Search

LA Koehler,1–3 TC Haddad,4 DW Hunter,5 TM Tuttle3,6 1Division of Physical Therapy, 2Division of Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Medical School, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; 3University of Minnesota, Masonic Cancer Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA; 4Mayo Clinic, Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Rochester, MN, USA; 5Department of Radiology, Medical School, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; 6Department of Surgery, Medical School, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA Abstract: Axillary web syndrome (AWS) is a common condition occurring in up to 86% of patients following breast cancer surgery with ipsilateral lymphadenectomy of one or more nodes. AWS presents as a single cord or multiple thin cords in the subcutaneous tissues of the ipsilateral axilla. The cords may extend variable distances “down” the ipsilateral arm and/or chest wall. The cords frequently result in painful shoulder abduction and limited shoulder range of motion. AWS most frequently becomes symptomatic between 2 and 8 weeks postoperatively but can also develop and recur months to years after surgery. Education about and increased awareness of AWS should be promoted for patients and caregivers. Assessments for AWS should be performed on a regular basis following breast cancer surgery especially if there has been associated lymphadenectomy. Physical therapy, which consists of manual therapy, exercise, education, and other rehabilitation modalities to improve range of motion and decrease pain, is recommended in the treatment of AWS. Keywords: cording, Mondor’s disease, rehabilitation, axillary lymphadenectomy

Background: The advent of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) represents a landmark advance in cancer therapy, permitting targeted delivery of a potent cytotoxic agent to tumor cells with minimal damage to surrounding cells. Although ADCs can induce sustained therapeutic responses in heavily pretreated patients, they can also cause significant toxicity and thus require careful monitoring. The prototype ADC, ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) is comprised of a humanized, monoclonal human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-directed antibody, trastuzumab, linked to the cytotoxic agent, DM1, and is used for the treatment of early-stage and advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. Liver toxicities, including transaminitis and nodular regenerative hyperplasia resulting in portal hypertension have been described. We report a case series of four patients who developed hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS) during treatment with T-DM1. HPS is characterized by hypoxemia, portal hypertension, and intrapulmonary shunting, and it can be associated with severe hypoxic respiratory failure. HPS secondary to noncirrhotic portal hypertension occurring with long-term exposure to T-DM1 has not previously been reported., Case Series Presentation: Four patients who received T-DM1 in our institutional cohort (n=230) developed HPS, which can be associated with severe hypoxic respiratory failure. Each patient diagnosed with HPS received >50 doses of T-DM1. Only one patient at diagnosis had resting hypoxia, while the other three patients became hypoxic with exertion only. Discontinuation of T-DM1 led to clinical improvement in hypoxia in three of the four patients. The spectrum of liver injury that occurs with long-term use of T-DM1 remains incompletely defined., Conclusions: As T-DM1 is approved for use in the management of early-stage operable and advanced breast cancer, awareness of HPS as a potential complication of long-term administration of T-DM1 is necessary. The emergence of dyspnea alone or combined with low oxygen saturation and signs of hypoxemia (clubbing or elevated hemoglobin) should raise clinical suspicion and prompt evaluation for HPS. Cancer care team members should be vigilant regarding the potential for new and serious side effects associated with novel targeted therapies, which may emerge years beyond initial regulatory approval., Competing Interests: JT discloses: Consulting: Change Healthcare; Research: Eli Lilly; Advisory board: Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis; Presentation: MJH Life Sciences. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 O’Sullivan, Higgins, Alkurashi, Ahluwalia, Taraba, McKie, Kamath, Iyer and Haddad.)

Purpose: This study evaluates real-world outcomes, toxicities, and prescribing patterns of PARP inhibitors (PARPis) for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC)., Patients and Methods: Electronic health records of 62 MBC patients treated with olaparib (n = 48) or talazoparib (n = 14) at Mayo Clinic System between 2017 and 2022 were analyzed. Time-to-treatment-failure (TTF) was assessed utilizing the Kaplan-Meier method. Predictors of TTF were identified in a multivariate Cox-proportional hazard regression model adjusting for relevant tumor and demographic characteristics., Results: Among 62 patients who received PARPis for MBC, 55 had germline (g) pathogenic variants (PVs) (gBRCA1 = 24, gBRCA2 = 26, and gPALB2 = 4) and 8 patients had somatic (s) PVs (sBRCA1 = 4, sBRCA2 = 2, sATM = 1, sCDKN2A = 1). Median TTF in the gBRCA1, gBRCA2, and gPALB2 PV carriers were 7, 8, and 9 months, respectively (P = .37). Complete or partial responses were observed among 51.8% of patients with gBRCA or gPALB2 PVs. In multivariate analysis, HER2 positivity (hazard ratio, HR: 4.9, P = .007) and somatic PVs in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes other than BRCA (sATM or sCDKN2A) (HR: 11.7, P = .01) were associated with a shorter TTF. No significant difference in TTF was observed by the type of PARPi, estrogen and progesterone receptor status, age, or number of prior therapies. Eight (16.7%) patients receiving olaparib and seven (50%) receiving talazoparib required dose reductions due to toxicities., Conclusions: In real-world practice, PARPis are well-tolerated with promising TTF in gBRCA1/2 and gPALB2 carriers. Further studies will delineate the clinical efficacy of PARPis in other MBC subsets, such as sBRCA mutations, HER2-positive disease, and CNS metastasis., Competing Interests: Disclosure Siddhartha Yadav has received research grants from AstraZeneca (Institutional) and Repare Therapeutics (institutional) and has served on an advisory board for AstraZeneca (no personal compensation). Tufia Haddad has received research grant funding from Takeda Oncology (Institutional) and served on an advisory board for Puma Biotechnology (no personal compensation). Karthik Giridhar has received research grant funding from Pfizer Global Grants and served on an advisory board to AstraZeneca (honoraria to institution)., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: This review underscores the critical role and challenges associated with the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence in cancer care to enhance disease management, streamline clinical processes, optimize data retrieval of health information, and generate and synthesize evidence., Recent Findings: Advancements in artificial intelligence models and the development of digital biomarkers and diagnostics are applicable across the cancer continuum from early detection to survivorship care. Additionally, generative artificial intelligence has promised to streamline clinical documentation and patient communications, generate structured data for clinical trial matching, automate cancer registries, and facilitate advanced clinical decision support. Widespread adoption of artificial intelligence has been slow because of concerns about data diversity and data shift, model reliability and algorithm bias, legal oversight, and high information technology and infrastructure costs., Summary: Artificial intelligence models have significant potential to transform cancer care. Efforts are underway to deploy artificial intelligence models in the cancer practice, evaluate their clinical impact, and enhance their fairness and explainability. Standardized guidelines for the ethical integration of artificial intelligence models in cancer care pathways and clinical operations are needed. Clear governance and oversight will be necessary to gain trust in artificial intelligence-assisted cancer care by clinicians, scientists, and patients., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We previously reported that postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-α-positive breast cancer receiving adjuvant anastrozole 1 mg/day (ANA1) with estrone (E1) ≥1.3 pg/mL and estradiol (E2) ≥0.5 pg/mL [inadequate estrogen suppression (IES)] had a threefold increased risk of a breast cancer event. The objective of this study was to determine if increasing anastrozole to 10 mg/day (ANA10) could result in adequate estrogen suppression (AES: E1 <1.3 pg/mL and/or E2 <0.5 pg/mL) among those with IES on ANA1., Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-α-positive breast cancer planning to receive adjuvant ANA1 were eligible. E1 and E2 were assessed pre- and post-8 to 10 weeks of ANA1. Those with IES were switched to 8- to 10-week cycles of ANA10 followed by letrozole 2.5 mg/day. E1 and E2 were assessed after each cycle. Anastrozole concentrations were measured post-ANA1 and post-ANA10. Primary analyses included patients who documented taking at least 80% of the planned treatment (adherent cohort)., Results: In total, 132 (84.6%) of 156 eligible patients were ANA1 adherent. IES occurred in 40 (30.3%) adherent patients. Twenty-five (78.1%) of 32 patients who began ANA10 were adherent, and AES was achieved in 19 (76.0%; 90% confidence interval, 58.1%-89.0%) patients. Anastrozole concentrations post-ANA1 and post-ANA10 did not differ by estrogen suppression status among adherent patients. AES was maintained/attained in 21 (91.3%) of 23 letrozole-adherent patients., Conclusions: Approximately 30% of ANA1-adherent patients had IES. Among those who switched to ANA10 and were adherent, 76% had AES. Further studies are required to validate emerging data that ANA1 results in IES for some patients and to determine the clinical benefit of switching to ANA10 or an alternative aromatase inhibitor., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose of Review: This article aims to describe the ways in which digital health technologies are currently being used to improve the delivery of cancer care, highlight opportunities to expand their use, and discuss barriers to effective and equitable implementation., Recent Findings: The utilization of digital health tools and development of novel care delivery models that leverage such tools is expanding. Recent studies have shown feasibility and increased implementation in the setting of oncologic care. With technological advances and key policy changes, utilization of digital health tools has greatly increased over the past two decades and transformed how cancer care is delivered. As digital health tools are expanded and refined, there is potential for improved access to and quality and efficiency of cancer care. However, careful consideration should be given to key barriers of digital health tool adoption, such as infrastructural, patient-level, and health systems-level challenges, to ensure equitable access to care and improvement in health outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Structured data capture requires defined languages such as minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE). This pilot assessed the feasibility of capturing 5 mCODE categories (stage, disease status, performance status (PS), intent of therapy and intent to change therapy)., Methods: A tool (SmartPhrase) using existing and custom structured data elements was Built to capture 4 data categories (disease status, PS, intent of therapy and intent to change therapy) typically documented as free-text within notes. Existing functionality for stage was supported by the Build. Participant survey data, presence of data (per encounter), and time in chart were collected prior to go-live and repeat timepoints. The anticipated outcome was capture of >50% sustained over time without undue burden., Results: Pre-intervention (5-weeks before go-live), participants had 1390 encounters (1207 patients). The median percent capture across all participants was 32% for stage; no structured data was available for other categories pre-intervention. During a 6-month pilot with 14 participants across three sites, 4995 encounters (3071 patients) occurred. The median percent capture across all participants and all post-intervention months increased to 64% for stage and 81%-82% for the other data categories post-intervention. No increase in participant time in chart was noted. Participants reported that data were meaningful to capture., Conclusions: Structured data can be captured (1) in real-time, (2) sustained over time without (3) undue provider burden using note-based tools. Our system is expanding the pilot, with integration of these data into clinical decision support, practice dashboards and potential for clinical trial matching., (© 2024 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Patients with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) have overall poor clinical outcomes, with triple-negative IBC (TN-IBC) being associated with the worst survival, warranting the investigation of novel therapies. Preclinical studies implied that ruxolitinib (RUX), a JAK1/2 inhibitor, may be an effective therapy for TN-IBC., Methods: We conducted a randomized phase II study with nested window-of-opportunity in TN-IBC. Treatment-naïve patients received a 7-day run-in of RUX alone or RUX plus paclitaxel (PAC). After the run-in, those who received RUX alone proceeded to neoadjuvant therapy with either RUX + PAC or PAC alone for 12 weeks; those who had received RUX + PAC continued treatment for 12 weeks. All patients subsequently received 4 cycles of doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide prior to surgery. Research tumor biopsies were performed at baseline (pre-run-in) and after run-in therapy. Tumors were evaluated for phosphorylated STAT3 (pSTAT3) by immunostaining, and a subset was also analyzed by RNA-seq. The primary endpoint was the percent of pSTAT3-positive pre-run-in tumors that became pSTAT3-negative. Secondary endpoints included pathologic complete response (pCR)., Results: Overall, 23 patients were enrolled, of whom 21 completed preoperative therapy. Two patients achieved pCR (8.7%). pSTAT3 and IL-6/JAK/STAT3 signaling decreased in post-run-in biopsies of RUX-treated samples, while sustained treatment with RUX + PAC upregulated IL-6/JAK/STAT3 signaling compared to RUX alone. Both treatments decreased GZMB + T cells implying immune suppression. RUX alone effectively inhibited JAK/STAT3 signaling but its combination with PAC led to incomplete inhibition. The immune suppressive effects of RUX alone and in combination may negate its growth inhibitory effects on cancer cells., Conclusion: In summary, the use of RUX in TN-IBC was associated with a decrease in pSTAT3 levels despite lack of clinical benefit. Cancer cell-specific-targeting of JAK2/STAT3 or combinations with immunotherapy may be required for further evaluation of JAK2/STAT3 signaling as a cancer therapeutic target., Trial Registration: www., Clinicaltrials: gov , NCT02876302. Registered 23 August 2016., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: BMI affects breast cancer risk and prognosis. In contrast to cytotoxic chemotherapy, CDK4/6 inhibitors are given at a fixed dose, irrespective of BMI or weight. This preplanned analysis of the global randomized PALLAS trial investigates the impact of BMI on the side-effect profile, treatment adherence, and efficacy of palbociclib., Methods: Patients were categorized at baseline according to WHO BMI categories. Neutropenia rates were assessed with univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Time to early discontinuation of palbociclib was analyzed with Fine and Gray competing risk models. Unstratified Cox models were used to investigate the association between BMI category and time to invasive disease-free survival (iDFS). 95% CIs were derived., Results: Of 5,698 patients included in this analysis, 68 (1.2%) were underweight, 2,082 (36.5%) normal weight, 1,818 (31.9%) overweight, and 1,730 (30.4%) obese at baseline. In the palbociclib arm, higher BMI was associated with a significant decrease in neutropenia (unadjusted odds ratio for 1-unit change, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.94; adjusted for age, race ethnicity, region, chemotherapy use, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group at baseline, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.95). This translated into a significant decrease in treatment discontinuation rate with higher BMI (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for 10-unit change, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.83). There was no significant improvement in iDFS with the addition of palbociclib to ET in any weight category (normal weight HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.12; overweight HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.49; and obese HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.30) in this analysis early in follow-up (31 months)., Conclusion: This preplanned analysis of the PALLAS trial demonstrates a significant impact of BMI on side effects, dose reductions, early treatment discontinuation, and relative dose intensity. Additional long-term follow-up will further evaluate whether BMI ultimately affects outcome.

Background: Migraine is a common and major cause of disability, poor quality of life, and high health care use. Access to evidence-based migraine care is limited and projected to worsen. Novel mobile health app-based tools may effectively deliver migraine patient education to support self-management, facilitate remote monitoring and treatment, and improve access to care. The risk that such an intervention may increase the care team workload is a potential implementation barrier., Objective: This study aims to describe a novel electronic health record-integrated mobile app-based Migraine Interactive Care Plan (MICP) and evaluate its feasibility, usability, and impact on care teams in a community neurology practice., Methods: Consecutive enrollees between September 1, 2020, and February 16, 2022, were assessed in a single-arm observational study of usability, defined by 74.3% (127/171) completing ≥1 assigned task. Task response rates, rate and type of care team escalations, and patient-reported outcomes were summarized. Patients were prospectively recruited and randomly assigned to routine care with or without the MICP from September 1, 2020, to September 1, 2021. Feasibility was defined by equal to or fewer downstream face-to-face visits, telephone contacts, and electronic messages in the MICP cohort. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare continuous variables, and the chi-square test was used for categorical variables for those with at least 3 months of follow-up., Results: A total of 171 patients were enrolled, and of these, 127 (74.3%) patients completed ≥1 MICP-assigned task. Mean escalations per patient per month was 0.9 (SD 0.37; range 0-1.7). Patient-confirmed understanding of the educational materials ranged from 26.6% (45/169) to 56.2% (95/169). Initial mean headache days per week was 4.54 (SD 2.06) days and declined to 2.86 (SD 1.87) days at week 26. The percentage of patients reporting favorable satisfaction increased from a baseline of 35% (20/57) to 83% (15/18; response rate of 42/136, 30.9% to 28/68, 41%) over the first 6 months. A total of 121 patients with MICP were compared with 62 patients in the control group. No differences were observed in the rate of telephone contacts or electronic messages. Fewer face-to-face visits were observed in the MICP cohort (13/121, 10.7%) compared with controls (26/62, 42%; P<.001)., Conclusions: We describe the successful implementation of an electronic health record-integrated mobile app-based care plan for migraine in a community neurology practice. We observed fewer downstream face-to-face visits without increasing telephone calls, medication refills, or electronic messages. Our findings suggest that the MICP has the potential to improve patient access without increasing care team workload and the need for patient input from diverse populations to improve and sustain patient engagement. Additional studies are needed to assess its impact in primary care., (©Nathan P Young, Jennifer L Ridgeway, Tufia C Haddad, Sarah B Harper, Lindsey M Philpot, Laura A Christopherson, Samantha M McColley, Sarah A Phillips, Julie K Brown, Kelly S Zimmerman, Jon O Ebbert. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 05.10.2023.)

Breast cancer survivors may experience significant after effects from diagnoses of breast cancer and cancer directed therapies. This review synthesizes the evidence about optimal management of the sequelae of a diagnosis of breast cancer. It describes the side effects of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy and evidence based strategies for management of such effects, with particular attention to effects of therapies with curative intent. It includes strategies to promote health and wellness among breast cancer survivors, along with data to support the use of integrative oncology strategies. In addition, this review examines models of survivorship care and ways in which digital tools may facilitate communication between clinicians and patients. The strategies outlined in this review are paramount to supporting breast cancer survivors' quality of life., Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood the BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: none., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Traditional trial designs have well-recognized inefficiencies and logistical barriers to participation. Decentralized trials and digital health solutions have been suggested as potential solutions and have certainly risen to the challenge during the pandemic. Clinical trial designs are now increasingly data driven. The use of distributed clinical data networks and digitization has helped to fundamentally upgrade existing research systems. A trial design may vary anywhere from fully decentralized to hybrid to traditional on-site. Various decentralization components are available for stakeholders to increase the reach and pace of their trials, such as electronic informed consent, remote interviews, administration, outcome assessment, monitoring, and laboratory and imaging modalities. Furthermore, digital health technologies can be included to enrich study conduct. However, careful consideration is warranted, including assessing verification and validity through usability studies and having various contingencies in place through dedicated risk assessment. Selecting the right combination depends not just on the ability to handle patient care and the medical know-how but also on the availability of appropriate technologic infrastructure, skills, and human resources. Throughout this process, quality of evidence generation and physician-patient relation must not be undermined. Here we also address some knowledge gaps, cost considerations, and potential impact of decentralization and digitization on inclusivity, recruitment, engagement, and retention. Last, we mention some future directions that may help drive the necessary change in the right direction., (Copyright © 2023 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many cancer practices rapidly adopted telehealth services. However, there is a paucity of data regarding ongoing telehealth visit utilization beyond this initial response. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in variables associated with telehealth visit utilization over time., Methods: This is a cross-sectional, year-over-year, retrospective analysis of telehealth visits conducted across a multisite, multiregional cancer practice in the United States. Multivariable models examined the association of patient- and provider-level variables with telehealth utilization across outpatient visits conducted over three 8-week periods from July to August in 2019 (n = 32,537), 2020 (n = 33,399), and 2021 (n = 35,820)., Results: The rate of telehealth utilization increased from <0.01% (2019) to 11% (2020) to 14% (2021). The most significant patient-level factors associated with increased telehealth utilization included nonrural residence and age ≤65 years. Among patients residing in rural settings, video visit utilization rates were significantly lower and phone visit utilization rates were significantly higher compared with patients from nonrural residences. Regarding provider-level factors, widening differences in telehealth utilization were observed at tertiary versus community-based practice settings. Increased telehealth utilization was not associated with duplicative care as per-patient and per-physician visit volumes in 2021 remained consistent with prepandemic levels., Conclusion: We observed continuous expansion in telehealth visit utilization from 2020 to 2021. Our experiences suggest that telehealth can be integrated into cancer practices without evidence of duplicative care. Future work should examine sustainable reimbursement structures and policies to ensure accessibility of telehealth as a means to facilitate equitable, patient-centered cancer care.

Background: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) is an option for continuously managing the care of patients in the comfort of their homes or locations outside hospitals and clinics. Patient engagement with RPM programs is essential for achieving successful outcomes and high quality of care. When relying on technology to facilitate monitoring and shifting disease management to the home environment, it is important to understand the patients' experiences to enable quality improvement., Objective: This study aimed to describe patients' experiences and overall satisfaction with an RPM program for acute and chronic conditions in a multisite, multiregional health care system., Methods: Between January 1, 2021, and August 31, 2022, a patient experience survey was delivered via email to all patients enrolled in the RPM program. The survey encompassed 19 questions across 4 categories regarding comfort, equipment, communication, and overall experience, as well as 2 open-ended questions. Descriptive analysis of the survey response data was performed using frequency distribution and percentages., Results: Surveys were sent to 8535 patients. The survey response rate was 37.16% (3172/8535) and the completion rate was 95.23% (3172/3331). Survey results indicated that 88.97% (2783/3128) of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the program helped them feel comfortable managing their health from home. Furthermore, 93.58% (2873/3070) were satisfied with the RPM program and ready to graduate when meeting the program goals. In addition, patient confidence in this model of care was confirmed by 92.76% (2846/3068) of the participants who would recommend RPM to people with similar conditions. There were no differences in ease of technology use according to age. Those with high school or less education were more likely to agree that the equipment and educational materials helped them feel more informed about their care plans than those with higher education levels., Conclusions: This multisite, multiregional RPM program has become a reliable health care delivery model for the management of acute and chronic conditions outside hospitals and clinics. Program participants reported an excellent overall experience and a high level of satisfaction in managing their health from the comfort of their home environment., (©Tufia C Haddad, Karla C Maita, Jonathan W Inselman, Francisco R Avila, Ricardo A Torres-Guzman, Jordan D Coffey, Laura A Christopherson, Angela M Leuenberger, Sarah J Bell, Dominick F Pahl, John P Garcia, Lukas Manka, Antonio J Forte, Michael J Maniaci. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 27.07.2023.)

Purpose: Triple-negative invasive lobular carcinoma (TN-ILC) of breast cancer is a rare disease and the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors are not well-defined., Methods: Women with stage I-III TN-ILC or triple-negative invasive ductal carcinoma (TN-IDC) of the breast undergoing mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery between 2010 and 2018 in the National Cancer Database were included. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression were used to compare overall survival (OS) and evaluate prognostic factors. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to analyze the factors associated with pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy., Results: The median age at diagnosis for women with TN-ILC was 67 years compared to 58 years in TN-IDC (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the OS between TN-ILC and TN-IDC in multivariate analysis (HR 0.96, p = 0.44). Black race and higher TNM stage were associated with worse OS, whereas receipt of chemotherapy or radiation was associated with better OS in TN-ILC. Among women with TN-ILC receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the 5-year OS was 77.3% in women with a complete pathological response (pCR) compared to 39.8% in women without any response. The odds of achieving pCR following neoadjuvant chemotherapy were significantly lower in women with TN-ILC compared to TN-IDC (OR 0.53, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Women with TN-ILC are older at diagnosis but have similar OS compared to TN-IDC after adjusting for tumor and demographic characteristics. Administration of chemotherapy was associated with improved OS in TN-ILC, but women with TN-ILC were less likely to achieve complete response to neoadjuvant therapy compared to TN-IDC., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Importance: Aurora A kinase (AURKA) activation, related in part to AURKA amplification and variants, is associated with downregulation of estrogen receptor (ER) α expression, endocrine resistance, and implicated in cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK 4/6i) resistance. Alisertib, a selective AURKA inhibitor, upregulates ERα and restores endocrine sensitivity in preclinical metastatic breast cancer (MBC) models. The safety and preliminary efficacy of alisertib was demonstrated in early-phase trials; however, its activity in CDK 4/6i-resistant MBC is unknown., Objective: To assess the effect of adding fulvestrant to alisertib on objective tumor response rates (ORRs) in endocrine-resistant MBC., Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2 randomized clinical trial was conducted through the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, which enrolled participants from July 2017 to November 2019. Postmenopausal women with endocrine-resistant, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative MBC who were previously treated with fulvestrant were eligible. Stratification factors included prior treatment with CDK 4/6i, baseline metastatic tumor ERα level measurement (<10%, ≥10%), and primary or secondary endocrine resistance. Among 114 preregistered patients, 96 (84.2%) registered and 91 (79.8%) were evaluable for the primary end point. Data analysis began after January 10, 2022., Interventions: Alisertib, 50 mg, oral, daily on days 1 to 3, 8 to 10, and 15 to 17 of a 28-day cycle (arm 1) or alisertib same dose/schedule with standard-dose fulvestrant (arm 2)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Improvement in ORR in arm 2 of at least 20% greater than arm 1 when the expected ORR for arm 1 was 20%., Results: All 91 evaluable patients (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [11.3] years; 1 American Indian/Alaskan Native [1.1%], 2 Asian [2.2%], 6 Black/African American [6.6%], 5 Hispanic [5.5%], and 79 [86.8%] White individuals; arm 1, 46 [50.5%]; arm 2, 45 [49.5%]) had received prior treatment with CDK 4/6i. The ORR was 19.6%; (90% CI, 10.6%-31.7%) for arm 1 and 20.0% (90% CI, 10.9%-32.3%) for arm 2. In arm 1, the 24-week clinical benefit rate and median progression-free survival time were 41.3% (90% CI, 29.0%-54.5%) and 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.9-10.0), respectively, and in arm 2 they were 28.9% (90% CI, 18.0%-42.0%) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.9-7.8), respectively. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events attributed to alisertib were neutropenia (41.8%) and anemia (13.2%). Reasons for discontinuing treatment were disease progression (arm 1, 38 [82.6%]; arm 2, 31 [68.9%]) and toxic effects or refusal (arm 1, 5 [10.9%]; arm 2, 12 [26.7%])., Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that adding fulvestrant to treatment with alisertib did not increase ORR or PFS; however, promising clinical activity was observed with alisertib monotherapy among patients with endocrine-resistant and CDK 4/6i-resistant MBC. The overall safety profile was tolerable., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02860000.

Importance: Anthracyclines increase the risk for congestive heart failure (CHF); however, long-term cumulative incidence and risk factors for CHF after anthracycline therapy are not well defined in population-based studies., Objective: To compare the long-term cumulative incidence of CHF in patients with breast cancer or lymphoma treated with anthracycline therapy compared with healthy controls from the same community., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective population-based case-control study included data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Participants included residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, diagnosed with breast cancer or lymphoma from January 1985 through December 2010 matched for age, sex, and comorbidities with healthy controls, with a final ratio of 1 case to 1.5 controls. Statistical analysis was performed between July 2017 and February 2022., Exposures: Cancer treatment and CHF risk factors., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was new-onset CHF, as defined by the modified Framingham criteria. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) to compare the risk of CHF in participants with cancer vs controls, adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, obesity, and smoking history., Results: A total of 2196 individuals were included, with 812 patients with cancer and 1384 participants without cancer. The mean (SD) age was 52.62 (14.56) years and 1704 participants (78%) were female. Median (IQR) follow-up was 8.6 (5.2-13.4) years in the case group vs 12.5 (8.7-17.5) years in the control group. Overall, patients with cancer had higher risk of CHF compared with the control cohort even after adjusting for age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and smoking status (HR, 2.86 [95% CI, 1.90-4.32]; P < .001). After adjusting for the same variables, CHF risk was greater for patients with cancer receiving anthracycline (HR, 3.25 [95% CI, 2.11-5.00]; P < .001) and was attenuated and lost statistical significance for patients with cancer not receiving anthracyclines (HR, 1.78 [95% CI, 0.83-3.81]; P = .14). Higher cumulative incidence for patients treated with anthracyclines vs comparator cohort was observed at 1 year (1.81% vs 0.09%), 5 years (2.91% vs 0.79%), 10 years (5.36% vs 1.74%), 15 years (7.42% vs 3.18%), and 20 years (10.75% vs 4.98%) (P < .001). There were no significant differences in risk of CHF for patients receiving anthracycline at a dose of less than 180 mg/m2 compared with those at a dose of 180 to 250 mg/m2 (HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.19-1.51]) or at a dose of more than 250 mg/m2 (HR, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.52-2.91]). At diagnosis, age was an independent risk factor associated with CHF (HR per 10 years, 2.77 [95% CI, 1.99-3.86]; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective population-based case-control study, anthracyclines were associated with an increased risk of CHF early during follow-up, and the increased risk persisted over time. The cumulative incidence of CHF in patients with breast cancer or lymphoma treated with anthracyclines at 15 years was more than 2-fold that of the control group.

Introduction: Numerous factors are intersecting in healthcare resulting in an increased focus on new tools and methods for managing care in patients' homes. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) is an option to provide care at home and maintain a connection between patients and providers to address ongoing medical issues., Methods: Mayo Clinic developed a nurse-led RPM program for disease and post-procedural management to improve patient experience, clinical outcomes, and reduce health care utilization by more directly engaging patients in their health care. Enrolled patients are sent a technology package that includes a digital tablet and peripheral devices for the collection of symptoms and vital signs. The data are transmitted from to a hub integrated within the electronic health record. Care team members coordinate patient needs, respond to vital sign alerts, and utilize the data to inform and provide individualized patient assessment, patient education, medication management, goal setting, and clinical care planning., Results: Since its inception, the RPM program has supported nearly 22,000 patients across 17 programs. Patients who engaged in the COVID-19 RPM program experienced a significantly lower rate of 30-day, all-cause hospitalization (13.7% vs. 18.0%, P  = 0.01), prolonged hospitalization >7 days (3.5% vs. 6.7%, P  = 0.001), intensive care unit (ICU) admission (2.3% vs. 4.2%, P  = 0.01), and mortality (0.5% vs. 1.7%, P  = 0.01) when compared with those enrolled and unengaged with the technology. Patients with chronic conditions who were monitored with RPM upon hospital discharge were significantly less likely to experience 30-day readmissions (18.2% vs. 23.7%, P  = 0.03) compared with those unmonitored. Ninety-five percent of patients strongly agreed or agreed they were likely to recommend RPM to a friend or family member., Conclusions: The Mayo Clinic RPM program has generated positive clinical outcomes and is satisfying for patients. As technology advances, there are greater opportunities to enhance this clinical care model and it should be extended and expanded to support patients across a broader spectrum of needs. This report can serve as a framework for health care organizations to implement and enhance their RPM programs in addition to identifying areas for further evolution and exploration in developing RPM programs of the future., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2022 Coffey, Christopherson, Williams, Gathje, Bell, Pahl, Manka, Blegen, Maniaci, Ommen and Haddad.)

Objective: To evaluate care utilization, cost, and mortality among high-risk patients enrolled in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remote patient monitoring (RPM) program., Methods: This retrospective analysis included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at risk for severe disease who enrolled in the RPM program between March 2020 and October 2021. The program included in-home technology for symptom and physiologic data monitoring with centralized care management. Propensity score matching established matched cohorts of RPM-engaged (defined as ≥1 RPM technology interactions) and non-engaged patients using a logistic regression model of 59 baseline characteristics. Billing codes and the electronic death certificate system were used for data abstraction from the electronic health record and reporting of care utilization and mortality endpoints., Results: Among 5796 RPM-enrolled patients, 80.0% engaged with the technology. Following matching, 1128 pairs of RPM-engaged and non-engaged patients comprised the analysis cohorts. Mean patient age was 63.3 years, 50.9% of patients were female, and 81.9% were non-Hispanic White. Patients who were RPM-engaged experienced significantly lower rates of 30-day, all-cause hospitalization (13.7% vs 18.0%, P=.01), prolonged hospitalization (3.5% vs 6.7%, P=.001), intensive care unit admission (2.3% vs 4.2%, P=.01), and mortality (0.5% vs 1.7%; odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.78; P=.01), as well as cost of care ($2306.33 USD vs $3565.97 USD, P=0.04), than those enrolled in RPM but non-engaged., Conclusion: High-risk COVID-19 patients enrolled and engaged in an RPM program experienced lower rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mortality, and cost than those enrolled and non-engaged. These findings translate to improved hospital bed access and patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6is), in combination with endocrine therapy (ET), are standard either in the first (1L) or second-line (2L) setting for the treatment of hormone receptor (HR) positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, the optimal sequencing of treatments after progression on CDK4/6i remains unknown. We performed a single-institution analysis to identify treatments and outcomes after progression on a CDK4/6i., Methods: We identified patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative MBC prescribed a CDK4/6i in the 1L or 2L settings from December 2014 to February 2018 at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Outcomes were collected through September 30, 2020., Results: Palbociclib, in combination with letrozole or fulvestrant, was the most prescribed CDK4/6i. The 1L and 2L CDK4/6i cohorts exhibited comparable overall survival (OS), but progression-free survival (PFS) was longer in the 1L than the 2L cohort [28.2 months (95% CI 19.6-34.9) vs 19.8 months (95% CI 15.7-29.6)]. The most common post-CDK4/6i treatments were PI3K/mTOR inhibitors (PI3K/mTORi), single-agent ET, or chemotherapy. PFS in the 1L CDK4/6i cohort following PI3K/mTORi was 8.5 months (95% CI 5.5 months-NE), single-agent ET was 6.0 months (95% CI 3.3-14.0 months), and chemotherapy PFS was 5.4 months (95% CI 3.3 months-NE)., Conclusions: Following progression on a CDK 4/6i, mPFS was short, with similar PFS times comparing chemotherapy and ET, with slightly longer PFS for targeted strategies (PI3K/mTOR). These results highlight a major need to better understand the mechanisms of CDK4/6i resistance and identify new therapeutic strategies for these patients., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Importance: There was a shift in patient volume from in-person to video telemedicine visits during the COVID-19 pandemic., Objective: To determine the concordance of provisional diagnoses established at a video telemedicine visit with diagnoses established at an in-person visit for patients presenting with a new clinical problem., Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a diagnostic study of patients who underwent a video telemedicine consultation followed by an in-person outpatient visit for the same clinical problem in the same specialty within a 90-day window. The provisional diagnosis made during the video telemedicine visit was compared with the reference standard diagnosis by 2 blinded, independent medical reviewers. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to determine factors significantly related to diagnostic concordance. The study was conducted at a large academic integrated multispecialty health care institution (Mayo Clinic locations in Rochester, Minnesota; Scottsdale and Phoenix, Arizona; and Jacksonville, Florida; and Mayo Clinic Health System locations in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota) between March 24 and June 24, 2020. Participants included Mayo Clinic patients residing in the US without age restriction. Data analysis was performed from December 2020 to June 2021., Exposures: New clinical problem assessed via video telemedicine visit to home using Zoom Care Anyplace integrated into Epic., Main Outcomes and Measures: Concordance of provisional diagnoses established over video telemedicine visits compared against a reference standard diagnosis., Results: There were 2393 participants in the analysis. The median (IQR) age of patients was 53 (37-64) years; 1381 (57.7%) identified as female, and 1012 (42.3%) identified as male. Overall, the provisional diagnosis established over video telemedicine visit was concordant with the in-person reference standard diagnosis in 2080 of 2393 cases (86.9%; 95% CI, 85.6%-88.3%). Diagnostic concordance by International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision chapter ranged from 64.7% (95% CI, 42.0%-87.4%) for diseases of the ear and mastoid process to 96.8% (95% CI, 94.7%-98.8%) for neoplasms. Diagnostic concordance by medical specialty ranged from 77.3% (95% CI, 64.9%-89.7%) for otorhinolaryngology to 96.0% (92.1%-99.8%) for psychiatry. Specialty care was found to be significantly more likely than primary care to result in video telemedicine diagnoses concordant with a subsequent in-person visit (odds ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.24-2.30; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: This diagnostic study of video telemedicine visits yielded a high degree of diagnostic concordance compared with in-person visits for most new clinical concerns. Some specific clinical circumstances over video telemedicine were associated with a lower diagnostic concordance, and these patients may benefit from timely in-person follow-up.

Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are associated with unique immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Immune-related thrombocytopenia (irTCP) is an understudied and poorly understood toxicity; little data are available regarding either risk of irTCP or the effect of irTCP on clinical outcomes of patients treated with ICI., Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of sequential cancer patients treated with ICI between 2011 and 2017 at our institution. All patients who received ICI alone or in combination with other systemic therapy in any line of treatment were included; those with thrombocytopenia ≥ grade 3 at baseline were excluded. We calculated the incidence of ≥ grade 3 irTCP and overall survival (OS). Patient factors associated with irTCP were assessed., Results: We identified 1,038 patients that met eligibility criteria. Overall, 89 (8.6%) patients developed grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia; eighteen were attributed to ICI (1.73% overall). Patients who developed grade ≥ 3 irTCP had worse overall survival compared to those whose thrombocytopenia was unrelated to ICI (4.17 vs. 10.8 month; HR. 1.94, 95% CI 1.13, 3.33; log-rank p = 0.0164). Patients with grade ≥ 3 irTCP also had worse survival compared to those without thrombocytopenia (4.17 vs. 13.31 months; HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.36, 3.62; log-rank p = 0.001). The incidence of irTCP appeared lowest among those treated with PD-1/L1 monotherapy (p = 0.059) and was not associated with cancer type, smoking status, age, gender, race, or line of therapy., Conclusions: Unlike other irAEs, we found that irTCP was associated with worse overall survival. The incidence of irTCP appeared lowest among those treated with PD-1/L1 monotherapy., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Platinum derivatives are commonly used for the treatment of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, resistance often develops, leading to treatment failure. This expansion cohort (part C2) of the previously reported phase 1b trial (NCT02157792) is based on the recommended phase 2 dose of the combination of the ataxia-telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) inhibitor berzosertib and cisplatin observed in patients with advanced solid tumors, including TNBC. Forty-seven patients aged ≥18 years with advanced TNBC received cisplatin (75 mg/m 2 ; day 1) and berzosertib (140 mg/m 2 ; days 2 and 9), in 21-day cycles. Berzosertib was well tolerated, with a similar toxicity profile to that reported previously for this combination. The overall response rate (90% confidence interval) was 23.4% (13.7, 35.8). No relevant associations were observed between response and gene alterations. Further studies combining ATR inhibitors with platinum compounds may be warranted in highly selected patient populations., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The promise of highly personalized oncology care using artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has been forecasted since the emergence of the field. Cumulative advances across the science are bringing this promise to realization, including refinement of machine learning- and deep learning algorithms; expansion in the depth and variety of databases, including multiomics; and the decreased cost of massively parallelized computational power. Examples of successful clinical applications of AI can be found throughout the cancer continuum and in multidisciplinary practice, with computer vision-assisted image analysis in particular having several U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved uses. Techniques with emerging clinical utility include whole blood multicancer detection from deep sequencing, virtual biopsies, natural language processing to infer health trajectories from medical notes, and advanced clinical decision support systems that combine genomics and clinomics. Substantial issues have delayed broad adoption, with data transparency and interpretability suffering from AI's "black box" mechanism, and intrinsic bias against underrepresented persons limiting the reproducibility of AI models and perpetuating health care disparities. Midfuture projections of AI maturation involve increasing a model's complexity by using multimodal data elements to better approximate an organic system. Far-future positing includes living databases that accumulate all aspects of a person's health into discrete data elements; this will fuel highly convoluted modeling that can tailor treatment selection, dose determination, surveillance modality and schedule, and more. The field of AI has had a historical dichotomy between its proponents and detractors. The successful development of recent applications, and continued investment in prospective validation that defines their impact on multilevel outcomes, has established a momentum of accelerated progress.

Purpose: The PALLAS study investigated whether the addition of palbociclib, an oral CDK4/6 inhibitor, to adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) improves invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in early hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer. In this analysis, we evaluated palbociclib exposure and discontinuation in PALLAS., Methods: Patients with stage II-III HR+, HER2- disease were randomly assigned to 2 years of palbociclib with adjuvant ET versus ET alone. The primary objective was to compare iDFS between arms. Continuous monitoring of toxicity, dose modifications, and early discontinuation was performed. Association of baseline covariates with time to palbociclib reduction and discontinuation was analyzed with multivariable competing risk models. Landmark and inverse probability weighted per-protocol analyses were performed to assess the impact of drug persistence and exposure on iDFS., Results: Of the 5,743 patient analysis population (2,840 initiating palbociclib), 1,199 (42.2%) stopped palbociclib before 2 years, the majority (772, 27.2%) for adverse effects, most commonly neutropenia and fatigue. Discontinuation of ET did not differ between arms. Discontinuations for non-protocol-defined reasons were greater in the first 3 months of palbociclib, and in the first calendar year of accrual, and declined over time. No significant relationship was seen between longer palbociclib duration or ≥ 70% exposure intensity and improved iDFS. In the weighted per-protocol analysis, no improvement in iDFS was observed in patients receiving palbociclib versus not (hazard ratio 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.11)., Conclusion: Despite observed rates of discontinuation in PALLAS, analyses suggest that the lack of significant iDFS difference between arms was not directly related to inadequate palbociclib exposure. However, the discontinuation rate illustrates the challenge of introducing novel adjuvant treatments, and the need for interventions to improve persistence with oral cancer therapies., Competing Interests: Erica L. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Christian FeslResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Dominik HlauschekResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Laura Garcia-EstevezConsulting or Advisory Role: Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Palex, Seattle GeneticsResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech (Inst) Nicholas ZdenkowskiHonoraria: Roche, Pfizer, EisaiConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, AstraZeneca, EisaiResearch Funding: Roche (Inst), Pfizer (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Amgen, Novartis Kathy D. MillerThis author is the Senior Deputy Editor of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Genentech/Roche, Athenex, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/CelgeneResearch Funding: Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Astex Pharmaceuticals (Inst), British Biotech (Inst), CytomX Therapeutics (Inst), Alphamab (Inst) Marija BalicConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, SamsungSpeakers' Bureau: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle GeneticsResearch Funding: Lilly (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: MSD Ingrid A. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, Macrogenics, Pfizer, AbbVie, Seattle Genetics, Puma Biotechnology, Cyclacel, Blueprint Medicines, SanofiResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Genentech (Inst) David CameronConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Research Triangle Institute RTI Health Solutions (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Prima BioMed (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Zymeworks (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Oncolytics (Inst), Roche (Inst), Roche (Inst), Samsung Bioepis (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Synthon (Inst), Clarity Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Bexon/Zymeworks (Inst), Sanofi (Inst)Research Funding: Roche (Inst), Novartis (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst) Eric P. 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: Genentech (Inst)Other Relationship: InfiniteMD José Juan Ponce LorenzoHonoraria: Seattle Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics, Novartis, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Roche Tufia C. HaddadResearch Funding: Takeda (Inst) Hiroji IwataHonoraria: Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly Japan, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Taiho PharmaceuticalConsulting or Advisory Role: Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lilly Japan, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, NovartisResearch Funding: MSD (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Kyowa Hakko Kirin (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Chugai Pharma (Inst), Nihonkayaku (Inst), Lilly Japan (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Sanofi (Inst) Matthew GoetzConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, bioTheranostics, Genomic Health, Novartis, Eisai, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Context Therapeutics, Pfizer, BiovicaResearch Funding: Lilly (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Sermonix Pharmaceuticals (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Methods and Materials for Assessing Chemotherapy Responsiveness and Treating Cancer, Methods and Materials for Using Butyrylcholinesterases to Treat Cancer, Development of Human Tumor Xenografts from Women with Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Lilly Fatima CardosoConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Teva, Astellas Pharma, Merus, Celgene, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Macrogenics, Amgen, GE Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Seattle Genetics, Samsung Bioepis, Medscape, Prime OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca Tiffany A. TrainaConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Merck, Puma Biotechnology, Athenex, Daiichi Sankyo, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Foundation Medicine, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Blueprint Medicines, Ellipses Pharma, Fuji Pharma, ITeos Therapeutics, AgendiaResearch Funding: Eisai (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Innocrin Pharma (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Carrick Pharm (Inst), Ayala Pharmaceuticals (Inst) Urs BreitensteinConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca (Inst), Elie Lilly (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pierre Fabre (Inst), Roche (Inst) Kerstin AckerlResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Otto Metzger FilhoHonoraria: Grupo Oncoclinicas, RocheResearch Funding: Susan G. Komen for the Cure (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Cascadian Therapeutics (Inst), AbbVie (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Grupo Oncoclinicas Karin ZehetnerResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Kadine SolomonEmployment: Alliance Foundation TrialsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer, Merck, Moderna Therapeutics Sarra El-AbedEmployment: Astellas Pharma (I), argenx (I)Research Funding: Novartis (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Pfizer (Inst) Kathy Puyana TheallEmployment: Pfizer (I)Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer (I)Honoraria: PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer Dongrui Ray LuEmployment: PfizerStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer Amylou DueckPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalties from licensing fees for a patient symptom questionnaire (MPN-SAF) Michael GnantEmployment: Sandoz (I)Honoraria: Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: Daiichi-Sankyo, Veracyte, Tolmar, LifeBrain, Lilly Angela DeMicheleResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Calithera Biosciences (Inst), Novartis (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: To assess the feasibility of an app-based, electronic health record (EHR)-integrated, interactive care plan (ICP) for breast cancer (BC) survivors., Methods: A single-arm pilot study was conducted with female BC survivors. ICP tasks included quarterly quality of life (QOL) questionnaire; monthly assessments of fatigue, insomnia, sexual dysfunction, hot flashes, and recurrence symptoms; and daily activity reminders. Embedded decision trees escalated recurrence symptoms to providers. On-demand education was available for self-management of treatment-related toxicities. The primary objective was to assess patients' engagement with ICP tasks against feasibility thresholds of 75% completion rate. Secondary objectives were evaluation of the system's functionality to track and escalate symptoms appropriately, and care team impact measured by volume of escalation messages generated. We report preliminary results 6 months after the last patient enrolled., Results: Twenty-three patients enrolled August to November 2020. Mean age was 50.1 years. All patients engaged with at least one ICP task. The monthly average task completion rates were 62% for the QOL questionnaire, 59% for symptom assessments, and 37% for activity reminders. Task completion rate decreased over time. Eleven of 253 symptoms and QOL questionnaires (4.3%) generated messages for care escalation., Conclusion: Implementation of an app-based, EHR-integrated ICP in BC survivors was feasible and created minimal provider burden; however, patient engagement was below the feasibility threshold suggesting that changes may enhance broad implementation and adoption., Implications for Cancer Survivors: An ICP may facilitate remote monitoring, symptom control, and recurrence surveillance for cancer survivors as strategies to enhance patient engagement are applied., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Palbociclib is a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor approved for advanced breast cancer. In the adjuvant setting, the potential value of adding palbociclib to endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer has not been confirmed., Patients and Methods: In the prospective, randomized, phase III PALLAS trial, patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive 2 years of palbociclib (125 mg orally once daily, days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) with adjuvant endocrine therapy or adjuvant endocrine therapy alone (for at least 5 years). The primary end point of the study was invasive disease-free survival (iDFS); secondary end points were invasive breast cancer-free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, locoregional cancer-free survival, and overall survival., Results: Among 5,796 patients enrolled at 406 centers in 21 countries worldwide over 3 years, 5,761 were included in the intention-to-treat population. At the final protocol-defined analysis, at a median follow-up of 31 months, iDFS events occurred in 253 of 2,884 (8.8%) patients who received palbociclib plus endocrine therapy and in 263 of 2,877 (9.1%) patients who received endocrine therapy alone, with similar results between the two treatment groups (iDFS at 4 years: 84.2% v 84.5%; hazard ratio, 0.96; CI, 0.81 to 1.14; P = .65). No significant differences were observed for secondary time-to-event end points, and subgroup analyses did not show any differences by subgroup. There were no new safety signals for palbociclib in this trial., Conclusion: At this final analysis of the PALLAS trial, the addition of adjuvant palbociclib to standard endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes over endocrine therapy alone in patients with early hormone receptor-positive breast cancer., Competing Interests: Michael GnantEmployment: Sandoz (I)Honoraria: Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: Daiichi Sankyo, Veracyte, Tolmar¸ LifeBrain, Lilly Amylou C. DueckPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalties from licensing fees for a patient symptom questionnaire (MPN-SAF) Miguel MartinHonoraria: Roche/Genentech, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre FabreConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Taiho Pharmaceutical, PharmaMarSpeakers' Bureau: Lilly/ImClone, Roche/Genentech, Pierre FabreResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Roche (Inst)¸ Puma Biotechnology (Inst)Other Relationship: Roche, Novartis Hal J. BursteinThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript. Richard GreilHonoraria: Celgene, Roche, Merck, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD¸ Sandoz, AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Daiichi SankyoConsulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Novartis, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, MSD, Merck, Gilead Sciences, Daiichi SankyoResearch Funding: Celgene (Inst), Merck (Inst), Takeda (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), MSD (Inst), Sandoz (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), Roche (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo Antonio C. WolffThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: Ionis PharmaceuticalsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: A.C.W. has been named as an inventor on one or more issued patents or pending patent applications related to methylation in breast cancer, has assigned his rights to JHU, and participates in a royalty sharing agreement with JHUOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/357301/summary Arlene ChanHonoraria: Novartis, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: LillyResearch Funding: Eisai Eric P. WinerHonoraria: Genomic Health, Genentech/RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Leap Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Jounce Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Carrick Therapeutics, Lilly, G1 Therapeutics, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Zymeworks, AthenexResearch Funding: Genentech (Inst)Other Relationship: InfiniteMD Georg PfeilerHonoraria: Amgen, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer¸ Lilly, AstraZeneca/Merck, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, UCB, Accord HealthcareConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer¸ Amgen¸ Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca/Merck, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, UCB, Roche/GenentechSpeakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, AstraZeneca/Merck, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Accord Healthcare, Amgen, Accord HealthcareResearch Funding: Pfizer, Roche/GenentechTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Lilly, Roche/Genentech, Lilly, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo Kathy MillerThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Genentech/Roche, Athenex, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/CelgeneResearch Funding: Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Astex Pharmaceuticals (Inst), British Biotech (Inst), CytomX Therapeutics (Inst), Alphamab (Inst) Marco ColleoniResearch Funding: Roche (Inst) Gabor RubovskyConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Gilead SciencesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen Judith M. BlissResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline/Novartis (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Janssen-Cilag (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer Ingrid A. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, MacroGenics, Pfizer, AbbVie, Seattle Genetics, Puma Biotechnology, Cyclacel, Blueprint Medicines, SanofiResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Genentech (Inst) Christian SingerHonoraria: Novartis, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbHConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Sanofi/Aventis, NovartisSpeakers' Bureau: Novartis, AstraZeneca/MedImmuneResearch Funding: Novartis, Sanofi, Myriad Genetics, Roche, AstraZeneca/MedImmuneTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Novartis Zbigniew NoweckiTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech Olwen HahnLeadership: Via OncologyStock and Other Ownership Interests: Teleflex MedicalHonoraria: Cardinal Health (I)Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, hmpglobal.comTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Cardinal Health (I) Jacqui ThomsonHonoraria: MSD Oncology, Roche/Genentech Norman WolmarkOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/159597 Hope S. RugoHonoraria: Puma Biotechnology, MylanConsulting or Advisory Role: SamsungResearch Funding: MacroGenics (Inst), OBI Pharma (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Merck (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Odonate Therapeutics (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Sermonix Pharmaceuticals (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Novartis, Mylan, AstraZeneca Spain, MerckOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/summary Guenther G. StegerHonoraria: Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Teva, Pfizer, Lilly, NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Teva Blanca Hernando Fernández de AránguizHonoraria: GlaxoSmithKline, PharmaMar, Clovis OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, MSD Oncology, Roche Tufia C. HaddadResearch Funding: Takeda (Inst) Meritxell Bellet EzquerraConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Lilly, NovartisSpeakers' Bureau: Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis Hannes FohlerEmployment: Takeda (I)Research Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Otto MetzgerHonoraria: Grupo Oncoclinicas, RocheResearch Funding: Susan G. Komen for the Cure (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Cascadian Therapeutics (Inst), AbbVie (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Grupo Oncoclinicas Anita Jallitsch-HalperResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Kadine SolomonEmployment: Alliance Foundation TrialsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer, Merck, Moderna Therapeutics Céline SchurmansResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Servier (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Sanofi (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: My organization receives royalties from Agendia Kathy P. TheallEmployment: PfizerStock and Other Ownership Interests: PfizerHonoraria: PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer Dongrui R. LuEmployment: PfizerStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer Kathleen TennerStock and Other Ownership Interests: Merck Christian FeslResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Angela DeMicheleResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Calithera Biosciences (Inst), Novartis (Inst) Erica L. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Rationale and Objectives: There are limited data on pretreatment imaging features that can predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). To extract volumetric pretreatment MRI radiomics features and assess corresponding associations with breast cancer molecular subtypes, pathological complete response (pCR), and residual cancer burden (RCB) in patients treated with NAC., Materials and Methods: In this IRB-approved study, clinical and pretreatment MRI data from patients with biopsy-proven breast cancer who received NAC between September 2009 and July 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Tumors were manually identified and semi-automatically segmented on first postcontrast images. Morphological and three-dimensional textural features were computed, including unfiltered and filtered image data, with spatial scaling factors (SSF) of 2, 4, and 6 mm. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were used for statistical analysis., Results: Two hundred and fifty nine patients with unilateral breast cancer, including 73 (28.2%) HER2+, 112 (43.2%) luminal, and 74 (28.6%) triple negative breast cancers (TNBC), were included. There was a significant difference in the median volume (p = 0.008), median longest axial tumor diameter (p = 0.009), and median longest volumetric diameter (p = 0.01) among tumor subtypes. There was also a significant difference in minimum signal intensity and entropy among the tumor subtypes with SSF = 4 mm (p = 0.009 and p = 0.02 respectively) and SSF = 6 mm (p = 0.007 and p < 0.001 respectively). Additionally, sphericity (p = 0.04) in HER2+ tumors and entropy with SSF = 2, 4, 6 mm (p = 0.004, 0.02, 0.047 respectively) in luminal tumors were significantly associated with pCR. Multiple features demonstrated significant association (p < 0.05) with pCR in TNBC and with RCB in luminal tumors and TNBC, with standard deviation of intensity with SSF = 6 mm achieving the highest AUC (AUC = 0.734) for pCR in TNBC., Conclusion: MRI radiomics features are associated with different molecular subtypes of breast cancer, pCR, and RCB. These features may be noninvasive imaging biomarkers to identify cancer subtype and predict response to NAC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interest Dr. Goetz reports consulting fees from Lilly, Biovica, Novartis, Sermonix, Context Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Biotheranostics (all dollars directed to institution), and grants from Pfizer, Lilly, and Sermonix. Dr. Boughey reports research funding from Lilly to the institution. Dr. Choudhery/Mayo Clinic have a research and development agreement with Imago Systems., (Copyright © 2020 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of an interdisciplinary remote patient monitoring (RPM) program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients with COVID-19., Methods: This is a cross-sectional analysis following a prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Adult patients receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020, were included. RPM was composed of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nursing and physician oversight., Results: During the study timeframe, 224 patients with cancer were diagnosed with COVID-19. Of the 187 patients (83%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM. Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity score weighting, rates of hospitalization for RPM and non-RPM patients were 2.8% and 13%, respectively, implying that the use of RPM was associated with a 78% relative risk reduction in hospital admission rate (95% CI, 54 to 102; P = .002). Furthermore, when hospitalized, these patients experienced a shorter length of stay and fewer prolonged hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths, although these trends did not reach statistical significance., Conclusion: The use of RPM and a centralized virtual care team was associated with a reduction in hospital admission rate and lower overall acute care resource utilization among cancer patients with COVID-19., Competing Interests: Joshua C. PritchettPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Novel discovery with intellectual property interests in ongoing development with Mayo Clinic Ventures, patent pending, US Patent Application No. 63/109625Uncompensated Relationships: Biofourmis Konstantinos LeventakosConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Targeted Oncology, OncLive, TakedaResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Mirati Therapeutics Robert OrensteinSpeakers' Bureau: FerringResearch Funding: ReBiotix, Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs Inc, Finch Therapeutics, Humanigen, Vedanta Ravindra GaneshStock and Other Ownership Interests: PfizerResearch Funding: InteraXon, Pear Therapeutics Jonas PaludoResearch Funding: VerilyOther Relationship: Jazz Pharmaceuticals Thorvardur R. HalfdanarsonConsulting or Advisory Role: Lexicon, Ipsen, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Curium Pharma, ScioScientific, TerumoResearch Funding: Ipsen, Agios, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Basilea, Turnstone Bio, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Novartis Tufia C. HaddadResearch Funding: TakedaNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Established technology, operational infrastructure, and nursing resources were leveraged to develop a remote patient monitoring (RPM) program for ambulatory management of patients with COVID-19. The program included two care-delivery models with different monitoring capabilities supporting variable levels of patient risk for severe illness. The primary objective of this study was to determine the feasibility and safety of a multisite RPM program for management of acute COVID-19 illness. We report an evaluation of 7074 patients served by the program across 41 US states. Among all patients, the RPM technology engagement rate was 78.9%. Rates of emergency department visit and hospitalization within 30 days of enrollment were 11.4% and 9.4%, respectively, and the 30-day mortality rate was 0.4%. A multisite RPM program for management of acute COVID-19 illness is feasible, safe, and associated with a low mortality rate. Further research and expansion of RPM programs for ambulatory management of other acute illnesses are warranted., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To compare efficacy and safety of capecitabine and lapatinib with or without IMC-A12 (cituxumumab) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with trastuzumab., Patients and Methods: Following an initial safety run-in cohort, patients were randomized 1:2 to Arm A (capecitabine and lapatinib) or to Arm B (capecitabine, lapatinib, and cituxumumab). Given the frequency of non-hematologic grade ≥ 3 adverse events in those receiving the three-drug combination in the safety cohort, lapatinib and capecitabine doses were reduced in Arm B only. The primary objective was to determine if the addition of cituxumumab to capecitabine and lapatinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with capecitabine and lapatinib. Secondary objectives included a comparison between arms of other clinical endpoints, safety, change in overall quality of life (QOL) and self-assessed fatigue, rash, diarrhea, and hand-foot syndrome., Results: From July 2008 to March 2012, 68 patients (out of 142 planned) were enrolled and 63 were evaluable, including 8 for the safety run-in and 55 for the randomized cohort. Study enrollment was stopped early due to slow accrual. The addition of cituxumumab to capecitabine and lapatinib did not improve PFS (HR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.52-1.64). Furthermore, no difference in objective response rate or overall survival (OS) was observed. No difference between arms was observed in grade ≥ 3 adverse events, overall QOL change from baseline after 4 cycles of treatment., Conclusion: The addition of cituxumumab to lapatinib and capecitabine did not improve PFS or OS compared with lapatinib and capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive MBC., Clinical Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00684983.

Purpose: This open-label, multicenter, phase IB/II study evaluated sapanisertib, a dual inhibitor of mTOR kinase complexes 1/2, plus exemestane or fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR + )/HER2-negative (HER2 - ) advanced/metastatic breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had previously progressed on everolimus with exemestane/fulvestrant and received ≤3 (phase IB) or ≤1 (phase II) prior chemotherapy regimens. Patients received sapanisertib 3 to 5 mg every day (phase IB), or 4 mg every day (phase II) with exemestane 25 mg every day or fulvestrant 500 mg monthly in 28-day cycles. Phase II enrolled parallel cohorts based on prior response to everolimus. The primary objective of phase II was to evaluate antitumor activity by clinical benefit rate at 16 weeks (CBR-16)., Results: Overall, 118 patients enrolled in phase IB ( n = 24) and II ( n = 94). Five patients in phase IB experienced dose-limiting toxicities, at sapanisertib doses of 5 mg every day ( n = 4) and 4 mg every day ( n = 1); sapanisertib 4 mg every day was the MTD in combination with exemestane or fulvestrant. In phase II, in everolimus-sensitive versus everolimus-resistant cohorts, CBR-16 was 45% versus 23%, and overall response rate was 8% versus 2%, respectively. The most common adverse events were nausea (52%), fatigue (47%), diarrhea (37%), and hyperglycemia (33%); rash occurred in 17% of patients. Molecular analysis suggested positive association between AKT1 mutation status and best treatment response (complete + partial response; P = 0.0262)., Conclusions: Sapanisertib plus exemestane or fulvestrant was well tolerated and exhibited clinical benefit in postmenopausal women with pretreated everolimus-sensitive or everolimus-resistant breast cancer., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBCs) account for 15-20% of all breast cancers and represent the most aggressive subtype of this malignancy. Early tumor relapse and progression are linked to the enrichment of a sub-fraction of cancer cells, termed breast tumor-initiating cells (BTICs), that undergo epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) and typically exhibit a basal-like CD44 high /CD24 low and/or ALDH1 high phenotype with critical cancer stem-like features such as high self-renewal capacity and intrinsic (de novo) resistance to standard of care chemotherapy. One of the major mechanisms responsible for the intrinsic drug resistance of BTICs is their high ALDH1 activity leading to inhibition of chemotherapy-induced apoptosis. In this study, we demonstrated that aurora-A kinase (AURKA) is required to mediate TGF-β-induced expression of the SNAI1 gene, enrichment of ALDH1 high BTICs, self-renewal capacity, and chemoresistance in TNBC experimental models. Significantly, the combination of docetaxel (DTX) with dual TGF-β and AURKA pharmacologic targeting impaired tumor relapse and the emergence of distant metastasis. We also showed in unique chemoresistant TNBC cells isolated from patient-derived TNBC brain metastasis that dual TGF-β and AURKA pharmacologic targeting reversed cancer plasticity and enhanced the sensitivity of TNBC cells to DTX-based-chemotherapy. Taken together, these findings reveal for the first time the critical role of AURKA oncogenic signaling in mediating TGF-β-induced TNBC plasticity, chemoresistance, and tumor progression.

Background: The Mayo Clinic Center for Connected Care has an established organizational framework for telehealth care delivery. It provides patients, consumers, care teams, and referring providers access to clinical knowledge through technologies and integrated practice models. Central to the framework are teams that support product management and operational functions. They work together across the asynchronous, synchronous video telemedicine, remote patient monitoring (RPM), and mobile core service lines. Methods: The organizational framework of the Center for Connected Care and Mayo Clinic telehealth response to the COVID-19 pandemic is described. Barriers to telehealth delivery that were addressed by the public health emergency are also reported. This report was deemed exempt from full review by the Mayo Clinic IRB. Results: After declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was rapid growth in established telehealth offerings, including patient online services account creation, secure messaging, inpatient eConsults, express care online utilization, and video visits to home. Census for the RPM program for patients with chronic conditions remained stable; however, its framework was rapidly adapted to develop and implement a COVID-19 RPM service. In addition to this, other new telehealth and virtual care services were created to support the unique needs of patients with COVID-19 symptoms or disease and the health care workforce, including a digital COVID-19 self-assessment tool and video telemedicine solutions for ambulances, emergency departments, intensive care units, and designated medical-surgical units. Conclusion: Rapid growth, adoption, and sustainability of telehealth services through the COVID-19 pandemic were made possible by a scalable framework for telehealth and alignment of regulatory and reimbursement models., Competing Interests: No competing financial interests exist., (© Tufia C. Haddad et al., 2021; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.)

Objective: To study the impact of a 60-day pilot of an innovative virtual-care model using general internal medicine physicians and nurses to respond rapidly to more than 1200 coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)-positive nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction tests., Patients and Methods: The current study was approved by the Mayo Clinic COVID-19 Research Committee and the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board. The data for all SARS-CoV-2-positive patients treated by our team were entered into a prospectively maintained internal research electronic data capture database. We searched this database retrospectively for the first 60 days of our program (March 23, 2020 to May 22, 2020). The data included basic deidentified demographics; symptoms at intake into the program; date of symptom onset; risk factors; location; and outcomes including hospitalization, admission to intensive care unit, and death., Results: Patients were contacted, on average, 6.3 hours after their results became available. There was a total of 138 ED visits. Of these, 40% were admitted to the hospital, with 36% of those admitted requiring intensive care unit level of care. Of the 849 patients in this sample, there were only 2 deaths (0.23%) at 60 days., Conclusion: Our innovative multidisciplinary COVID team provided excellent clinical care for patients with COVID, with a very low mortality rate compared with the national average. Although data are not available on a national scale for time to contact patient, our team was able to contact patients within the established recommendation for contact within 48 hours of testing, which is optimal., (© 2020 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: Based on our previous findings that postmenopausal women with estrone (E1) and estradiol (E2) concentrations at or above 1.3 pg/ml and 0.5 pg/ml, respectively, after 6 months of adjuvant anastrozole therapy had a three-fold risk of recurrence, we aimed to identify a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based model that would predict elevated E1 and E2 and then validate it in an independent dataset., Patients and Methods: The test set consisted of 322 women from the M3 study and the validation set consisted of 152 patients from MA.27. All patients were treated with adjuvant anastrozole, had on-anastrozole E1 and E2 concentrations and genome-wide genotyping., Results: SNPs were identified from the M3 genome-wide association study. The best model to predict the E1-E2 phenotype with high balanced accuracy was a support vector machine model using clinical factors plus 46 SNPs. We did not have an independent cohort that is similar to the M3 study with clinical, E1-E2 phenotypes and genotype data to test our model. Hence, we chose a nested matched case-control cohort (MA.27 study) for testing. Our E1-E2 model was not validated but we found the MA.27 validation cohort was both clinically and genomically different., Conclusions: We identified a SNP-based model that had excellent performance characteristics for predicting the phenotype of elevated E1 and E2 in women treated with anastrozole. This model was not validated in an independent dataset but that dataset was clinically and genomically substantially different. The model will need validation in a prospective study.

Objectives: To review and summarize the available literature on the management of chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA) including complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and to present CIA's effect on quality of life (QoL)., Methods: Nine databases were searched for CIA-related keywords, including the effect on QoL, and management options. Among 1019 articles found, 54 articles focusing on treatment/prevention or QoL were retrieved. References of selected articles were also checked manually., Results: CIA was found to negatively affect QoL and body image, regardless of head covering status (i.e., for cultural or religious reasons). Most studies related to treatment/prevention of CIA reported on the use of scalp-cooling. The efficacy of CAM treatments was found to be questionable., Conclusion: A high incidence rate of CIA exists with certain chemotherapies, and it significantly impairs QoL. Preventive and treatment strategies are incompletely effective. Additional literature is needed to explore potential preventive or therapeutic options for CIA., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of genetic testing criteria for the detection of germline pathogenic variants in women with breast cancer., Materials and Methods: Women with breast cancer enrolled in a breast cancer registry at a tertiary cancer center between 2000 and 2016 were evaluated for germline pathogenic variants in 9 breast cancer predisposition genes ( ATM , BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, NF1, PALB2, PTEN , and TP53 ). The performance of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) hereditary cancer testing criteria was evaluated relative to testing of all women as recommended by the American Society of Breast Surgeons., Results: Of 3,907 women, 1,872 (47.9%) meeting NCCN criteria were more likely to carry a pathogenic variant in 9 predisposition genes compared with women not meeting criteria (9.0% v 3.5%; P < .001). Of those not meeting criteria (n = 2,035), 14 (0.7%) had pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2. The sensitivity of NCCN criteria was 70% for 9 predisposition genes and 87% for BRCA1 and BRCA2 , with a specificity of 53%. Expansion of the NCCN criteria to include all women diagnosed with breast cancer at ≤ 65 years of age achieved > 90% sensitivity for the 9 predisposition genes and > 98% sensitivity for BRCA1 and BRCA2 ., Conclusion: A substantial proportion of women with breast cancer carrying germline pathogenic variants in predisposition genes do not qualify for testing by NCCN criteria. Expansion of NCCN criteria to include all women diagnosed at ≤ 65 years of age improves the sensitivity of the selection criteria without requiring testing of all women with breast cancer.

Purpose: Preclinical data demonstrating androgen receptor (AR)-positive (AR + ) triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells are sensitive to AR antagonists, and PI3K inhibition catalyzed an investigator-initiated, multi-institutional phase Ib/II study TBCRC032. The trial investigated the safety and efficacy of the AR-antagonist enzalutamide alone or in combination with the PI3K inhibitor taselisib in patients with metastatic AR + (≥10%) breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Phase Ib patients [estrogen receptor positive (ER + ) or TNBC] with AR + breast cancer received 160 mg enzalutamide in combination with taselisib to determine dose-limiting toxicities and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Phase II TNBC patients were randomized to receive either enzalutamide alone or in combination with 4 mg taselisib until disease progression. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 16 weeks., Results: The combination was tolerated, and the MTD was not reached. The adverse events were hyperglycemia and skin rash. Overall, CBR for evaluable patients receiving the combination was 35.7%, and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.4 months. Luminal AR (LAR) TNBC subtype patients trended toward better response compared with non-LAR (75.0% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.06), and increased PFS (4.6 vs. 2.0 months, P = 0.082). Genomic analyses revealed subtype-specific treatment response, and novel FGFR2 fusions and AR splice variants., Conclusions: The combination of enzalutamide and taselisib increased CBR in TNBC patients with AR + tumors. Correlative analyses suggest AR protein expression alone is insufficient for identifying patients with AR-dependent tumors and knowledge of tumor LAR subtype and AR splice variants may identify patients more or less likely to benefit from AR antagonists., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society of Clinical Oncology recommend consideration of the use of echocardiography 6 to 12 months after completion of anthracycline-based chemotherapy in at-risk populations. Assessment of BNP (B-type natriuretic peptide) has also been suggested by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America for the identification of Stage A (at risk) heart failure patients. The real-world frequency of the use of these tests in patients after receipt of anthracycline therapy, however, has not been studied previously., Methods and Results: In this retrospective study, using administrative claims data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, we identified 31 447 breast cancer and lymphoma patients (age ≥18 years) who were treated with an anthracycline in the United States between January 1, 2008 and January 31, 2018. Continuous medical and pharmacy coverage was required for at least 6 months before the initial anthracycline dose and 12 months after the final dose. Only 36.1% of patients had any type of cardiac surveillance (echocardiography, BNP, or cardiac imaging) in the year following completion of anthracycline therapy (29.7% echocardiography). Surveillance rate increased from 37.5% in 2008 to 42.7% in 2018 (25.6% in 2008 to 40.5% echocardiography in 2018). Lymphoma patients had a lower likelihood of any surveillance compared with patients with breast cancer (odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.74-0.85]; P <0.001). Patients with preexisting diagnoses of coronary artery disease and arrhythmia had the highest likelihood of cardiac surveillance (odds ratio, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.39-1.69] and odds ratio, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.3-1.53]; P <0.001 for both), although no single comorbidity was associated with a >50% rate of surveillance., Conclusions: The majority of survivors of breast cancer and lymphoma who have received anthracycline-based chemotherapy do not undergo cardiac surveillance after treatment, including those with a history of cardiovascular comorbidities, such as heart failure.