Search

Purpose: Long-term outcomes of patients with stage I human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer receiving adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) remain undefined, and prognostic predictors represent an unmet need., Methods: In the ATEMPT phase II trial, patients with stage I centrally confirmed HER2-positive breast cancer were randomly assigned 3:1 to adjuvant T-DM1 for 1 year or paclitaxel plus trastuzumab (TH). Coprimary objectives were to compare the incidence of clinically relevant toxicities between arms and to evaluate invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) with T-DM1. Correlative analyses included the HER2DX genomic tool, multiomic evaluations of HER2 heterogeneity, and predictors of thrombocytopenia., Results: After a median follow-up of 5.8 years, 11 iDFS events were observed in the T-DM1 arm, consistent with a 5-year iDFS of 97.0% (95% CI, 95.2 to 98.7). At 5 years, the recurrence-free interval (RFI) was 98.3% (95% CI, 97.0 to 99.7), the overall survival was 97.8% (95% CI, 96.3 to 99.3), and the breast cancer-specific survival was 99.4% (95% CI, 98.6 to 100). Comparable iDFS was observed with T-DM1 irrespective of tumor size, hormone receptor status, centrally determined HER2 immunohistochemical score, and receipt of T-DM1 for more or less than 6 months. Although ATEMPT was not powered for this end point, the 5-year iDFS in the TH arm was 91.1%. Among patients with sufficient tissue for HER2DX testing (n = 187), 5-year outcomes significantly differed according to HER2DX risk score, with better RFI (98.1% v 81.8%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.10, P = .01) and iDFS (96.3% v 81.8%, HR, 0.20, P = .047) among patients with HER2DX low-risk versus high-risk tumors, respectively., Conclusion: Adjuvant T-DM1 for 1 year leads to outstanding long-term outcomes for patients with stage I HER2-positive breast cancer. A high HER2DX risk score predicted a higher risk of recurrence in ATEMPT.

Purpose: The time required for in-clinic drug administration can substantially affect breast cancer patients' quality of life. Subcutaneous (SC) drug administration, as opposed to intravenous (IV), may reduce this time commitment. This study sought to estimate the difference in time burden between IV and SC administration of trastuzumab and pertuzumab (HP)., Methods: We prospectively enrolled a subcohort of patients participating in the ADEPT trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04569747, investigating adjuvant HP plus endocrine therapy for stage I human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer) to this single-arm crossover time and motion substudy. Patients received two cycles of IV HP followed by two cycles of SC HP. During each cycle, time points in drug preparation and administration were captured. The primary end point was total patient time in the treatment chair. Additional end points included total patient treatment experience time and total pharmacy workflow time. A sample size of 22 patients was estimated to provide 90.7% power with two-sided alpha .05 to detect a difference of 70 minutes in the primary end point by treatment arm (IV v SC)., Results: Twenty-two patients were enrolled. The mean total patient time in the treatment chair was 61.8 minutes shorter with SC versus IV HP (22.5 v 84.3 minutes; P < .0001). The mean total patient treatment experience time (incorporating time spent waiting for treatment initiation and time spent in the treatment chair) was 81.8 minutes shorter for SC administration (96 v 177.8 minutes; P < .0001). The pharmacy workflow time was 78.2 minutes shorter for SC versus IV formulation (41 v 119.2 minutes; P < .0001)., Conclusion: SC administration of HP shortened patient time burden by approximately 1 hour. SC drug administration can facilitate faster workflows for health care professionals and improve patients' breast cancer treatment experience.

Purpose: Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6is) are an important component of treatment for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC), but it is not known if patients might derive benefit from continuation of CDK4/6i with endocrine therapy beyond initial tumor progression or if the addition of checkpoint inhibitor therapy has value in this setting., Methods: The randomized multicenter phase II PACE trial enrolled patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2- MBC whose disease had progressed on previous CDK4/6i and aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:2:1 to receive fulvestrant (F), fulvestrant plus palbociclib (F + P), or fulvestrant plus palbociclib and avelumab (F + P + A). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in patients treated with F versus F + P., Results: Overall, 220 patients were randomly assigned between September 2017 and February 2022. The median age was 57 years (range, 25-83 years). Most patients were postmenopausal (80.9%), and 40% were originally diagnosed with de novo MBC. Palbociclib was the most common previous CDK4/6i (90.9%). The median PFS was 4.8 months on F and 4.6 months on F + P (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11 [90% CI, 0.79 to 1.55]; P = .62). The median PFS on F + P + A was 8.1 months (HR v F, 0.75 [90% CI, 0.50 to 1.12]; P = .23). The difference in PFS with F + P and F + P + A versus F was greater among patients with baseline ESR1 and PIK3CA alterations., Conclusion: The addition of palbociclib to fulvestrant did not improve PFS versus fulvestrant alone among patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2- MBC whose disease had progressed on a previous CDK4/6i plus AI. The increased PFS seen with the addition of avelumab warrants further investigation in this patient population.

Background: The impact of abbreviated neoadjuvant regimens for HER2+ breast cancer on rates of breast conservation therapy (BCT) is unclear. We aimed to determine BCT rates in a single-arm prospective trial of neoadjuvant paclitaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab (THP) in patients with stage II or III HER2+ breast cancer., Study Design: BCT eligibility was prospectively recorded before and after THP. Pre- and posttreatment mammogram and breast ultrasound were required; breast MRI was encouraged. Patients with a large tumor to breast size ratio were eligible for downsizing. Multifocal/multicentric tumors, extensive calcifications, and contraindications to radiation were considered BCT contraindications., Results: Overall, 92 patients who received neoadjuvant THP on trial were included. At presentation, 39 (42.4%) were considered eligible for BCT and 53 (57.6%) were not. BCT-eligible patients were older (median 54 vs 47 years, respectively; p = 0.006) and had smaller tumors by palpation (median 2.5 vs 3 cm, respectively; p = 0.004). Of 53 BCT-ineligible patients, 28 were candidates for tumor downsizing, whereas 25 had contraindications to BCT. Overall, 51 (55.4%) patients underwent BCT. Of the 28 patients who were candidates for downsizing, 22 (78.6%) became BCT-eligible after THP and 18 of 22 (81.8%) underwent BCT. In total, 44 of 92 (47.8%) patients experienced breast pathologic complete response (ypT0), including 11 of 25 (44.0%) patients with BCT contraindications at presentation., Conclusions: De-escalated neoadjuvant systemic therapy led to high BCT rates in this cohort. The impact of de-escalated systemic therapy on local therapy and outcomes in early stage HER2+ breast cancer warrants further investigation., (Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To support shared decision-making, patient-facing resources are needed to complement recently published guidelines on approaches for surveillance mammography in breast cancer survivors aged ≥ 75 or with < 10-year life expectancy. We created a patient guide to facilitate discussions about surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors., Methods: The "Are Mammograms Still Right for Me?" guide estimates future ipsilateral and contralateral breast (in-breast) cancer risks, general health, and the potential benefits/harms of mammography, with prompts for discussion. We conducted in-clinic acceptability testing of the guide by survivors and their clinicians at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center, including two community practices. Patients and clinicians received the guide ahead of a clinic visit and surveyed patients (pre-/post-visit) and clinicians (post-visit). Acceptability was defined as ≥ 75% of patients and clinicians reporting that the guide (a) should be recommended to others, (b) is clear, (c) is helpful, and (d) contains a suitable amount of information. We also elicited feedback on usability and mammography intentions., Results: We enrolled 45 patients and their 21 clinicians. Among those responding in post-visit surveys, 33/37 (89%) patients and 15/16 (94%) clinicians would recommend the guide to others; 33/37 (89%) patients and 15/16 (94%) clinicians felt everything/most things were clear. All other pre-specified acceptability criteria were met. Most patients reported strong intentions for mammography (100% pre-visit, 98% post-visit)., Conclusion: Oncology clinicians and older breast cancer survivors found a guide to inform mammography decision-making acceptable and clear. A multisite clinical trial is needed to assess the guide's impact mammography utilization., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT03865654, posted March 7, 2019., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background Refugees and asylum-seekers have lower levels of cancer awareness and this contributes to low rates of screening and more advanced cancers at diagnosis, compared to non-refugee populations, due largely to reduced access to medical information and care. The global Afghan refugee population is rapidly increasing with the ongoing Afghan political crisis. The present study investigates breast cancer (BC) awareness among Afghan refugee women., Methods: A cross-sectional survey of Afghan refugee women residing in Turkey was performed in September 2021. A validated BC patient awareness assessment, the Breast Cancer Awareness Measure (BCAM), was used to assess participants' knowledge of seven domains of BC: symptoms, self-examination, ability to notice breast changes, age-related risk of BC, urgency of addressing changes in the breast, BC risk factors, and BC screening. BCAM was translated into patients' native language and administered verbally by a physician with the assistance of an official interpreter. Routine statistical methods were employed for data analysis., Findings: A total of 430 patients were recruited to the study. The response rate was 97·7% (420 patients). The median participant age was 35 years (range: 18 to 68 years). The majority of participants (84%) had no formal education. Most participants (96%) were married, and most (95%) were not employed. Awareness of warning signs of BC was low: only seven to 18% of participants recognized 11 common warning signs of BC. Participant use of breast self-exam (BSE) was low, with 82% of participants stating they rarely or never complete BSE. Zero of 420 patients reported ever seeing a physician for a change in their breasts. Awareness of risk factors for BC was also low: only 15% of participants recognized increasing age as a risk factor for BC, and other risk factors were only recognized by four to 39% of participants., Interpretation: BC awareness among Afghan refugee women is critically low. There is an urgent need to target this population for practical interventions to increase BC awareness, in addition to screening and earlier diagnosis. Evidence-based interventions include educational sessions in patients' native language and use of BSE and clinical breast examination for screening., Funding: American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) - Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology (ARRO) Global Health Scholar Grant, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Jay Harris Junior Faculty Research Grant., Competing Interests: MS declares funding from ASTRO-ARRO and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© 2022 The Authors.)

De-escalating adjuvant therapy following pathologic complete response (pCR) to an abbreviated neoadjuvant regimen in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer is the focus of international research efforts. However, the feasibility of this approach and its appeal to patients and providers had not been formally investigated. We aimed to assess adherence to de-escalated adjuvant antibody doublet therapy (trastuzumab and pertuzumab [HP], without chemotherapy) among patients with pCR following neoadjuvant paclitaxel/HP (THP). In this single-arm prospective trial, patients with treatment-naïve stage II-III HER2+ breast cancer received neoadjuvant weekly paclitaxel ×12 and HP every 3 weeks ×4. The primary endpoint was receipt of adjuvant non-HER2-directed cytotoxic chemotherapy. Ninety-eight patients received ≥1 dose of THP on study. Patients had median age of 50 years, 86% had stage II tumors, and 34% were hormone receptor-negative. Five patients had incomplete clinical response following THP and received doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide before surgery; they were classified as non-pCR and censored from further analyses. The overall pCR rate was 56.7%. Among patients with pCR, the adherence rate to de-escalated antibody-only therapy (HP) was 98.2% (95% CI 90.3-100.0%), and the primary feasibility endpoint was reached. The majority of patients felt positive or neutral about their adjuvant treatment plans. With brief follow-up (median 19.1 months), there were no breast cancer recurrences. De-escalation of adjuvant chemotherapy among patients who experience pCR in early-stage HER2+ breast cancer is a practicable approach for both patients and physicians. Planned and ongoing prospective trials will determine the long-term efficacy of this approach.Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03716180, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03716180 ., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Combination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). It is unknown if adding bevacizumab improves outcomes., Patients and Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, patients with irinotecan-refractory RAS-wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-EGFR therapy were randomized to cetuximab 500 mg/m2, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg, and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose) (CBI) versus cetuximab, irinotecan, and placebo (CI) every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs)., Results: The study closed early after the accrual of 36 out of a planned 120 patients due to changes in funding. Nineteen patients were randomized to CBI and 17 to CI. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 versus 5.5 months for CBI and CI, respectively (1-sided log-rank P = .38; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 versus 10.2 months for CBI and CI (1-sided log-rank P = .02; adjusted HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 36.8% for CBI versus 11.8% for CI (P = .13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of patients receiving CBI versus 35% for CI (P = .46)., Conclusion: In this prematurely discontinued trial, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of PFS between CBI and CI. There was a statistically significant improvement in OS in favor of CBI compared with CI. Further investigation of CBI for the treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02292758., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

The excellent outcomes seen in patients treated with adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in the ATEMPT trial and the favorable toxicity profile associated with this agent make T-DM1 a potential therapeutic option for select patients with stage I HER2-positive breast cancer. Moreover, T-DM1 is an established adjuvant treatment for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer with the residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant therapy. Given that cardiotoxicity is the most significant adverse event of trastuzumab, which is a main molecular component of T-DM1, we conducted a sub-analysis of the ATEMPT trial to determine the cardiac safety of adjuvant T-DM1. In this analysis, the incidence of grade 3-4 left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) in T-DM1 or trastuzumab plus paclitaxel arms were respectively 0.8 and 1.8%. In addition, three (0.8%) patients in the T-DM1 arm and six (5.3%) patients in the adjuvant paclitaxel with trastuzumab (TH) arm experienced a significant asymptomatic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) decline that per-protocol required holding T-DM1 or trastuzumab. All patients with available follow-up data experienced full resolution of cardiac symptoms and LVEF normalization. Furthermore, we performed an exploratory analysis to assess the relationship between age, baseline LVEF, and body mass index with cardiac outcomes. No significant association between these baseline characteristics and the incidence of significant asymptomatic LVEF decline or symptomatic LVSD was identified. The low incidence of significant cardiac adverse events in this population during therapy with adjuvant T-DM1 suggests that studies on the cost-effectiveness of cardiac monitoring during adjuvant therapy using anthracycline-free regimens are needed.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01853748., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: In early trials, hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to paclitaxel were common, thus prompting the administration of antihistamines and corticosteroids before every paclitaxel dose. We tested the safety of omitting corticosteroids after cycle 2 during the paclitaxel portion of the dose-dense (DD) doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC)-paclitaxel regimen., Patients, Materials, and Methods: In this prospective, single-arm study, patients who completed four cycles of DD-AC for stage I-III breast cancer received paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 every 2 weeks for four cycles. Patients received a standard premedication protocol containing dexamethasone, diphenhydramine, and a histamine H2 blocker prior to the first two paclitaxel cycles. Dexamethasone was omitted in cycles three and four if there were no HSRs in previous cycles. We estimated the rate of grade 3-4 HSRs., Results: Among 127 patients enrolled, 125 received more than one dose of protocol therapy and are included in the analysis. Fourteen (11.2%; 90% confidence interval, 6.9%-20.0%) patients had any-grade HSRs, for a total of 22 (4.5%; 3.1%-6.4%) HSRs over 486 paclitaxel cycles. Any-grade HSRs occurred in 1.6% (0.3%-5.0%), 6.5% (3.3%-11.3%), 7.4% (3.9%-12.5%), and 2.6% (0.7%-6.6%) of patients after paclitaxel cycles 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Dexamethasone use was decreased by 92.8% in cycles 3 and 4. Only one patient experienced grade 3 HSR in cycles 3 or 4, for a rate of grade 3/4 HSR 0.4% (0.02%-2.0%) (1/237 paclitaxel infusions). That patient had grade 2 HSR during cycle 2, and the subsequent grade 3 event occurred despite usual dexamethasone premedication. A sensitivity analysis restricted to patients not known to have received dexamethasone in cycles 3 and 4 found that any-grade HSRs occurred in 2.7% (3/111; 0.7%-6.8%) and 0.9% (1/109; 0.05%-4.3%) of patients in cycle 3 and 4, respectively., Conclusion: Corticosteroid premedication can be safely omitted in cycles 3 and 4 of dose-dense paclitaxel if HSRs are not observed during cycles 1 and 2., Implications for Practice: Because of the potential for hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to paclitaxel, corticosteroids are routinely prescribed prior to each dose, on an indefinite basis. This prospective study, including 125 patients treated with 486 paclitaxel cycles, demonstrates that corticosteroids can be safely omitted in future cycles if HSRs did not occur during cycles 1 and 2 of paclitaxel and that this strategy reduces the use of corticosteroids in cycles 3 and 4 by 92.8% relative to current standard of care., (© 2021 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Purpose: The ATEMPT trial was designed to determine if treatment with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) caused less toxicity than paclitaxel plus trastuzumab (TH) and yielded clinically acceptable invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) among patients with stage I human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC)., Methods: Patients with stage I centrally confirmed HER2+ BC were randomly assigned 3:1 to T-DM1 or TH and received T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for 17 cycles or T 80 mg/m 2 IV with H once every week × 12 weeks (4 mg/kg load →2 mg/kg), followed by H × 39 weeks (6 mg/kg once every 3 weeks). The co-primary objectives were to compare the incidence of clinically relevant toxicities (CRTs) in patients treated with T-DM1 versus TH and to evaluate iDFS in patients receiving T-DM1., Results: The analysis population includes all 497 patients who initiated protocol therapy (383 T-DM1 and 114 TH). CRTs were experienced by 46% of patients on T-DM1 and 47% of patients on TH ( P = .83). The 3-year iDFS for T-DM1 was 97.8% (95% CI, 96.3 to 99.3), which rejected the null hypothesis ( P < .0001). Serially collected patient-reported outcomes indicated that patients treated with T-DM1 had less neuropathy and alopecia and better work productivity compared with patients on TH., Conclusion: Among patients with stage I HER2+ BC, one year of adjuvant T-DM1 was associated with excellent 3-year iDFS, but was not associated with fewer CRT compared with TH., Competing Interests: Sara TolaneyConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, NanoString Technologies, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Genentech, Eisai, Sanofi, Celldex, Bristol Myers Squibb, Paxman, Seattle Genetics, Odonate Therapeutics, AbbVie, Silverback Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, OncoPep, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Samsung Bioepis, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Immunomedics/Gilead, Mersana, CertaraResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Merck, Exelixis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, AstraZeneca, NanoString Technologies, Cyclacel, Nektar, Immunomedics, Odonate Therapeutics, Sanofi, Seattle GeneticsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Immunomedics, Eisai, NanoString Technologies, Puma Biotechnology, Celldex Chau DangHonoraria: Puma Biotechnology, eviCore healthcareConsulting or Advisory Role: Puma Biotechnology, eviCore healthcareResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Puma Biotechnology Denise YardleyConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Biotheranostics, Bristol Myers Squibb, G1 Therapeutics, Athenex, Immunomedics, Sanofi/Aventis, R-Pharm, LillySpeakers' Bureau: Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Genentech/RocheResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Novartis, MedImmune, Lilly, Medivation, Pfizer, Tesaro, Macrogenics, AbbVie, Merck, Clovis Oncology, Amgen, Biomarin, Biothera, Dana Farber Cancer Hospital, Incyte, Innocrin Pharma, Nektar, NSABP Foundation, Odonate Therapeutics, PolyphorTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Genentech/Roche Steven IsakoffConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, OncoPep, Puma Biotechnology, Seattle Genetics, NovartisResearch Funding: Genentech, PharmaMar, AbbVie, OncoPep, Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Outcomes4Me Vicente ValeroHonoraria: Genentech/Roche, Merck, NovartisConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Novartis, MerckTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Genentech/Roche Therese MulveyConsulting or Advisory Role: Outcomes4Me Ron BoseConsulting or Advisory Role: GenentechResearch Funding: Puma Biotechnology Antonio WolffConsulting or Advisory Role: Ionis PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: Biomarin, CelldexPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Antonio Wolff has been named as inventor on one or more issued patents or pending patent applications related to methylation in breast cancer and has assigned his rights to JHU and participates in a royalty sharing agreement with JHUOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/357301/summary Katherine Reeder-HayesResearch Funding: Pfizer Hope RugoHonoraria: Puma Biotechnology, MylanConsulting or Advisory Role: SamsungResearch Funding: Macrogenics, OBI Pharma, Eisai, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Genentech, Merck, Immunomedics, Odonate Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Seattle Genetics, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Novartis, Macrogenics, Mylan, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca Spain, MerckOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/summary Bhuvaneswari RamaswamyConsulting or Advisory Role: Eisai Lowell HartHonoraria: Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, G1 Therapeutics, Veracyte, Karyopharm TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Merck, Seattle GeneticsSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Pfizer, Genentech, AstraZeneca, NovartisResearch Funding: Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, G1 Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics Vijayakrishna GadiLeadership: SEngine Precision MedicineStock and Other Ownership Interests: Sengine precision medicine, Novilla, 3rdEyeBio, New Equilibrium BiosciencesConsulting or Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics, Puma Biotechnology, Novartis, SanofiSpeakers' Bureau: Seagen, bioTheranosticsResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, SignalOne Bio, AgendiaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: NovartisOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/2511 Bryan SchneiderHonoraria: Lilly, Research to Practice Paul MarcomConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, ImmunomedicsResearch Funding: Novartis, Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Verily, Glycomimetics, MillenniumOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/237508/summary Kathy AlbainConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, Myriad Genetics, Genomic Health, Agendia, Genentech/RocheResearch Funding: Seattle GeneticsOther Relationship: Puma Biotechnology Nadine TungResearch Funding: AstraZeneca Rita NandaConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Macrogenics, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Aduro Biotech, ION Pharma, Seattle Genetics, ImmunomedicsResearch Funding: Corcept Therapeutics, Celgene, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Genentech/Roche, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, ImmunomedicsOther Relationship: G1 Therapeutics Rachel JankowitzHonoraria: EisaiConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Mothaffar RimawiConsulting or Advisory Role: Macrogenics, Daiichi Sankyo, Seattle Genetics, GenentechResearch Funding: Pfizer Vandana AbramsonEmployment: HCA HealthcareConsulting or Advisory Role: Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbvieResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Lilly Paula PohlmannLeadership: Immunonet BioSciencesStock and Other Ownership Interests: Immunonet BioSciencesHonoraria: Dava Oncology, OncLive/MJH Life Sciences, Frontiers—PublisherConsulting or Advisory Role: Personalized Cancer Therapy, OncoPlex Diagnostics, Immunonet BioSciences, Pfizer, HERON, Puma Biotechnology, Sirtex Medical, Caris Life Sciences, Juniper Pharmaceuticals, Bolt BiotherapeuticsSpeakers' Bureau: Genentech/RocheResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Fabre-Kramer, Advanced Cancer Therapeutics, Caris Centers of Excellence, Pfizer, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Cascadian Therapeutics, Bolt Biotherapeutics, Byondis, SeagenPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: United States Patent no. 8486413, United States Patent no. 8501417, United States Patent no. 9023362, United States Patent no. 9745377, Patent application Catherine Van PoznakResearch Funding: BayerPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: UpToDate Andres Forero-TorresEmployment: Seattle GeneticsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Seattle Genetics Minetta LiuResearch Funding: Eisai, Seattle Genetics, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, GRAIL, Merck, Tesaro, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Genomic HealthTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: GRAIL, Merck, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Pfizer, Genomic Health, AstraZeneca, Ionis Pharmaceuticals Kathryn RuddyPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: My husband is a co-inventor of technology licensed by Mayo Clinic to AliveCor (MountainView, CA), which makes a smartphone-enabled remote ECG monitoring system Richard GelberResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Merck, PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis Bill BarryEmployment: Rho Ann PartridgePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I receive small royalty payments for co-authoring the breast cancer survivorship section of UpToDateTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis Eric WinerHonoraria: Genentech/Roche, Genomic HealthConsulting or Advisory Role: Leap Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Jounce Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Carrick Therapeutics, Lilly, G1 Therapeutics, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Zymeworks, AthenexResearch Funding: GenentechOther Relationship: InfiniteMD Ian KropEmployment: AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Freeline TherapeuticsLeadership: AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Freeline TherapeuticsStock and Other Ownership Interests: AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Freeline Therapeutics, VertexHonoraria: Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, CelltrionConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Macrogenics, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Context Therapeutics, Novartis, Merck, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Genentech, PfizerNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Adverse events (AE) during oncology clinical trials are typically reported using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), which provides information about the frequency and severity of AEs from the provider's perspective. Instruments that track patient-reported outcomes (PRO) complement the CTCAE and provide additional patient-centered information about the toxicity profile of an anti-cancer drug., Methods: We conducted a single-arm, open-label phase II study of eribulin as first- or second-line therapy for metastatic hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Patients were recruited simultaneously into each cohort by tumor subtype. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included evaluation of toxicity by CTCAE and PRO instruments and agreement between CTCAE and PRO. The study also investigated single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with treatment-induced neurotoxicity., Results: 83 patients were enrolled: 45 into the HR+/HER2- cohort and 38 into the TNBC cohort. The ORR was 35.6% (90% CI 24-39%) in the HR+/HER2- cohort and 13.2% (90% CI 5-26%) in the TNBC cohort. Stable disease as the best response was recorded in 55.1% of patients with HR+/HER2- disease and 60.5% with TNBC. Toxicity analysis revealed a discordance between CTCAE and PRO assessment in many patients, with a focus on fatigue, alopecia, and neuropathy. Pharmacogenomic analysis identified SNPs associated with treatment-induced peripheral neuropathy., Conclusions: Eribulin is active in HER2- breast cancer. This study reveals that provider-assessed AEs can vary greatly from patient experiences. Future studies should incorporate CTCAE and PRO instruments to improve reporting of treatment-related AEs. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration: NCT01827787.

Purpose: The use of growth factors adds considerable expense and some toxicity to adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy. We tested the feasibility and safety of omitting routine peg-filgrastim use during the paclitaxel portion of the dose-dense doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide-paclitaxel regimen., Patients and Methods: This was a prospective, single-arm study in which patients 18 to 65 years of age who completed 4 cycles of dose-dense doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide for stage I-III breast cancer received paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 every 2 weeks. Peg-filgrastim was administered after paclitaxel only if patients had had febrile neutropenia in a prior cycle or at investigator discretion if patients had infections or treatment delays of > 1 week. Once a patient received peg-filgrastim, it was administered in all future cycles. The primary end point was the rate of paclitaxel completion within 7 weeks from cycle 1 day 1 to cycle 4 day 1. If ≥ 100 out of 125 patients completed 4 cycles of paclitaxel without dose delay, the regimen would be considered feasible., Results: The enrollment goal of 125 patients was met. Median age was 46 years (range, 21-65 years), and 112 patients (90% [95% CI, 83% to 94%]) completed dose-dense paclitaxel within 7 weeks. Omission of peg-filgrastim was not causally related to noncompletion of paclitaxel in any patients. The most common reasons for dose reduction or delays were nonhematologic. One patient experienced febrile neutropenia but was able to complete paclitaxel on time. Eight patients (6.4%) received peg-filgrastim during the trial. Overall, peg-filgrastim was administered in only 4.3% of paclitaxel cycles., Conclusion: Omission of routine peg-filgrastim during dose-dense paclitaxel according to a prespecified algorithm seems to be safe and feasible and was associated with a 95.7% reduction in the use of peg-filgrastim relative to the current standard of care.