapies into the clinic following their investigation in clinical trials. At present, RWE-generating studies which investigate antitumour interventions seem to primarily focus on collecting and analysing observational RWD, typically forgoing the use of randomisation despite its methodological benefits. This is appropriate in situations where randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not feasible and non-randomised RWD analyses can offer valuable insights. Nevertheless, depending on how they are designed, RCTs have the potential to produce strong and actionable RWE themselves. The choice of which methodology to employ for RWD studies should be guided by the nature of the research question they are intended to answer. Here, we attempt to define some of the questions that do not necessarily require the conduct of RCTs. Moreover, we outline the strategy of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) to contribute to the generation of robust and high-quality RWE by prioritising the execution of pragmatic trials and studies set up according to the trials-within-cohorts approach. If treatment allocation cannot be left up to random chance due to practical or ethical concerns, the EORTC will consider undertaking observational RWD research based on the target trial principle. New EORTC-sponsored RCTs may also feature concurrent prospective cohorts composed of off-trial patients.

TP53 status for prediction of sensitivity to taxane versus non-taxane neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer (EORTC 10994/BIG 1-00): a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: TP53 has a crucial role in the DNA damage response. We therefore tested the hypothesis that taxanes confer a greater advantage than do anthracyclines on breast cancers with mutated TP53 than in those with wild-type TP53. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 study, women (age <71 years) with locally advanced, inflammatory, or large operable breast cancers were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a standard anthracycline regimen (six cycles of intravenous fluorouracil 500 mg/m², epirubicin 100 mg/m², and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m² every 21 days [FEC100], or fluorouracil 600 mg/m², epirubicin 75 mg/m², cyclophosphamide 900 mg/m² [tailored FEC] starting on day 1 and then every 21 days) or a taxane-based regimen (three cycles of docetaxel 100 mg/m², intravenously infused over 1 h on day 1 every 21 days, followed by three cycles of intravenous epirubicin 90 mg/m² and docetaxel 75 mg/m² on day 1 every 21 days [T-ET]) at 42 centres in Europe. Randomisation was by use of a minimisation method that stratified patients by institution and initial tumour stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) according to TP53 status. Analysis was by intention to treat. This is the final analysis of this trial. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00017095. FINDINGS: 928 patients were enrolled in the FEC group and 928 in the T-ET group. TP53 status was not assessable for 183 (20%) patients in the FEC group and 204 (22%) patients in the T-ET group mainly because of low tumour-cell content in the biopsy. 361 primary endpoint events were recorded in the FEC group and 314 in the T-ET group. In patients with TP53-mutated tumours, 5-year PFS was 59·5% (95% CI 53·4-65·1) in the T-ET group (n=326) and 55·3% (49·2-60·9) in the FEC group (n=318; hazard ratio 0·84, 98% CI 0·63-1·14; p=0·17). In patients with TP53 wild-type tumours, 5-year PFS was 66·8% (95% CI 61·4-71·6) in the T-ET group (n=398) and 64·7% (59·6-69·4) in the FEC group (n=427; 0·89, 98% CI 0·68-1·18; p=0·35). For all patients, irrespective of TP53 status, 5-year PFS was 65·1% (95% CI 61·6-68·3) in the T-ET group and 60·8% (57·3-64·2) in the FEC group (0·85, 98% CI 0·71-1·02; p=0·035). At the sites using FEC100 versus T-ET, the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia (75 [9%] of 803 vs 173 [21%] of 809, respectively), and neutropenia (653 [81%] vs 730 [90%], respectively). At the sites using tailored FEC versus T-ET, the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia (ten [8%] of 118 vs 26 [22%] of 116, respectively), and neutropenia (100 [85%] vs 115 [99%], respectively). Two patients died of toxicity during or within 30 days of chemotherapy completion and without disease relapse (one in each group). INTERPRETATION: Although TP53 status was prognostic for overall survival, it was not predictive of preferential sensitivity to taxanes. TP53 status tested by use of the yeast assay in this patient population cannot be used to select patients for an anthracycline-based chemotherapy versus a taxane-based chemotherapy. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute, La Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, European Union, Pharmacia, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Imaging endpoints for clinical trial use: a RECIST perspective.

Twenty years after its initial introduction, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) remains today a unique standardized tool allowing uniform objective evaluation of response in solid tumors in clinical trials across different treatment indications. Several attempts have been made to update or replace RECIST, but none have realized the general traction or uptake seen with RECIST. This communication provides an overview of some challenges faced by RECIST in the rapidly changing oncology landscape, including the incorporation of PET with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose tracer as a tool for response assessment and the validation of criteria for use in trials involving immunotherapeutics. The latter has mainly been slow due to lack of data sharing. Work is ongoing to try to address this.We also aim to share our view as statistician representatives on the RECIST Working Group on what would be needed to validate new imaging endpoints for clinical trial use, with a specific focus on RECIST. Whether this could lead to an update of RECIST or replace RECIST altogether, depends on the changes being proposed. The ultimate goal remains to have a well defined, repeatable, confirmable and objective standard as provided by RECIST today.

Design issues in head and neck clinical trials: a statistician's perspective.

The purpose of this article is to present some of the challenges the trial statistician meets when designing a clinical trial of the head and neck cancer. In recent years, the field of head and neck cancer has been facing some exciting evolutions, such as the arrival of newly targeted therapies and findings of disease causality and prognosis. These evolutions are accompanied by challenges in trial methodology that continue even today, and will most likely grow in importance in the future. This article focuses essentially on the design of phase III trials and discusses three major topics: should the trial be designed for a broad or a targeted population? Is there a concern for lack of equipoise and if so, how will it affect the trial results? What are the key elements that need to be taken into consideration when choosing, defining, and measuring the primary endpoint?

Sentinel node identification rate and nodal involvement in the EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomized EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial investigates whether breast cancer patients with a tumor-positive sentinel node biopsy (SNB) are best treated with an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) or axillary radiotherapy (ART). The aim of the current substudy was to evaluate the identification rate and the nodal involvement. METHODS: The first 2,000 patients participating in the AMAROS trial were evaluated. Associations between the identification rate and technical, patient-, and tumor-related factors were evaluated. The outcome of the SNB procedure and potential further nodal involvement was assessed. RESULTS: In 65 patients, the sentinel node could not be identified. As a result, the sentinel node identification rate was 97% (1,888 of 1,953). Variables affecting the success rate were age, pathological tumor size, histology, year of accrual, and method of detection. The SNB results of 65% of the patients (n = 1,220) were negative and the patients underwent no further axillary treatment. The SNB results were positive in 34% of the patients (n = 647), including macrometastases (n = 409, 63%), micrometastases (n = 161, 25%), and isolated tumor cells (n = 77, 12%). Further nodal involvement in patients with macrometastases, micrometastases, and isolated tumor cells undergoing an ALND was 41, 18, and 18%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: With a 97% detection rate in this prospective international multicenter study, the SNB procedure is highly effective, especially when the combined method is used. Further nodal involvement in patients with micrometastases and isolated tumor cells in the sentinel node was similar-both were 18%.

Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in locally advanced head and neck cancer: meta-analyses of individual patient data.

BACKGROUND: The gold standard endpoint in randomised trials of locally advanced head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is overall survival. Our objective was to study whether duration of locoregional control or event-free survival (EFS) could be considered as surrogate endpoints to estimate the effect of radiotherapy and chemotherapy on overall survival. This would allow a reduction in the duration and cost of the development of new treatments. METHODS: Individual patient data from 104 trials (22 744 patients), with 116 treatment-control comparisons, from four meta-analyses on hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy and concomitant, induction, or adjuvant chemotherapy were analysed. Duration of locoregional control was defined as the time from randomisation to the first locoregional event and EFS as the time to any first event (ie, locoregional relapse, distant recurrence, or death). At the individual level, a rank correlation coefficient between the surrogate endpoint and overall survival was used to assess surrogacy; at the trial level, a correlation coefficient R between treatment effects was used. FINDINGS: At the individual level, overall survival was more strongly correlated with EFS (range of correlations 0.82-0.90) than with locoregional control (0.65-0.76). For radiotherapy, treatment effects on both locoregional control and EFS were strongly correlated with those on overall survival (R=0.94 and 0.98, respectively). For chemotherapy, the correlations between treatment effects on EFS and overall survival were stronger than those between locoregional control and overall survival (range of R 0.79-0.93 vs 0.53-0.84, respectively). INTERPRETATION: EFS is a better correlate with overall survival than locoregional control and could be used as a surrogate for overall survival to assess the treatment effect of radiotherapy and chemotherapy in randomised trials of locally advanced HNSCC.

Controlling technical variation amongst 6693 patient microarrays of the randomized MINDACT trial.

Gene expression data obtained in large studies hold great promises for discovering disease signatures or subtypes through data analysis. It is also prone to technical variation, whose removal is essential to avoid spurious discoveries. Because this variation is not always known and can be confounded with biological signals, its removal is a challenging task. Here we provide a step-wise procedure and comprehensive analysis of the MINDACT microarray dataset. The MINDACT trial enrolled 6693 breast cancer patients and prospectively validated the gene expression signature MammaPrint for outcome prediction. The study also yielded a full-transcriptome microarray for each tumor. We show for the first time in such a large dataset how technical variation can be removed while retaining expected biological signals. Because of its unprecedented size, we hope the resulting adjusted dataset will be an invaluable tool to discover or test gene expression signatures and to advance our understanding of breast cancer.