Search

PURPOSETo update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline.METHODSA multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature.RECOMMENDATIONSThe Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

Purpose.—To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline.Methods.—A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature.Recommendations.—The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Purpose: National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy in node-negative triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) if the tumor is > 1 cm and consideration of adjuvant chemotherapy for T1b but not T1a disease. These recommendations are based upon sparse data regarding the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in T1a and T1b node-negative TNBC. Our objective was to clarify the benefits of chemotherapy for patients with T1N0 TNBC, stratified by tumor size.Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of survival outcomes in an IRB-approved prospectively-maintained database of TNBC patients treated at two academic institutions in the United States from 1999-2018. Primary tumor size, histology, and nodal status were based upon definitive surgical pathology. Mean follow-up was 5.3 years.Results: 756 TNBC cases were analyzed; 258 T1N0 TNBC patients were identified. Adjuvant chemotherapy was delivered to 30.5% of T1a, 64.7% T1b, and 83.9% T1c (p < 0.0001). Factors associated with delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy were age, histology, high-grade disease, and postoperative adjuvant radiation therapy. At a mean follow-up of 5.3 years, increase in overall survival was associated with use of chemotherapy in patients with T1c disease (93.2% v. 75.2% p = 0.008) but not in those with T1a (100% v. 100% p = 0.3778) or T1b (100% v. 95.8% p = 0.2362) disease.Conclusion: Our data support current guidelines indicating benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in node-negative TNBC associated with T1c tumors but excellent outcomes were observed in cases of T1a and T1b disease, regardless of whether adjuvant chemotherapy was delivered.

Background CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i), in combination with aromatase inhibitors, are United States Food and Drug Administration-approved for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The effectiveness of continuing them beyond first disease progression (PD) is currently unknown. This retrospective study evaluated the impact of the continuation of CDK4/6i beyond first PD in HR+/HER2− MBC using real-world experience. Patients and Methods A single-institution retrospective review of patients with HR+ MBC who received CDK4/6is from 2015 to 2018 and where CDK4/6is were continued beyond first PD. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) after initial PD on CDK4/6i therapy. Results Thirty women with HR+/HER2− MBC met eligibility criteria. Patients were identified from a prospective database of patients at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation who were prescribed CDK4/6is. The median age and follow-up duration were 47.5 years and 27 months, respectively. Most patients received palbociclib (PA)/letrozole as initial therapy (67%), followed by PA/fulvestrant (23%), and PA/other aromatase inhibitor (20%), and abemaciclib with either fulvestrant or letrozole (6%). As of January 31, 2019, 25 (83.3%) patients were still alive, and 19 (63%) patients had progressed. The estimated median PFS for continued CDK4/6i use beyond the first PD was 11.8 months (95% confidence interval, 5.34-13.13 months). Conclusions Among a small cohort of patients with HR+ MBC in a non-clinical trial setting, continuation of CDK4/6i-endocrine treatment post initial PD was associated with a median PFS of about 12 months. Formal randomized clinical trials evaluating the continuation of CDK4/6is beyond the first PD are currently ongoing and will provide more answers to this important clinical question.

Real-world data are critical to demonstrate the reproducibility of evidence and external generalizability of randomized clinical trials. Palbociclib is an oral small-molecule inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 that has been shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) when combined with letrozole or fulvestrant in phase 3 clinical trials. We evaluated real-world outcomes in metastatic breast cancer patients who received palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy in routine clinical practice. Records of patients with advanced hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer treated with palbociclib at the Cleveland Clinic health system from February, 2015 to December, 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary end point was PFS. In this cohort, 411 women were included. The median age and follow-up times were 53.5 years and 10.2 months, respectively. The median PFS for palbociclib plus letrozole was 15.1 months for patients treated in first line, 10.5 months in second line, and 4.2 months in third line and beyond. For patients who received fulvestrant plus palbociclib, the median PFS in first, second, and third line and beyond were 11.6, 12.3, and 6.4 months, respectively. The most common adverse events were hematologic, with grade 3–4 neutropenia occurring in 58% of patients. Thirty-one (8%) patients permanently discontinued palbociclib due to adverse events. Among patients with HR-positive advanced breast cancer, the estimated PFS in patients treated with fulvestrant and palbociclib was comparable to a previously reported phase 3 trial. However, the median PFS with letrozole and palbociclib was shorter than previously reported data from phase 2 and 3 trials. Palbociclib toxicity was very manageable, with a low drug discontinuation rate.

Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) that interferes with VEGF binding to its receptor on vascular endothelium. Bevacizumab has been approved for the treatment of various malignant tumors, and has been studied in combination with several cytotoxic agents in the treatment of breast cancer. In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval for the use of bevacizumab in combination with weekly paclitaxel for first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. However, this approval was later reversed in 2010 because of concerns for safety and lack of improvement in overall survival in randomized clinical trials. In this review, we summarize relevant clinical studies conducted to investigate the role of bevacizumab in the management of breast cancer, both in the early stage and in the metastatic disease settings. We also provide commentary regarding the future of this agent in breast cancer treatment.

Purpose: Hospital transfers may affect clinical outcomes. Evaluation of admission by source of transfer, time of admission, and provider type may identify opportunities to improve inpatient outcomes. Methods: We reviewed charts of patients admitted to the solid tumor oncology service between July and December 2014 from the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) Main Campus emergency department (ED), CCF Regional EDs, outside hospital (OSH) ED, OSH inpatient services, and CCF outpatient clinics. Data collected included time of admission, mortality and severity risk scores, and provider type. Risk factors were assessed for clinical outcomes, including activations of the Adult Medical Emergency Team, intensive care unit transfers, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay (LOS). Results: Five hundred admissions were included. OSH inpatient transfers had significantly higher disease severity compared with all other origins of admission. OSH inpatient transfers demonstrated significantly longer LOS compared with all other origins of admission, and higher mortality rates compared with the outpatient direct admits and CCF Main Campus ED admits. After adjusting for disease severity and risk of mortality, OSH ED patients remained at higher risk for Adult Medical Emergency Team activation, OSH inpatient transfers had the longest LOS, and CCF Main Campus ED patients had the lowest risk of mortality. Time of admission and provider type were not associated with any of the outcomes. Conclusion: Oncology inpatients transferred from an outside health care facility are at higher risk for adverse outcomes. The magnitude of difference is lessened, but still significant, after adjustment for disease severity and risk of mortality.

The relationship between renal cell cancer (RCC) and hematologic malignancy (HM) in the same individual has been reported for more than 20 years, and is noted in SEER database studies. Family histories suggest a familial association as well. This study evaluates the occurrence of renal cell cancer and hematologic malignancies in individual patients and families, and the occurrence of age-of-onset anticipation among generations. Family history data from our familial patient registry, including more than 700 pedigrees of familial hematologic malignancies, and 700 patients with renal cell cancer, were reviewed. Twenty-six patients with a personal history of both RCC and HM are reported. Seventy four patients with RCC are noted to have 95 family members with HM. Consistent with past reports, there was male predominance among the patients with both diseases (71 %), and among the RCC patients’ relatives with HM (57 %). Also consistent was a predominance of lymphoid malignancies in those with both diseases (92 %) and in the HMs among family members of RCC patients (79 %). The majority (95 %) of HM relatives were first or second degree relatives of the patient with RCC. Thirty of 34 parent/child pairs demonstrated age of onset anticipation in which the child developed either disease at a younger age than the parent. The co-occurrence of RCC and HM in the same patient has been shown to be significantly greater than expected. Families also appear to have an increased association. The appearance of anticipation suggests that genetic factors may be significant in this association of RCC and HM.

Purpose: Metastasectomy is often incorporated in overall treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. While this approach was studied in the immunotherapy era, only a few cases have been described in the targeted therapy era. Thus, we evaluated the role of metastasectomy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received prior targeted therapy.Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the records of patients who underwent consolidative metastasectomy after targeted therapy at 3 institutions from 2004 to 2009. All patients received at least 1 cycle of targeted therapy before surgical resection of all visible disease.Results: We identified 22 patients. Metastasectomy sites included the retroperitoneum in 12 patients, lung in 6, adrenal gland in 2, bowel in 2, and mediastinum, bone, brain and inferior venal caval thrombus in 1 each. A total of 6 postoperative complications were observed in 4 patients within 12 weeks after surgery, which resolved with appropriate management...

e13034Background: Palbociclib (PA), a CDK4/CDK6 inhibitor, has been shown in clinical trials to prolong progression free survival (PFS) in HR+/Her-2 negative MBC when combined with an aromatase inh...

e17091 Background: The RTOG and EORTC have reported benefit from adding chemotherapy to post-operative radiation therapy (PORT) in high-risk patients (pts) with squamous cell head and neck cancer, ...

449 Background: An increased incidence of both RCC and HM occurring in the same patients has been reported. Also, a relationship between adenocarcinoma and HM has been previously suggested. Moreover, detailed family history in our patients with RCC suggested an increased incidence of HM in their family members. The purpose of this study is to characterize the HM in relatives of patients with RCC. Methods: Data from 700 patients with RCC seen by us from 2004 to the present were retrospectively evaluated through chart review. The patient, family history and pathology characteristics were collected to determine the frequency of HM in first and second-degree relatives of patients with RCC. Pedigrees were then constructed and subtypes of HM were characterized. Results: A family history of HM was observed in 74 relatives involving 59 families. Of these, 50/74 cases of HM were in first-degree relatives and 19/74 were in second-degree relatives. The most common HMs were lymphoma and leukemia: 24 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, 8 Hodgkin’s lymphoma, 8 lymphoma not further specified (NOS), 11 chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 1 chronic myeloid leukemia, 1 acute myeloid leukemia, 5 acute leukemia NOS and 4 leukemia NOS. Other HM observed were multiple myeloma in 2 patients, Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, and myelofibrosis. Additionally, 2 relatives had blood cancers that were NOS. Of the 59 patients with RCC, 40 had clear cell histology, 4 papillary, 3 chromophobe, 1 sarcomatoid, 1 transitional and in 10, RCC histology was not recorded. Conclusions: HM is observed in patients with RCC with increased frequency compared with the SEER database. We now observed an increased frequency of HM in relatives of patients with RCC. The majority of HMs observed were B-cell malignancies, as we previously reported for HMs that occur in patients with breast cancer or RCC. The etiology of this association remains unclear, but suggests a common etiopathogenesis for RCC and B-cell tumors. Genetic mutations, hereditary immunological defects, and environmental factors may be involved. A larger study with statistical evaluation for confirmation is required. We plan to collect serum and tissue samples from patients and relatives for future molecular studies.

Abstract 5086 Purpose of the study: We observed an increased frequency of hematologic malignancy (HM) in patients and family members of patients with renal cell cancer (RCC) and sought to characterize the association further in terms of frequency and characteristics of HM, and the importance of such an association. Methods: We performed a chart review of our data base of approximately 700 RCC patients seen by us from 2004 to the present in an effort to determine the frequency of HM in patients and in the families of patients diagnosed with RCC. Results: Of the 700 charts reviewed, both HM and RCC occurred in 19 individuals. [11 males and 8 females]. HM diagnosis included acute myeloid leukemia in 1 patient, Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) in 4 pts, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in 7 pts, (3 small cell and 4 large B-cell lymphoma), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in 2 pts and hairy cell leukemia (HCL), monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) myelodysplasia (MDS) in one patient each. A family history of HM was found in 71 relatives involving 56 families of patients with RCC. Of these, 48/71 cases of HM were in first degree relatives and 18/71 were in second degree relatives. The most common HMs were lymphoma and leukemia: 24 NHL, 9 HL, 6 lymphoma not further specified (NOS), 11 CLL, 1 acute myeloid leukemia, 5 acute leukemia NOS and 6 leukemia NOS. Other HM observed once were multiple myeloma, Waldenström's macroglobulinemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, myelofibrosis and polycythemia vera. In addition, 2 family members had blood cancers that were NOS. Thus, of 77 patients/family members with known HM diagnosis 94% were B-cell malignancies. Clear cell histology was the most common subtype of RCC, and all subtypes of RCC occurred in the study population with expected frequency. RCC and HM occurred in the same patient in this study more frequently at 2. 7% than would be expected from a SEER database. In that database the observed to expected (O/E) ratio of NHL and RCC was 1. 86 to 2. 07% [Kunthur et al. Am J Hematol 2006; 81:271–80]. Conclusions: Increased incidence of B-cell malignancy has been reported in individuals with RCC [Dutcher et al. Proc Am Fed Clin Res, Eastern Division, April 2011]. Wiernik et al. [Cancer J 2000] reported a similar increase was noted between adenocarcinoma of the breast and B cell malignancies in same individual and mouse mammary tumor virus was proposed a potential causative agent. There is a preponderance of B-cell malignancy in both the individuals and in the families of the patients with RCC noted in this study. The etiology of this association between RCC and HM is unclear and suggests a common etiopathogenesis for RCC and B-cell tumors, or a familial immunologic defect that facilitates both malignancies. We plan to further explore the relationship of HM to RCC. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.