Search

The kinome is a dynamic system of kinases regulating signaling networks in cells and dysfunction of protein kinases contributes to many diseases. Regulation of the protein expression of kinases alters cellular responses to environmental changes and perturbations. We configured a library of 672 proteotypic peptides to quantify >300 kinases in a single LC-MS experiment using ten micrograms protein from human tissues including biopsies. This enables absolute quantitation of kinase protein abundance at attomole-femtomole expression levels, requiring no kinase enrichment and less than ten micrograms of starting protein from flash-frozen and formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissues. Breast cancer biopsies, organoids, and cell lines were analyzed using the SureQuant method, demonstrating the heterogeneity of kinase protein expression across and within breast cancer clinical subtypes. Kinome quantitation was coupled with nanoscale phosphoproteomics, providing a feasible method for novel clinical diagnosis and understanding of patient kinome responses to treatment.

Importance: Biologic features may affect pathologic complete response (pCR) and event-free survival (EFS) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus ERBB2/HER2 blockade in ERBB2/HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC)., Objective: To define the quantitative association between pCR and EFS by intrinsic subtype and by other gene expression signatures in a pooled analysis of 3 phase 3 trials: CALGB 40601, NeoALTTO, and NSABP B-41., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective pooled analysis, 1289 patients with EBC received chemotherapy plus either trastuzumab, lapatinib, or the combination, with a combined median follow-up of 5.5 years. Gene expression profiling by RNA sequencing was obtained from 758 samples, and intrinsic subtypes and 618 gene expression signatures were calculated. Data analyses were performed from June 1, 2020, to January 1, 2023., Main Outcomes and Measures: The association of clinical variables and gene expression biomarkers with pCR and EFS were studied by logistic regression and Cox analyses., Results: In the pooled analysis, of 758 women, median age was 49 years, 12% were Asian, 6% Black, and 75% were White. Overall, pCR results were associated with EFS in the ERBB2-enriched (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.70; P < .001) and basal-like (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.86; P = .03) subtypes but not in luminal A or B tumors. Dual trastuzumab plus lapatinib blockade over trastuzumab alone had a trend toward EFS benefit in the intention-to-treat population; however, in the ERBB2-enriched subtype there was a significant and independent EFS benefit of trastuzumab plus lapatinib vs trastuzumab alone (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27-0.83; P = .009). Overall, 275 of 618 gene expression signatures (44.5%) were significantly associated with pCR and 9 of 618 (1.5%) with EFS. The ERBB2/HER2 amplicon and multiple immune signatures were significantly associated with pCR. Luminal-related signatures were associated with lower pCR rates but better EFS, especially among patients with residual disease and independent of hormone receptor status. There was significant adjusted HR for pCR ranging from 0.45 to 0.81 (higher pCR) and 1.21-1.94 (lower pCR rate); significant adjusted HR for EFS ranged from 0.71 to 0.94., Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with ERBB2/HER2-positive EBC, the association between pCR and EFS differed by tumor intrinsic subtype, and the benefit of dual ERBB2/HER2 blockade was limited to ERBB2-enriched tumors. Immune-activated signatures were concordantly associated with higher pCR rates and better EFS, whereas luminal signatures were associated with lower pCR rates.

What Is This Summary About?: Sacituzumab govitecan (brand name: TRODELVY ® ) is a new treatment for certain types of advanced or metastatic breast cancer. One common type of breast cancer has at least 1 of 2 hormone receptors (HR positive) and does not have human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2 negative). The HR and HER2 receptors are known to influence how severe a case of breast cancer is. Certain treatments will only work if a specific receptor is present on breast cancer cells. HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer can be treated with sacituzumab govitecan. This is a summary of the results of the TROPiCS-02 study. This study compared sacituzumab govitecan with standard chemotherapy in participants with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer., What Were the Results?: The study showed that participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan lived significantly longer without their cancer getting worse than participants treated with chemotherapy. Participants also survived significantly longer and their tumors became significantly smaller in more participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan than with chemotherapy. In general, participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan were more likely to have side effects and had more severe side effects. These side effects included low levels of a type of white blood cell known as neutrophils and diarrhea. Oncologists (doctors that treat cancer) know of these side effects as they are common among people being treated for cancer. Doctors can control these side effects by following standard treatment guidelines and the package insert for sacituzumab govitecan. Participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan maintained their sense of well-being and ability to do daily activities (quality of life) longer than participants treated with chemotherapy. It also took longer for fatigue and other symptoms of cancer to worsen in participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan compared with chemotherapy., What Do the Results Mean?: Sacituzumab govitecan is more effective than standard chemotherapies for people who have already received multiple treatments for HR-positive/ HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The side effects from sacituzumab govitecan could generally be managed well by doctors. Although there were more side effects with sacituzumab govitecan than with chemotherapy, they were generally mild to moderate.

Background: Breast cancer patients experienced heightened anxiety during the pandemic. Also, modifications to clinical trial activities allowing for virtual platforms, local assessments, and greater flexibility were introduced to facilitate participation. We sought to evaluate the association between pandemic-related anxiety and willingness to participate in trials and how pandemic-era modifications to trial activities affect the decision to participate., Methods: We conducted an online survey from August to September, 2021 of patients with breast cancer assessing pandemic-related anxiety; clinical trials knowledge and attitudes; willingness to participate during and before the pandemic; and how each modification affects the decision to participate. Fisher's exact tests evaluated differences in proportions and two-sample t-tests evaluated differences in means. The association of pandemic-related anxiety with a decline in willingness to participate during compared to prior to the pandemic was modeled using logistic regression., Results: Among 385 respondents who completed the survey, 81% reported moderate-severe pandemic-related anxiety. Mean willingness to participate in a trial was lower during the pandemic than prior [2.97 (SD 1.17) vs. 3.10 (SD 1.09), (p < 0.001)]. Severe anxiety was associated with higher odds of diminished willingness to participate during the pandemic compared to prior (OR 5.07). Each of the modifications, with the exception of opting out of research-only blood tests, were endorsed by >50% of respondents as strategies that would increase their likelihood of deciding to participate., Conclusions: While pandemic-related anxiety was associated with diminished willingness to participate in trials, the leading reasons for reluctance to consider trial participation were unrelated to the pandemic but included worries about not getting the best treatment, side effects, and delaying care. Patients view trial modifications favorably, supporting continuation of these modifications, as endorsed by the National Cancer Institute and others., (© 2024 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on appropriate indications and techniques for partial breast irradiation (PBI) for patients with early-stage invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ., Methods: ASTRO convened a task force to address 4 key questions focused on the appropriate indications and techniques for PBI as an alternative to whole breast irradiation (WBI) to result in similar rates of ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) and toxicity outcomes. Also addressed were aspects related to the technical delivery of PBI, including dose-fractionation regimens, target volumes, and treatment parameters for different PBI techniques. The guideline is based on a systematic review provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Recommendations were created using a predefined consensus-building methodology and system for grading evidence quality and recommendation strength., Results: PBI delivered using 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, multicatheter brachytherapy, and single-entry brachytherapy results in similar IBR as WBI with long-term follow-up. Some patient characteristics and tumor features were underrepresented in the randomized controlled trials, making it difficult to fully define IBR risks for patients with these features. Appropriate dose-fractionation regimens, target volume delineation, and treatment planning parameters for delivery of PBI are outlined. Intraoperative radiation therapy alone is associated with a higher IBR rate compared with WBI. A daily or every-other-day external beam PBI regimen is preferred over twice-daily regimens due to late toxicity concerns., Conclusions: Based on published data, the ASTRO task force has proposed recommendations to inform best clinical practices on the use of PBI., Competing Interests: Disclosures All task force members’ disclosure statements were reviewed before being invited and were shared with other task force members throughout the guideline's development. Those disclosures are published within this guideline. Where potential conflicts were detected, remedial measures to address them were taken. Bethany Anderson: American Board of Radiology (ABR) (board examiner), Brachytherapy Journal (section editor), Clinical Breast Cancer Journal (associate editor), International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (breast section associate editor), School of Breast Oncology (honoraria); Douglas Arthur: Advanced Radiation Therapy (consultant); Jose Bazan: ABR (board examiner), ASTRO VA Breast Panel (honoraria), International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (breast section associate editor), Intraop Medical (institutional research); Jennifer Bellon: American Board of Radiology (ABR) (oral exam chair-ended 8/2023), Leidos Pharmaceutical (honoraria), National Cancer Institute (NCI) (research; BOLD task force on breast cancer co-chair), Oncoclinicas (honoraria), PER (honoraria), Prosigna (research), UpToDate (honoraria), Varian (honoraria); Charlotte Coles: Breast Cancer Now (research), Cancer Research UK (research), Lancet Breast Cancer Commission (chair), National Institutes of Health and Care Research (NIHR) (research; IMPORT LOW trial chief investigator); Naamit Gerber: Accuray (advisory board-ended 10/2023), Invus Group (consultant), John Theurer Cancer Center (consultant), Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine (honoraria-ended 8/2022), PreludeDX (research); Leonard Kim: American Associations of Physicists in Medicine (subcommittee/working group chair), ABR (board examiner), Elekta (MR-Linac Consortium, institutional representative), The Greeley Company (consultant-ended 5/2022); Christine Laronga (Society of Surgical Oncology [SSO]representative): SSO Breast Disease Site (chair), UpToDate (section editor); Janice Lyons (Chair): ABR (board examiner), Primum (consultant); Icro Meattini: Accuray, Eli Lily, Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer, Seagen (all advisory board); Elizabeth Nichols: ABR (board examiner), Applied Radiation Oncology (editorial board), Xcision (research, co-chair); Lori Pierce (American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO] representative): ASCO (board chair), Breast Cancer Research Foundation (advisory board and travel), BMS Foundation DCIDCP National Advisory Committee (advisory board and travel), Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation (board of directors and travel), Exact Sciences (consultant), Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium (director), PER Educational Symposium (speakers bureau and travel), UpToDate (editor); Matthew Poppe: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (technical expert), Alliance for Breast Clinical Trials in Oncology (vice chair), Alliance for Breast Clinical Trials Local Regional Working Group (chair), Mevion (honoraria and travel-ended 3/2022), NIH (research), NIH/NCI (research-PI), PEEL Therapeutics (stock), UpToDate (editor); Simona Shaitelman (Vice Chair): Alpha Tau Medical (research-ended 2022), Artios Pharma (research-ended 2022), Becton, Dickinson & Co (consultant), Brachytherapy Journal (editorial board), Elekta (MR-Linac Consortium, institutional representative), Emerson Collective Foundation (research), Exact Sciences (research), NIH (research-ended 8/2023), TAE Life Sciences (research); Patti Spears (patient representative): Pfizer (advocate advisory care committee member-ended 12/2022); Shaveta Vinayak (ASCO representative): OncoSec Biotech (research and consultant), Pfizer, Puma Biotech, Seattle Genetics (all research); Timothy Whelan: Exact Sciences (research). Lisa Bradfield and Madeera Kathpal (Guideline Subcommittee representative) reported no disclosures., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

What Is This Summary About?: A medicine called sacituzumab govitecan (brand name TRODELVY ® ) has been proven to be an effective treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC for short). Metastatic breast cancer is cancer that has spread to other parts of the body. In mTNBC, the breast cancer cells do not have 3 common proteins on the cell surface, called receptors. mTNBC is more difficult to treat and more likely to come back than other types of breast cancer. The ASCENT study showed that participants with mTNBC treated with sacituzumab govitecan had a higher likelihood of living longer and delayed progression (worsening) of their cancer than those treated with standard chemotherapy . Here, we summarize the quality of life of participants with mTNBC in the ASCENT study. We compared quality of life between 236 participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan and 183 participants treated with standard chemotherapy. All participants previously received 2 or more chemotherapies that no longer controlled their cancer., What Are the Key Takeaways?: This analysis showed that participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan had better overall quality of life than participants treated with standard chemotherapy. They also had better "physical functioning", which is the ability to walk and do physical activities. Participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan maintained their overall quality of life for a longer time than those treated with standard chemotherapy. Participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan had less pain and were less tired than those treated with standard chemotherapy. On the other hand, participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan had worse diarrhea (loose or watery stools) and were more likely to have nausea/vomiting (feel sick or throw up) than participants treated with standard chemotherapy., What Were the Main Conclusions Reported by the Researchers?: Participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan had a higher likelihood of living longer and delayed progression (worsening) of their cancer. Participants also had a better overall quality of life, which was maintained (did not get worse) for a longer time. However, they experienced worsening of diarrhea and/or nausea/vomiting. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02574455 (ASCENT) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Importance: PIK3CA mutations may be associated with outcomes of patients with ERBB2/HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC)., Objectives: To assess if PIK3CA mutations among patients with ERBB2/HER2-positive EBC are associated with treatment response and outcome, and if these associations vary by hormone receptor (HR) status or intrinsic molecular subtype (IMS)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study derived data on 184 patients from the phase 3 neoadjuvant Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 40601 trial that enrolled patients with ERBB2/HER2-positive EBC in North America between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2012. Participants received neoadjuvant paclitaxel with trastuzumab, lapatinib, or both. Statistical analysis was performed from March 23, 2022, to March 9, 2023., Exposures: Gene expression profiling by RNA sequencing with Prediction Analysis of Microarray 50-determined IMS and PIK3CA mutations from whole-exome sequencing were obtained from pretreatment biopsies from 184 of 305 trial participants., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR) and the secondary end point of event-free survival (EFS). The association of PIK3CA mutations with pCR and EFS by HR status and IMS was estimated using logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression models., Results: All 184 participants were women, with a median age of 49 years (range 24-75 years). A total of 121 participants (66%) had clinical stage II tumors; 32 (17%) had PIK3CA mutations, most frequently H1047R (38% [12 of 32]) and E545K (22% [7 of 32]). PIK3CA mutations were present in 20 of 102 cases of HR-positive EBC (20%) and 12 of 82 cases HR-negative EBC (15%) and varied by IMS (luminal B, 9 of 25 [36%]; luminal A, 2 of 21 [10%]; and ERBB2/HER2-enriched tumors, 19 of 102 [19%]). Pathologic complete response rates were lower in PIK3CA mutated than PIK3CA wild type in the overall population (34% [11 of 32] vs 49% [74 of 152]; P = .14) and were significantly different among those receiving trastuzumab (30% [7 of 23] vs 54% [63 of 117]; P = .045). At a median follow-up of 9 years, PIK3CA mutations were significantly associated with worse EFS in the overall cohort (hazard ratio, 2.58 [95% CI, 1.24-5.35]; P = .01), which persisted in a multivariable model including pCR, HR status, stage, and IMS (hazard ratio, 2.52 [95% CI, 1.16-5.47]; P = .02). The negative association of PIK3CA mutation was significant in HR-positive (hazard ratio, 3.60 [95% CI, 1.45-8.96]; P = .006) and luminal subtypes (hazard ratio, 4.84 [95% CI, 1.08-21.70]; P = .04), but not in nonluminal and HR-negative tumors., Conclusions and Relevance: In ERBB2/HER2-positive EBC, PIK3CA mutations were associated with lower pCR rates and independently associated with worse long-term EFS. These findings appear to be associated with PIK3CA mutations in HR-positive and luminal EBC.

Purpose: Financial toxicity (FT) affects 20% of cancer survivors and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. No large-scale programs have been implemented to mitigate FT. We evaluated the effect of monthly FT screening as part of a larger patient-reported outcomes (PROs) digital monitoring intervention., Methods: PRO-TECT (AFT-39) is a cluster-randomized trial of patients undergoing systemic therapy for metastatic cancer. Practices were randomly assigned 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring (PRO practices) or usual care (control practices). Digital monitoring consisted of between-visit online or automated telephone patient surveys about symptoms, functioning, and FT (single-item screening question from Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity) for up to 1 year, with automated alerts sent to practice nurses for concerning survey scores. Clinical team actions in response to alerts were not mandated. The primary outcome of this planned secondary analysis was development or worsening of financial difficulties, assessed via the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 financial difficulties measure, at any time compared with baseline. A randomly selected subset of patients and nurses were interviewed about their experiences with the intervention., Results: One thousand one hundred ninety-one patients were enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control) at 52 US community oncology practices. Overall, 30.2% of patients treated at practices that received the FT screening intervention developed, or experienced worsening of, financial difficulties, compared with 39.0% treated at control practices ( P = .004). Patients and nurses interviewed stated that FT screening identified patients for financial counseling who otherwise would be reluctant to seek, or unaware of the availability of, assistance., Conclusion: In this report of a secondary outcome from a randomized clinical trial, FT screening as part of routine digital patient monitoring with PROs reduced the development, or worsening, of financial difficulties among patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy.

Purpose: We determine how stakeholders prioritize the importance of oncologic outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and cancer-related health care costs., Methods: A survey was distributed to the National Clinical Trials Network Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology cooperative group membership from May 14 to June 30, 2022. Respondents were asked to rate (5-point Likert scale) and rank (1-9) evidence-based value domains: overall survival, treatment toxicities/complications, quality of life (QOL), financial toxicity, access to care, compliance with evidence-based care, health system performance, scientific discovery and innovation, and cost to the health care system., Results: A total of 514 members responded, including researchers (24.7%), nurses (19.5%), medical oncologists (17.9%), administrators (9.3%), surgical and radiation oncologists (9.1%), patient advocates (3.1%), and nonphysician providers (16.4%). Participants represented various practice settings including National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (29.8%), university-affiliated academic cancer centers (21%), hospital-owned oncology practices (21.8%), and others (27.4%). There was agreement in how respondents prioritized value domains (W = 0.39, P < .001). Respondents ranked patient QOL (mean rank: 2.6 ± 1.9) as most important above all other metrics including survival (mean rank: 3.5 ± 0.3) and access to care (mean rank: 3.5 ± 2.1; P < .001). Members engaged in direct patient care also ranked access to care of higher importance than nonclinicians ( P = .026). Cost to the health care system (mean rank: 7.5 ± 2.1) and health system performance (mean rank: 7 ± 2) were ranked as least important ( P < .001). Inclusion of PROs into therapeutic assessment (59.3%) was the most frequently selected priority of future cooperative group initiatives., Conclusion: Oncology community stakeholders deemed patient-centered value domains as most important and considered patient QOL the highest priority. Inclusion of PROs into clinical trials was endorsed as an important component of therapeutic assessment. These findings can be taken into consideration when creating a value framework for inclusion in cancer clinical trials.

Purpose.—: To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology-College of American Pathologists (ASCO-CAP) recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer. An Update Panel is aware that a new generation of antibody-drug conjugates targeting the HER2 protein is active against breast cancers that lack protein overexpression or gene amplification., Methods.—: The Update Panel conducted a systematic literature review to identify signals for updating recommendations., Results.—: The search identified 173 abstracts. Of 5 potential publications reviewed, none constituted a signal for revising existing recommendations., Recommendations.—: The 2018 ASCO-CAP recommendations for HER2 testing are affirmed., Discussion.—: HER2 testing guidelines have focused on identifying HER2 protein overexpression or gene amplification in breast cancer to identify patients for therapies that disrupt HER2 signaling. This update acknowledges a new indication for trastuzumab deruxtecan when HER2 is not overexpressed or amplified but is immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or 2+ without amplification by in situ hybridization. Clinical trial data on tumors that tested IHC 0 are limited (excluded from DESTINY-Breast04), and evidence is lacking that these cancers behave differently or do not respond similarly to newer HER2 antibody-drug conjugates. Although current data do not support a new IHC 0 versus 1+ prognostic or predictive threshold for response to trastuzumab deruxtecan, this threshold is now relevant because of the trial entry criteria that supported its new regulatory approval. Therefore, although it is premature to create new result categories of HER2 expression (eg, HER2-Low, HER2-Ultra-Low), best practices to distinguish IHC 0 from 1+ are now clinically relevant. This update affirms prior HER2 reporting recommendations and offers a new HER2 testing reporting comment to highlight the current relevance of IHC 0 versus 1+ results and best practice recommendations to distinguish these often subtle differences. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines., Competing Interests: Authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are shown after the references., (Copyright 2023 College of American Pathologists and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. This guideline update was developed through collaboration among the College of American Pathologists and the American Society of Clinical Oncology and has been jointly published by invitation and consent in the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine and the Journal of Clinical Oncology. It has been edited in accordance with style standards established at the Journal of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To update ASCO-College of American Pathologists (CAP) recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer. The Panel is aware that a new generation of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) targeting the HER2 protein is active against breast cancers that lack protein overexpression or gene amplification., Methods: An Update Panel conducted a systematic literature review to identify signals for updating recommendations., Results: The search identified 173 abstracts. Of five potential publications reviewed, none constituted a signal for revising existing recommendations., Recommendations: The 2018 ASCO-CAP recommendations for HER2 testing are affirmed., Discussion: HER2 testing guidelines have focused on identifying HER2 protein overexpression or gene amplification in breast cancer to identify patients for therapies that disrupt HER2 signaling. This update acknowledges a new indication for trastuzumab deruxtecan when HER2 is not overexpressed or amplified but is immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or 2+ without amplification by in situ hybridization. Clinical trial data on tumors that tested IHC 0 are limited (excluded from DESTINY-Breast04), and evidence is lacking that these cancers behave differently or do not respond similarly to newer HER2 ADCs. Although current data do not support a new IHC 0 versus 1+ prognostic or predictive threshold for response to trastuzumab deruxtecan, this threshold is now relevant because of the trial entry criteria that supported its new regulatory approval. Therefore, while it is premature to create new result categories of HER2 expression (eg, HER2-Low, HER2-Ultra-Low), best practices to distinguish IHC 0 from 1+ are now clinically relevant. This Update affirms prior HER2 reporting recommendations and offers a new HER2 testing reporting comment to highlight the current relevance of IHC 0 versus 1+ results and best practice recommendations to distinguish these often subtle differences.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Importance: Both tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) assessment and immune-related gene expression signatures by RNA profiling predict higher pathologic complete response (pCR) and improved event-free survival (EFS) in patients with early-stage ERBB2/HER2-positive breast cancer. However, whether these 2 measures of immune activation provide similar or additive prognostic value is not known., Objective: To examine the prognostic ability of TILs and immune-related gene expression signatures, alone and in combination, to predict pCR and EFS in patients with early-stage ERBB2/HER2-positive breast cancer treated in 2 clinical trials., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prognostic study, a correlative analysis was performed on the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 40601 trial and the PAMELA trial. In the CALGB 40601 trial, 305 patients were randomly assigned to weekly paclitaxel with trastuzumab, lapatinib, or both for 16 weeks. The primary end point was pCR, with a secondary end point of EFS. In the PAMELA trial, 151 patients received neoadjuvant treatment with trastuzumab and lapatinib for 18 weeks. The primary end point was the ability of the HER2-enriched subtype to predict pCR. The studies were conducted from October 2013 to November 2015 (PAMELA) and from December 2008 to February 2012 (CALGB 40601). Data analyses were performed from June 1, 2020, to January 1, 2022., Main Outcomes and Measures: Immune-related gene expression profiling by RNA sequencing and TILs were assessed on 230 CALGB 40601 trial pretreatment tumors and 138 PAMELA trial pretreatment tumors. The association of these biomarkers with pCR (CALGB 40601 and PAMELA) and EFS (CALGB 40601) was studied by logistic regression and Cox analyses., Results: The median age of the patients was 50 years (IQR, 42-50 years), and 305 (100%) were women. Of 202 immune signatures tested, 166 (82.2%) were significantly correlated with TILs. In both trials combined, TILs were significantly associated with pCR (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02; P = .02). In addition to TILs, 36 immune signatures were significantly associated with higher pCR rates. Seven of these signatures outperformed TILs for predicting pCR, 6 of which were B-cell related. In a multivariable Cox model adjusted for clinicopathologic factors, including PAM50 intrinsic tumor subtype, the immunoglobulin G signature, but not TILs, was independently associated with EFS (immunoglobulin G signature-adjusted hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.93; P = .02; TIL-adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02; P = .99)., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that multiple B-cell-related signatures were more strongly associated with pCR and EFS than TILs, which largely represent T cells. When both TILs and gene expression are available, the prognostic value of immune-related signatures appears to be superior.

Background: Guidelines for follow-up after locoregional breast cancer treatment recommend imaging for distant metastases only in the presence of patient signs and/or symptoms. However, guidelines have not been updated to reflect advances in imaging, systemic therapy, or the understanding of biological subtype. We assessed the association between mode of distant recurrence detection and survival., Methods: In this observational study, a stage-stratified random sample of women with stage II-III breast cancer in 2006-2007 and followed through 2016 was selected, including up to 10 women from each of 1217 Commission on Cancer facilities (n = 10 076). The explanatory variable was mode of recurrence detection (asymptomatic imaging vs signs and/or symptoms). The outcome was time from initial cancer diagnosis to death. Registrars abstracted scan type, intent (cancer-related vs not, asymptomatic surveillance vs not), and recurrence. Data were merged with each patient's National Cancer Database record., Results: Surveillance imaging detected 23.3% (284 of 1220) of distant recurrences (76.7%, 936 of 1220 by signs and/or symptoms). Based on propensity-weighted multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, patients with asymptomatic imaging compared with sign and/or symptom detected recurrences had a lower risk of death if estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) negative, HER2 negative (triple negative; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54 to 0.99), or HER2 positive (HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.80). No association was observed for ER- or PR-positive, HER2-negative (HR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.44) cancers., Conclusions: Recurrence detection by asymptomatic imaging compared with signs and/or symptoms was associated with lower risk of death for triple-negative and HER2-positive, but not ER- or PR-positive, HER2-negative cancers. A randomized trial is warranted to evaluate imaging surveillance for metastases results in these subgroups., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Importance: Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene., Objective: To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes., Design, Setting, and Participants: Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021., Interventions: In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care., Main Outcomes and Measures: The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available., Results: Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090.

Purpose: CALGB 40603 (NCT00861705), a 2 × 2 randomized phase II trial, demonstrated that adding carboplatin or bevacizumab to weekly paclitaxel (wP) followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide significantly increased the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in stage II-III triple-negative breast cancer. We now report long-term outcomes (LTOs) and correlative science end points., Patients and Methods: The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate LTOs in 443 patients who initiated study treatment. Log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the impact of clinical characteristics, pathologic response, calculated residual cancer burden (RCB) in patients with residual disease (RD), treatment assignment, and dose delivery during wP on LTOs, including event-free survival (EFS). Genomic predictors of treatment response and outcomes were assessed on pretreatment tumor samples by mRNA sequencing., Results: Among baseline characteristics, only the clinical stage was associated with LTOs. At a median follow-up of 7.9 years, LTOs were not significantly improved with either carboplatin or bevacizumab, overall or in patients with basal-like subtype cancers by genomic analysis. Patients with pCR (n = 205, 46.3%) had significantly higher 5-year EFS (85.5% v 56.6%, log-rank P < .0001) and overall survival (87.9% v 63.4%, P < .0001) rates compared with patients with RD, even those with RCB class I. Among clinical and genomic features, evidence of immune activation, including tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and low B-cell receptor evenness, was associated with pCR and improved EFS., Conclusion: Despite higher pCR rates, neither carboplatin nor bevacizumab appeared to improve LTOs although the study was not powered to assess these secondary end points. pCR was associated with superior LTOs even when compared with minimal RD. Markers of immune activation in pretreatment tumor biopsies were independently associated with higher pCR rates and improved survival., Competing Interests: Karla BallmanConsulting or Advisory Role: Medtronic, Takeda, AgenusPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Prostate cancer signature patent (Inst)Expert Testimony: Janssen Oncology, Lilly, Sanofi Sara SelitskyEmployment: QuantBio, Sash BiosciencesConsulting or Advisory Role: GeneCentric, C4 Therapeutics, Select ImmunoGenomics, FORMA Therapeutics, Atlas Venture, CytomX Therapeutics (Inst), Actym Therapeutics (Inst), Capulus Therapeutics (Inst), Codagenix (Inst) Joel S. ParkerStock and Other Ownership Interests: GeneCentric, Reveal GenomicsConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb/CelgenePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: J.S.P. has authored patents related to the PAM50 algorithm, which are licensed to NanoString Technologies Patricia A. SpearsConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer Sara M. TolaneyThis author is a member of the Journal of Clinical Oncology Editorial Board. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, NanoString Technologies, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Genentech, Eisai, Sanofi, Celldex, Bristol Myers Squibb, Paxman, Seattle Genetics, Odonate Therapeutics, AbbVie, Silverback Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, OncoPep, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Samsung Bioepis, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Immunomedics/Gilead, Mersana, Certara, 4D Pharma, Ellipses Pharma, OncoSec, Chugai Pharma, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche (Inst), Merck (Inst), Exelixis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Eisai (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), NanoString Technologies (Inst), Cyclacel (Inst), Nektar (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Odonate Therapeutics (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Immunomedics, Eisai, NanoString Technologies, Puma Biotechnology, Celldex Cynthia MaConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Agendia, AstraZeneca, Athenex, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Biovica Inc, Eisai, Olaris, Philips Electronics, Puma Biotechnology, Sanofi Genzyme, Jacobio, Natera, InivataResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst) Eleftherios MamounasHonoraria: Genentech/Roche, Genomic Health, PreciscaConsulting or Advisory Role: Genomic Health, BioTheranostics, Roche/Genentech, Merck, Puma Biotechnology, Precisca, AgendiaSpeakers' Bureau: Genomic Health, Genentech/Roche Mehra GolshanConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, BertisResearch Funding: Breast Cancer Research Foundation Jennifer R. BellonThis author is a member of the Journal of Clinical Oncology Editorial Board. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Leadership: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology PhysicsHonoraria: UpToDate, Accuray, Leidos Biomedical Research, Grupo OncoclinicasResearch Funding: NanoString Technologies (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Coeditor of breast cancer textbook (Radiation Therapy Techniques and Treatment Planning for Breast Cancer). Honorarium, SpringerOther Relationship: Varian Medical Systems Deborah CollyarHonoraria: PfizerConsulting or Advisory Role: Parexel, MaxisIT, Kinnate BiopharmaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Parexel Olwen M. HahnLeadership: Via OncologyStock and Other Ownership Interests: Teleflex MedicalHonoraria: Cardinal Health (I)Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, hmpglobal.comTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Cardinal Health (I) Clifford A. HudisUncompensated Relationships: Alliance Foundation Trials, Columbia University, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/471974/summary 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 Ann PartridgePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I receive small royalty payments for coauthoring the breast cancer survivorship section of UpToDateOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/835197 Terry HyslopConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVieTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AbbVie Lisa A. CareyResearch Funding: Syndax (Inst), Novartis (Inst), NanoString Technologies (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Veracyte (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalty-sharing agreement, investorship interest in licensed IP to startup company, Falcon Therapeutics, that is designing neural stem-cell–based therapy for glioblastoma multiforme (I)Uncompensated Relationships: Sanofi (Inst), Novartis (Inst), G1 Therapeutics (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Aptitude Health (Inst), Exact Sciences (Inst), EisaiOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/179671 Charles M. PerouLeadership: GeneCentricStock and Other Ownership Interests: Bioclassifier, GeneCentric, Reveal GenomicsConsulting or Advisory Role: Bioclassifier, GeneCentric, NanoString Technologies, Veracyte, Reveal GenomicsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalties from PAM50 breast cancer gene patent application and from lung gene signature patentTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Takeda, Chugai Pharma William M. SikovHonoraria: UpToDateSpeakers' Bureau: Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Seattle GeneticsNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

While the majority of breast cancers are diagnosed at a curable stage, approximately 20% of women will experience recurrence at a distant site during their lifetime. These metastatic recurrences are incurable with current therapeutic approaches. Over the past decade, the biologic mechanisms underlying these recurrences have been elucidated, establishing the existence of minimal residual disease in the form of circulating micrometastases and dormant disease, primarily in the bone marrow. Numerous technologies are now available to detect minimal residual disease (MRD) after breast cancer treatment, but it is yet unknown how to best target and eradicate these cells, and whether clearance of detectable disease prior to the formation of overt metastases can prevent ultimate progression and death. Clinical trials to test this hypothesis are challenging due to the rare nature of MRD in the blood and bone marrow, resulting in the need to screen a large number of survivors to identify those for study. Use of prognostic molecular tools may be able to direct screening to those patients most likely to harbor MRD, but the relationship between these predictors and MRD detection is as yet undefined. Further challenges include the lack of a definitive assay for MRD with established clinical utility, difficulty in selecting potential interventions due to limitations in understanding the biology of MRD, and the emotional impact of detecting MRD in patients who have completed definitive treatment and have no evidence of overt metastatic disease. This review provides a roadmap for tackling these challenges in the design and implementation of interventional clinical trials aimed at eliminating MRD and ultimately preventing metastatic disease to improve survival from this disease, with a specific focus on late recurrences in ER+ breast cancer., Competing Interests: DWC, consulting/advisory role for Agendia, AstraZeneca, Dynamo Therapeutics, Eisai, Exact Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Gilead, and Roche; research support (to institution) from GlaxoSmithKline, Inivata, Merck, Pfizer and Roche outside of the submitted work; patent for methods of treating cancers characterized by a high expression level of spindle and kinetochore associated complex subunit 3(ska3) gene (US62/675,228). KK, consulting/advisory role for Eli-Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Immunomedics, Merck, SeattleGenetics, and Cyclocel; stock ownership (spouse) in Grail, Array BioPharma; former employment relationship (spouse) with Pfizer. HAP, research support (to institution) from Puma Biotechnology outside of the submitted work. KS, research support (to institution) from Pfizer outside of the submitted work; stock ownership (spouse) in ABT Labs and Abbvie. PAS, advisory committee role for Pfizer outside of the submitted work. AT, advisory role for BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals; research funding (to institution) from Sanofi; stock ownership in Gilead Sciences, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, and stock ownership (spouse) in Johnson and Johnson; royalties from Up-To-Date (spouse). AD research support (to institution) from Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech, Calithera outside of the submitted work. The remaining author declares 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 © 2022 Cescon, Kalinsky, Parsons, Smith, Spears, Thomas, Zhao and DeMichele.)

Among stakeholders and decision-makers in advanced breast cancer, the demand for insights from real-world data (RWD) is increasing. Although RWD can be used to support decisions throughout different stages of a breast cancer drug's life cycle, barriers exist to its use and acceptance. We propose a collaborative approach to generating and using RWD that is meaningful to multiple stakeholders, and encourage frameworks toward international guidelines to help standardize RWD methodologies to achieve more efficient use of RWD insights., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Author PC has received grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis; personal fees, non-financial support, and travel support from Roche; personal fees from Pfizer; and personal fees and travel support from AstraZeneca. Author SDR has served as a consultant for Pfizer. Author OSM has received grants from the European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (EUCOPE) and consulting fees and honoraria from numerous multinational pharmaceutical companies. Authors PS and LT have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

The Breast Cancer Weight Loss (BWEL) trial is a randomized controlled trial designed to determine whether weight loss after a breast cancer diagnosis can reduce the risk of cancer recurrence in women with overweight or obesity. The BWEL trial will compare the efficacy of a telephone-based weight-loss intervention plus health education materials versus health education materials alone on invasive disease-free survival in 3,181 women with stage II or III breast cancer and BMI > 27 kg/m 2 . This report provides a detailed description of the goals and methods of the lifestyle intervention and the evidence supporting the intervention used in the BWEL trial. The intervention's primary goal for participants is to achieve and maintain a weight loss ≥ 10% of baseline weight through increased physical activity and caloric restriction. The evidence supporting the diet, physical activity, and behavioral components of this telephone-based weight-loss intervention, as well as strategies to promote participant engagement and retention, is described. The intervention is provided through 42 sessions delivered by trained health coaches over a 2-year period. If the BWEL lifestyle intervention is successful in improving cancer outcomes, then weight loss will be incorporated into the care of thousands of breast cancer patients., (© 2021 The Obesity Society (TOS).)

Patient experience literature in early-stage breast cancer (eBC) is limited. This study used a mixed-methods approach to examine patient conversations from public online forums to identify and evaluate eBC-related themes. Among 60,000 eBC-related posts published September 2014-2019, text from a random subset of 15,000 posts was extracted and grouped into linguistically similar, mutually exclusive clusters using an advanced natural language processing (NLP) algorithm. Clusters were characterized using four quantitative metrics: betweenness centrality (linguistic similarity to other areas of the cluster network), sentiment (general attitude toward a topic), recency (average date of posts), and volume (total number of posts). This analysis represented 3906 unique users (67% and 33% obtained from cancer-specific and general health/nonhealth forums, respectively). Of the 27 clusters identified, most important were "discussing recurrence & progression," "understanding diagnosis & prognosis," and "understanding cancer, biomarkers, and treatments." Several major themes related to recurrence risk, diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment were identified. Additional emphasis on communicating the disease recurrence risk and shared decision-making could strengthen patient-clinician partnerships., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Yes, EH Law and R Winnette are employees of Pfizer Inc and have stock options in Pfizer Inc. MJ Auil and K Berg have no conflicts of interest to disclose. PA Spears is an advisor/consultant for Pfizer Inc., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Purpose: To provide recommendations on the best strategies for the management and on the best timing and treatment (surgical and radiotherapeutic) of the axilla for patients with early-stage breast cancer., Methods: Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) and ASCO convened a Working Group and Expert Panel to develop evidence-based recommendations informed by a systematic review of the literature., Results: This guideline endorsed two recommendations of the ASCO 2017 guideline for the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with early-stage breast cancer and expanded on that guideline with recommendations for radiotherapy interventions, timing of staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and mapping modalities. Overall, the ASCO 2017 guideline, seven high-quality systematic reviews, 54 unique studies, and 65 corollary trials formed the evidentiary basis of this guideline., Recommendations: Recommendations are issued for each of the objectives of this guideline: (1) To determine which patients with early-stage breast cancer require axillary staging, (2) to determine whether any further axillary treatment is indicated for women with early-stage breast cancer who did not receive NAC and are sentinel lymph node-negative at diagnosis, (3) to determine which axillary strategy is indicated for women with early-stage breast cancer who did not receive NAC and are pathologically sentinel lymph node-positive at diagnosis (after a clinically node-negative presentation), (4) to determine what axillary treatment is indicated and what the best timing of axillary treatment for women with early-stage breast cancer is when NAC is used, and (5) to determine which are the best methods for identifying sentinel nodes.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines., Competing Interests: Practice Guidelines Committee approval: April 7, 2021 Francisco E. PereraStock and Other Ownership Interests: Exact Sciences, Seattle Genetics, Moderna Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, BioNTech AG Tulin CilHonoraria: Roche Mariana Chavez Mac GregorEmployment: MD Anderson Physician's NetworkHonoraria: Pfizer, EisaiConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Asofar, Genomic HealthResearch Funding: NovartisExpert Testimony: Abbott Laboratories, PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: PfizerOther Relationship: RocheUncompensated Relationships: Legacy Healthcare Services, The Hope Foundation Ian S. DayesHonoraria: AbbVie, Verity Pharmaceuticals Janet K. HortonEmployment: G1 TherapeuticsStock and Other Ownership Interests: G1 Therapeutics Tari A. KingHonoraria: Genomic HealthConsulting or Advisory Role: Genomic HealthTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Grupo OncoclinicasOther Relationship: PrecisCa Cancer Information Service Anat KorneckiHonoraria: GE HealthcareResearch Funding: GE HealthcareTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: GE Healthcare Ralph GeorgeHonoraria: AbbVieConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, Agendia, Genomic HealthOther Relationship: Immode, Lutronic Patricia A. SpearsConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer Andrea F. EisenOther Relationship: Cancer Care OntarioNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007, provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer clinical trial end points. Given the evolution of breast cancer clinical trials and improvements in outcomes, a panel of experts reviewed the STEEP criteria to determine whether modifications are needed., Methods: We conducted systematic searches of ClinicalTrials.gov for adjuvant systemic and local-regional therapy trials for breast cancer to investigate if the primary end points reported met STEEP criteria. On the basis of common STEEP deviations, we performed a series of simulations to evaluate the effect of excluding non-breast cancer deaths and new nonbreast primary cancers from the invasive disease-free survival end point., Results: Among 11 phase III breast cancer trials with primary efficacy end points, three had primary end points that followed STEEP criteria, four used STEEP definitions but not the corresponding end point names, and four used end points that were not included in the original STEEP manuscript. Simulation modeling demonstrated that inclusion of second nonbreast primary cancer can increase the probability of incorrect inferences, can decrease power to detect clinically relevant efficacy effects, and may mask differences in recurrence rates, especially when recurrence rates are low., Conclusion: We recommend an additional end point, invasive breast cancer-free survival, which includes all invasive disease-free survival events except second nonbreast primary cancers. This end point should be considered for trials in which the toxicities of agents are well-known and where the risk of second primary cancer is small. Additionally, we provide end point recommendations for local therapy trials, low-risk populations, noninferiority trials, and trials incorporating patient-reported outcomes., Competing Interests: Sara M. TolaneyConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, NanoString Technologies, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Genentech, Eisai, Sanofi, Celldex, Bristol Myers Squibb, Paxman, Seattle Genetics, Odonate Therapeutics, AbbVie, Silverback Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, OncoPep, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Samsung Bioepis, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Immunomedics/Gilead, Mersana, CertaraResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Merck, Exelixis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, AstraZeneca, NanoString Technologies, Cyclacel, Nektar, Immunomedics, Odonate Therapeutics, Sanofi, Seattle GeneticsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Immunomedics, Eisai, NanoString Technologies, Puma Biotechnology, Celldex Elizabeth Garrett-MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Deciphera, Tyme Julia WhiteResearch Funding: Intraop Medical Judith M. BlissResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Puma Biotechnology, Pfizer, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline/Novartis, Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Clovis OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer Eileen RakovitchHonoraria: AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Genomic Health International Patricia A. SpearsConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer Elizabeth FrankHonoraria: AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche Nadine M. TungResearch Funding: AstraZeneca Anthony D. EliasStock and Other Ownership Interests: AbbVie, Merck, Gilead Sciences, Allergan, Pfizer, Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, United Health Group, Align Oncology, Illumina, Exact Sciences, Lilly, Agilent, Cigna, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, BiogenerixConsulting or Advisory Role: Ayala PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: Medivation, Astellas Pharma, Genentech, Deciphera, Xencor, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, TopAlliance BioSciences Inc, Fosun Orinove, BioAtlaUncompensated Relationships: Seiyax David CameronConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Novartis, Research Triangle Institute Health Solutions, Daiichi Sankyo, Prima BioMed, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Zymeworks, Eisai, Puma Biotechnology, Pfizer, Oncolytics, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Seattle Genetics, Synthon, Clarity PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: Roche, Novartis, AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis Neelima DenduluriEmployment: AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Amgen, Novartis, Genentech, Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, ImmunomedicsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Seattle Genetics Angelo DiLeoHonoraria: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Lilly, Celgene, AmgenConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Celgene, Puma Biotechnology, Ipsen, Genentech, Amgen, Seattle Genetics, Genomic Health, Athenex, Daiichi SankyoTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Novartis 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, ZymeworksResearch Funding: Genentech, AstraZenecaOther Relationship: InfiniteMDNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Breast cancer has historically been a disease for which immunotherapy was largely unavailable. Recently, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has demonstrated efficacy, including longer progression-free survival and increased overall survival in subsets of patients. Based on clinical benefit in randomized trials, ICIs in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of some patients with advanced/metastatic TNBC have been approved by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA), expanding options for patients. Ongoing questions remain, however, about the optimal chemotherapy backbone for immunotherapy, appropriate biomarker-based selection of patients for treatment, the optimal strategy for immunotherapy treatment in earlier stage disease, and potential use in histological subtypes other than TNBC. To provide guidance to the oncology community on these and other important concerns, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG). The expert panel drew upon the published literature as well as their clinical experience to develop recommendations for healthcare professionals on these important aspects of immunotherapeutic treatment for breast cancer, including diagnostic testing, treatment planning, immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and patient quality of life (QOL) considerations. The evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations in this CPG are intended to give guidance to cancer care providers treating patients with breast cancer., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SA–Contracted research: Funding to institution from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Celgene, Roche. AC-M–Consulting fees: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche Diagnostics; Contracted research: Bristol Myers Squibb; Partner Salary: Vivante Health; Royalty: Springer/Demos Publishing-Textbooks. MLD–Contracted research: Pfizer, EMD Serono, Bavarian Nordisk, Precigen, Epithany, Silverback Therapeutics, Celgene; IP Rights: University of Washington; Non-CME Services: SITC; Ownership interest: Epithany; Partner ownership interest: Epithany; Partner salary: Cox Cable; Royalty: University of Washington; Salary: University of Washington. LAE–Contracted research: Aduro Biotech, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Corvus, EMD Serono, Genentech, F Hoffman La Roche, Maxcyte, Merck, Tempest, Silverback, Bolt, Compugen, Takeda, CytomX; Consulting fees: Genentech, F Hoffman La Roche, Syndax, Lilly, AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, F Hoffman La Roche, GCPR, Genentech, Gilead, Gritstone, Medimmune, Macrogenics, Novartis, Peregrine, Replimune, Shionogi, Silverback, Vaccinex; IP Rights: Aduro Biotech; Royalty: Elsevier; Salary: University of Pittsburgh, UPMC UPP; Grants from non-industry entities: HeritX Incorporated, NSABP Foundation, Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, National Cancer Institute, Department of Defense, Johns Hopkins University, University of California San Francisco, Cornell University; Ownership interest: Molecuvax-potential for royalties in the future. MG-M–Trial funding to institution: EMD Serono (OSU Site PI). AYH–Consulting fees: Seattle Genetics; La Roche-Posay; Contracted research: Merck and GSK. KK–Consulting fees: Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Merck, Seattle Genetics; Contracted research: Incyte, Genentech, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Calithera Biosciences, Acetylon, Seattle Genetics, Amgen, ZenoPharmaceuticals, CytomX Therapeutics; Partner Salary: Pfizer, Array Biopharma - no longer employee at either; Speaker Bureau: Eli Lilly. JKL–Contracted research: Novartis, Medivation/Pfizer, Genentech, GSK, EMD Serono, AstraZeneca, Medimmune, Zenith, Jounce (All were payments to my Institution of for writing support for manuscripts of multicenter trials. No payments directly to Dr Litton); Consulting fees: Pfizer/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Ayala (All honorariums were refused); Salary: The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. HLM–Consulting fees: Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Pfizer, Puma, Daiichi Sankyo, Seattle Genetics, AstraZeneca; Contracted Research: Bristol Myers Squibb, MedImmune, LLC/AstraZeneca, BTG, Merck. EAM–Consulting fees: Merck, Genomic Health, Roche/Genentech; Contracted research: GlaxoSmithKline; NPI: 1831388596. RN–Consulting fees: Clovis, Immunomedics, Macrogenics, Merck, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics; Contracted research: AstraZeneca, Celgene, Corcept Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Immunomedics, Merck, OBI Pharma, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics; DSMB: G1 Therapeutics. DBP–Consulting fees: Genentech, Merck, Brooklyn Immunotherapeutics; Contracted research: Merck, Brooklyn Immunotherapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb; Speaker bureau: Genentech, Novartis. HSR–Consulting fees: Puma, Samsung - Limited consulting; Contracted research: Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Lilly, Genentech, OBI, Odonate, Daiichi, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Macrogenics, Immunomedics; Travel support for educational programs: Daiichi, Mylan, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Macrogenics. KMR–Consulting fees: Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai. HS–Consulting fees: AstraZeneca, Eisai, Novartis, Celgene, PUMA, Seattle Genetics. PAS–Consulting fees: Pfizer. SMT–Consulting fees: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech, Immunomedics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Nanostring, Puma, Sanofi, Celldex, Paxman, Odonate, Seattle Genetics, Silverback Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, AbbVie, Anthenex, Oncopep; Contracted research: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech, Immunomedics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Nanostring, Sanofi, Exelisis, Seattle Genetics, Cyclacel, Odonate. SITC Staff: SMW—Shares owned: Pacific Biosciences of California, Editas Medicine. EG, AK, LL—Nothing to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Inhibition of the HER2/ERBB2 receptor is a keystone to treating HER2-positive malignancies, particularly breast cancer, but a significant fraction of HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancers recur or fail to respond. Anti-HER2 monoclonal antibodies, like trastuzumab or pertuzumab, and ATP active site inhibitors like lapatinib, commonly lack durability because of adaptive changes in the tumor leading to resistance. HER2+ cell line responses to inhibition with lapatinib were analyzed by RNAseq and ChIPseq to characterize transcriptional and epigenetic changes. Motif analysis of lapatinib-responsive genomic regions implicated the pioneer transcription factor FOXA1 as a mediator of adaptive responses. Lapatinib in combination with FOXA1 depletion led to dysregulation of enhancers, impaired adaptive upregulation of HER3, and decreased proliferation. HER2-directed therapy using clinically relevant drugs (trastuzumab with or without lapatinib or pertuzumab) in a 7-day clinical trial designed to examine early pharmacodynamic response to antibody-based anti-HER2 therapy showed reduced FOXA1 expression was coincident with decreased HER2 and HER3 levels, decreased proliferation gene signatures, and increased immune gene signatures. This highlights the importance of the immune response to anti-HER2 antibodies and suggests that inhibiting FOXA1-mediated adaptive responses in combination with HER2 targeting is a potential therapeutic strategy.

Purpose: To develop guideline recommendations concerning optimal neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer., Methods: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of the literature on neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer and provide recommended care options., Results: A total of 41 articles met eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the guideline recommendations., Recommendations: Patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy should be managed by a multidisciplinary care team. Appropriate candidates for neoadjuvant therapy include patients with inflammatory breast cancer and those in whom residual disease may prompt a change in therapy. Neoadjuvant therapy can also be used to reduce the extent of local therapy or reduce delays in initiating therapy. Although tumor histology, grade, stage, and estrogen, progesterone, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression should routinely be used to guide clinical decisions, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of other markers or genomic profiles. Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have clinically node-positive and/or at least T1c disease should be offered an anthracycline- and taxane-containing regimen; those with cT1a or cT1bN0 TNBC should not routinely be offered neoadjuvant therapy. Carboplatin may be offered to patients with TNBC to increase pathologic complete response. There is currently insufficient evidence to support adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to standard chemotherapy. In patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive (HR-positive), HER2-negative tumors, neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be used when a treatment decision can be made without surgical information. Among postmenopausal patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative disease, hormone therapy can be used to downstage disease. Patients with node-positive or high-risk node-negative, HER2-positive disease should be offered neoadjuvant therapy in combination with anti-HER2-positive therapy. Patients with T1aN0 and T1bN0, HER2-positive disease should not be routinely offered neoadjuvant therapy.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines., Competing Interests: Reprint Requests: 2318 Mill Road, Suite 800, Alexandria, VA 22314; guidelines@asco.org Lisa A. CareyResearch Funding: Innocrin Pharma, Syndax, Immunomedics, Novartis, NanoString Technologies, AbbVie, Seattle GeneticsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalty-sharing agreement, investorship interest in licensed IP to startup company, Falcon Therapeutics, that is designing neural stem cell-based therapy for glioblastoma multiforme(OPTIONAL) Uncompensated Relationships: Sanofi, Novartis, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Exact Sciences, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sanyo, Aptitude Health(OPTIONAL) Open Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/179671 Neelima DenduluriResearch Funding: Amgen, Novartis, Genentech, Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, ImmunomedicsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Seattle Genetics Sibylle LoiblHonoraria: Chugai PharmaConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Celgene, Lilly, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck KGaA, AbbVie, Amgen, prime/Medscape, Daiichi Sankyo, Samsung, Puma Biotechnology, Pierre Fabre, Immunomedics, GlaxoSmithKline, EirGenix, BayerResearch Funding: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Vifor Pharma, Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Cepheid, Myriad Genetics, Immunomedics, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Pierre FabrePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patent Pending EP14153692.0 Elizabeth A. MorrisResearch Funding: GRAIL Alejandra PerezResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Macrogenics, Nektar, Immunomedics, AstraZeneca Meredith M. ReganHonoraria: Bristol-Myers SquibbConsulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Tolmar, Bristol-Myers SquibbResearch Funding: Veridex, OncoGenex, Pfizer, Ipsen, Novartis, Merck, Ferring, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, Ipsen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Astellas Pharma, Medivation, Janssen, Millennium Pharamceuticals, Sanofi, Sotio, Dendreon, Pfizer, TerSeraTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb Patricia A. SpearsConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer Preeti K. SudheendraHonoraria: Boston ScientificConsulting or Advisory Role: Boston Scientific, Vesper Medical, Sirtex MedicalSpeakers' Bureau: Boston Scientific W. Fraser SymmansStock and Other Ownership Interests: ISIS Pharmaceuticals, Nuvera Biosciences, Delphi Diagnostics, Eiger BioPharmaceuticalsConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Almac DiagnosticsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Intellectual propertyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Luminex, Merck(OPTIONAL) Uncompensated Relationships: Delphi Diagnostics Rachel L. YungResearch Funding: Novartis, Odonate Therapeutics Dawn L. HershmanConsulting or Advisory Role: AIM Specialty HealthNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

An important challenge in the field of cancer is finding the balance between delivering effective treatments and avoiding adverse effects and financial toxicity caused by innovative, yet expensive, drugs. To address this, several treatment de-escalation trials have been conducted, but only a few of these have provided clear answers. A few trials had poor accrual or had design flaws that led to conflicting results. Members of the Breast International Group (BIG) and North American Breast Cancer Group (NABCG) believe the way forward is to understand the lessons from these trials and listen more carefully to what truly matters to our patients. We reviewed several adjuvant trials of different cancer types and developed a road map for improving the design and implementation of future de-escalation trials. The road map incorporates patients' insights obtained through focused group discussions across the BIG-NABCG networks. Considerations for the development of de-escalation trials for systemic adjuvant treatment, including noninferiority trial design, choice of end points, and prioritization of a patient's perspectives, are presented in this consensus article.

Purpose: There is increasing interest in implementing digital systems for remote monitoring of patients' symptoms during routine oncology practice. Information is limited about the clinical utility and user perceptions of these systems., Methods: PRO-TECT is a multicenter trial evaluating implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) among adults with advanced and metastatic cancers receiving treatment at US community oncology practices (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249090). Questions derived from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) are administered weekly by web or automated telephone system, with alerts to nurses for severe or worsening symptoms. To elicit user feedback, surveys were administered to participating patients and clinicians., Results: Among 496 patients across 26 practices, the majority found the system and questions easy to understand (95%), easy to use (93%), and relevant to their care (91%). Most patients reported that PRO information was used by their clinicians for care (70%), improved discussions with clinicians (73%), made them feel more in control of their own care (77%), and would recommend the system to other patients (89%). Scores for most patient feedback questions were significantly positively correlated with weekly PRO completion rates in both univariate and multivariable analyses. Among 57 nurses, most reported that PRO information was helpful for clinical documentation (79%), increased efficiency of patient discussions (84%), and was useful for patient care (75%). Among 39 oncologists, most found PRO information useful (91%), with 65% using PROs to guide patient discussions sometimes or often and 65% using PROs to make treatment decisions sometimes or often., Conclusion: These findings support the clinical utility and value of implementing digital systems for monitoring PROs, including the PRO-CTCAE, in routine cancer care.

In the United States, many cancer centers advertise their clinical services directly to the public. Although there are potential public benefits from such advertising, including increased patient awareness of treatment options and improved access to care and clinical trials, there is also potential for harm through misinformation, provision of false hope, inappropriate use of health care resources, and disruption in doctor-patient relationships. Although patient education through advertising is appropriate, misleading patients in the name of gaining market share, boosting profits, or even boosting trial accrual is not. It is critical that rigorous ethical guidelines are adopted and that oversight is introduced to ensure that cancer center marketing supports good patient care and public health interests. Patients with cancer have been identified as an especially vulnerable population because of fears and anxiety related to their diagnosis and the very real need to identify optimal sources of care. Cancer organizations have a fiduciary duty and a moral and legal obligation to provide truthful information to avoid deceptive, inaccurate claims associated with treatment success. In this article, actionable recommendations are provided for both the oncologist and the cancer center's marketing team to promote ethical marketing of services to patients with cancer. This tailored guidance for the oncology community includes explicit communication on (1) ensuring fair and balanced promotion of cancer services, (2) avoiding exaggeration of claims in the context of reputational marketing, (3) providing data and statistics to support direct and implied assertions of treatment success, and (4) defining eligible patient groups in the context of marketing for research. These recommendations for cancer centers are designed to promote ethical quality marketing information to patients with cancer.

Purpose: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess how patients feel and function have potential for evaluating quality of care. Stakeholder recommendations for PRO-based performance measures (PMs) were elicited, and feasibility testing was conducted at six cancer centers., Methods: Interviews were conducted with 124 stakeholders to determine priority symptoms and risk adjustment variables for PRO-PMs and perceived acceptability. Stakeholders included patients and advocates, caregivers, clinicians, administrators, and thought leaders. Feasibility testing was conducted in six cancer centers. Patients completed PROMs at home 5-15 days into a chemotherapy cycle. Feasibility was operationalized as ≥ 75% completed PROMs and ≥ 75% patient acceptability., Results: Stakeholder priority PRO-PMs for systemic therapy were GI symptoms (diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting), depression/anxiety, pain, insomnia, fatigue, dyspnea, physical function, and neuropathy. Recommended risk adjusters included demographics, insurance type, cancer type, comorbidities, emetic risk, and difficulty paying bills. In feasibility testing, 653 patients enrolled (approximately 110 per site), and 607 (93%) completed PROMs, which indicated high feasibility for home collection. The majority of patients (470 of 607; 77%) completed PROMs without a reminder call, and 137 (23%) of 607 completed them after a reminder call. Most patients (72%) completed PROMs through web, 17% paper, or 2% interactive voice response (automated call that verbally asked patient questions). For acceptability, > 95% of patients found PROM items to be easy to understand and complete., Conclusion: Clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders agree that PMs that are based on how patients feel and function would be an important addition to quality measurement. This study also shows that PRO-PMs can be feasibly captured at home during systemic therapy and are acceptable to patients. PRO-PMs may add value to the portfolio of PMs as oncology transitions from fee-for-service payment models to performance-based care that emphasizes outcome measures.

Purpose: To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology endorsement of the Cancer Care Ontario recommendations on the Role of Patient and Disease Factors in Adjuvant Systemic Therapy Decision Making for Early-Stage, Operable Breast Cancer., Methods: Two phase III trials-the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx) in women with hormone receptor-positive, node-negative tumors and the Microarray in Node-Negative and 1 to 3 Positive Lymph Node Disease May Avoid Chemotherapy (MINDACT) trial-provided the evidence for this update., Updated Recommendations: Shared decision making between clinicians and patients is appropriate for adjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer. For patients older than age 50 years and whose tumors have Onco type DX recurrence scores less than 26, and for patients age 50 years or younger whose tumors have Onco type DX recurrence scores less than 16, there is little to no benefit from chemotherapy. Clinicians may offer endocrine therapy alone for these patients. For patients age 50 years or younger with recurrence scores of 16 to 25, clinicians may offer chemoendocrine therapy. Patients with recurrence scores greater than 30 should be considered candidates for chemoendocrine therapy. Based on informal consensus, the Panel recommends that oncologists may offer chemoendocrine therapy to patients with Onco type DX scores of 26 to 30.The MammaPrint assay could be used to guide decisions on withholding adjuvant systemic chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive lymph node-negative breast cancer and in select patients with lymph node-positive cancers. In both patients with node-positive and node-negative disease, evidence of clinical utility of the MammaPrint assay was only apparent in those determined to be at high clinical risk; the Panel thus did not recommend use of MammaPrint assay in patients determined to be at low clinical risk. Remaining recommendations from the 2016 ASCO guideline endorsement are unchanged.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Radiotherapy is a fundamental component of treatment for the majority of patients with cancer. In recent decades, technological advances have enabled patients to receive more targeted doses of radiation to the tumor, with sparing of adjacent normal tissues. There had been hope that the era of precision medicine would enhance the combination of radiotherapy with targeted anticancer drugs; however, this ambition remains to be realized. In view of this lack of progress, the FDA-AACR-ASTRO Clinical Development of Drug-Radiotherapy Combinations Workshop was held in February 2018 to bring together stakeholders and opinion leaders from academia, clinical radiation oncology, industry, patient advocacy groups, and the FDA to discuss challenges to introducing new drug-radiotherapy combinations to the clinic. This Perspectives in Regulatory Science and Policy article summarizes the themes and action points that were discussed. Intelligent trial design is required to increase the number of studies that efficiently meet their primary outcomes; endpoints to be considered include local control, organ preservation, and patient-reported outcomes. Novel approaches including immune-oncology or DNA-repair inhibitor agents combined with radiotherapy should be prioritized. In this article, we focus on how the regulatory challenges associated with defining a new drug-radiotherapy combination can be overcome to improve clinical outcomes for patients with cancer., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose.—: To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer guideline., Methods.—: Based on the signals approach, an Expert Panel reviewed published literature and research survey results on the observed frequency of less common in situ hybridization (ISH) patterns to update the recommendations., Recommendations.—: Two recommendations addressed via correspondence in 2015 are included. First, immunohistochemistry (IHC) 2+ is defined as invasive breast cancer with weak to moderate complete membrane staining observed in >10% of tumor cells. Second, if the initial HER2 test result in a core needle biopsy specimen of a primary breast cancer is negative, a new HER2 test may (not "must") be ordered on the excision specimen based on specific clinical criteria. The HER2 testing algorithm for breast cancer is updated to address the recommended workup for less common clinical scenarios (approximately 5% of cases) observed when using a dual-probe ISH assay. These scenarios are described as ISH group 2 ( HER2/chromosome enumeration probe 17 [CEP17] ratio ≥2.0; average HER2 copy number <4.0 signals per cell), ISH group 3 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio <2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥6.0 signals per cell), and ISH group 4 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio <2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥4.0 and <6.0 signals per cell). The diagnostic approach includes more rigorous interpretation criteria for ISH and requires concomitant IHC review for dual-probe ISH groups 2 to 4 to arrive at the most accurate HER2 status designation (positive or negative) based on combined interpretation of the ISH and IHC assays. The Expert Panel recommends that laboratories using single-probe ISH assays include concomitant IHC review as part of the interpretation of all single-probe ISH assay results.

Purpose: Response to a complex trastuzumab-based regimen is affected by multiple features of the tumor and its microenvironment. Developing a predictive algorithm is key to optimizing HER2-targeting therapy. Experimental Design: We analyzed 137 pretreatment tumors with mRNA-seq and DNA exome sequencing from CALGB 40601, a neoadjuvant phase III trial of paclitaxel plus trastuzumab with or without lapatinib in stage II to III HER2-positive breast cancer. We adopted an Elastic Net regularized regression approach that controls for covarying features within high-dimensional data. First, we applied 517 known gene expression signatures to develop an Elastic Net model to predict pCR, which we validated on 143 samples from four independent trials. Next, we performed integrative analyses incorporating clinicopathologic information with somatic mutation status, DNA copy number alterations (CNA), and gene signatures. Results: The Elastic Net model using only gene signatures predicted pCR in the validation sets (AUC = 0.76). Integrative analyses showed that models containing gene signatures, clinical features, and DNA information were better pCR predictors than models containing a single data type. Frequently selected variables from the multiplatform models included amplifications of chromosome 6p, TP53 mutation, HER2-enriched subtype, and immune signatures. Variables predicting resistance included Luminal/ER + features. Conclusions: Models using RNA only, as well as integrated RNA and DNA models, can predict pCR with improved accuracy over clinical variables. Somatic DNA alterations (mutation, CNAs), tumor molecular subtype (HER2E, Luminal), and the microenvironment (immune cells) were independent predictors of response to trastuzumab and paclitaxel-based regimens. This highlights the complexity of predicting response in HER2-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 24(21); 5292-304. ©2018 AACR ., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Although not guideline recommended, studies suggest 50% of locoregional breast cancer patients undergo systemic imaging during follow-up, prompting its inclusion as a Choosing Wisely measure of potential overuse. Most studies rely on administrative data that cannot delineate scan intent (prompted by signs/symptoms vs. asymptomatic surveillance). This is a critical gap as intent is the only way to distinguish overuse from appropriate care., Objective: Our aim was to assess surveillance systemic imaging post-breast cancer treatment in a national sample accounting for scan intent., Methods: A stage-stratified random sample of 10 women with stage II-III breast cancer in 2006-2007 was selected from each of 1217 Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities, for a total of 10,838 patients. Registrars abstracted scan type (computed tomography [CT], non-breast magnetic resonance imaging, bone scan, positron emission tomography/CT) and intent (cancer-related vs. not, asymptomatic surveillance vs. not) from medical records for 5 years post-diagnosis. Data were merged with each patient's corresponding National Cancer Database record, containing sociodemographic and tumor/treatment information., Results: Of 10,838 women, 30% had one or more, and 12% had two or more, systemic surveillance scans during a 4-year follow-up period. Patients were more likely to receive surveillance imaging in the first follow-up year (lower proportions during subsequent years) and if they had estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor-negative tumors., Conclusions: Locoregional breast cancer patients undergo asymptomatic systemic imaging during follow-up despite guidelines recommending against it, but at lower rates than previously reported. Providers appear to use factors that confer increased recurrence risk to tailor decisions about systemic surveillance imaging, perhaps reflecting limitations of data on which current guidelines are based. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02171078.

Peptidoglycan walls of gram positive bacteria are functionalized by glycopolymers called wall teichoic acid (WTA). In Listeria monocytogenes, multiple enzymes including the glucose-1-phosphate uridylyltransferase (GalU) were identified as mandatory for WTA galactosylation, so that the inhibition of GalU is associated with a significant attenuation of Listeria virulence. Herein, we report on a series of in silico predicted GalU inhibitors identified using structure-based virtual screening and experimentally validated to be effective in blocking the WTA galactosylation pathway in vitro. Several hits such as C04, a pyrimidinyl benzamide, afforded promising experimental potencies. This proof-of-concept study opens new perspectives for the development of potent and selective GalU inhibitors of high interest to attenuate Listeria virulence. It also underscores the high relevance of using molecular modeling for facilitating the identification of bacterial virulence attenuators and more generally antibacterials., (© 2018 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.)

Importance: Potential research participants may assume that randomized trials comparing new interventions with older interventions always hypothesize greater efficacy for the new intervention, as in superiority trials. However, antibiotic trials frequently use "noninferiority" hypotheses allowing a degree of inferior efficacy deemed "clinically acceptable" compared with an older effective drug, in exchange for nonefficacy benefits (eg, decreased adverse effects). Considering these different benefit-harm trade-offs, proper informed consent necessitates supplying different information on the purposes of superiority and noninferiority trials., Objective: To determine the degree to which the study purpose is explained to potential participants in randomized clinical trials of antibiotics and the degree to which study protocols justify their selection of noninferiority hypotheses and amount of "clinically acceptable" inferiority., Design and Setting: Cross-sectional analysis of study protocols, statistical analysis plans (SAPs), and informed consent forms (ICFs) from clinical study reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency. The ICFs were read by both methodologists and patient investigators., Main Outcomes and Measures: Protocols and SAPs were used as the reference standard to determine prespecified primary hypothesis and record rationale for selection of noninferiority hypotheses and noninferiority margins. This information was cross-referenced against ICFs to determine whether ICFs explained the study purpose., Results: We obtained trial documents from 78 randomized trials with prespecified efficacy hypotheses (6 superiority, 72 noninferiority) for 17 antibiotics conducted between 1991 and 2011 that enrolled 39 407 patients. Fifty were included in the ICF analysis. All ICFs contained sections describing study purpose; however, none consistently conveyed study hypothesis to both methodologists and patient investigators. Methodologists found that 1 of 50 conveyed a study purpose. Patient investigators found that 11 of 50 conveyed a study purpose, 7 accurately and 4 inaccurately compared with the reference standard. Seventy-one of 72 noninferiority trial protocols or SAPs provided no rationale for selection of noninferiority hypothesis. None provided a clinical rationale for the chosen amount of decreased efficacy., Conclusions and Relevance: Patients were not accurately informed of study purpose, which raises questions regarding the ethics of informed consent in antibiotic trials. Noninferiority and superiority trials entail different benefit-harm trade-offs that must be conveyed for ethical informed consent.

Purpose: A joint American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology panel convened to develop a focused update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline concerning use of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT)., Methods: A recent systematic literature review by Cancer Care Ontario provided the primary evidentiary basis. The joint panel also reviewed targeted literature searches to identify new, potentially practice-changing data., Recommendations: The panel unanimously agreed that available evidence shows that PMRT reduces the risks of locoregional failure (LRF), any recurrence, and breast cancer mortality for patients with T1-2 breast cancer with one to three positive axillary nodes. However, some subsets of these patients are likely to have such a low risk of LRF that the absolute benefit of PMRT is outweighed by its potential toxicities. In addition, the acceptable ratio of benefit to toxicity varies among patients and physicians. Thus, the decision to recommend PMRT requires a great deal of clinical judgment. The panel agreed clinicians making such recommendations for individual patients should consider factors that may decrease the risk of LRF, attenuate the benefit of reduced breast cancer-specific mortality, and/or increase risk of complications resulting from PMRT. When clinicians and patients elect to omit axillary dissection after a positive sentinel node biopsy, the panel recommends that these patients receive PMRT only if there is already sufficient information to justify its use without needing to know additional axillary nodes are involved. Patients with axillary nodal involvement after neoadjuvant systemic therapy should receive PMRT. The panel recommends treatment generally be administered to both the internal mammary nodes and the supraclavicular-axillary apical nodes in addition to the chest wall or reconstructed breast.

Purpose A joint American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology panel convened to develop a focused update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline concerning use of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). Methods A recent systematic literature review by Cancer Care Ontario provided the primary evidentiary basis. The joint panel also reviewed targeted literature searches to identify new, potentially practice-changing data. Recommendations The panel unanimously agreed that available evidence shows that PMRT reduces the risks of locoregional failure (LRF), any recurrence, and breast cancer mortality for patients with T1-2 breast cancer with one to three positive axillary nodes. However, some subsets of these patients are likely to have such a low risk of LRF that the absolute benefit of PMRT is outweighed by its potential toxicities. In addition, the acceptable ratio of benefit to toxicity varies among patients and physicians. Thus, the decision to recommend PMRT requires a great deal of clinical judgment. The panel agreed clinicians making such recommendations for individual patients should consider factors that may decrease the risk of LRF, attenuate the benefit of reduced breast cancer-specific mortality, and/or increase risk of complications resulting from PMRT. When clinicians and patients elect to omit axillary dissection after a positive sentinel node biopsy, the panel recommends that these patients receive PMRT only if there is already sufficient information to justify its use without needing to know additional axillary nodes are involved. Patients with axillary nodal involvement after neoadjuvant systemic therapy should receive PMRT. The panel recommends treatment generally be administered to both the internal mammary nodes and the supraclavicular-axillary apical nodes in addition to the chest wall or reconstructed breast.

Wall teichoic acid (WTA) comprises a class of glycopolymers covalently attached to the peptidoglycan of gram positive bacteria. In Listeria monocytogenes, mutations that prevent addition of certain WTA decorating sugars are attenuating. However, the steps required for decoration and the pathogenic process interrupted are not well described. We systematically examined the requirement for WTA galactosylation in a mouse oral-virulent strain by first creating mutations in four genes whose products conferred resistance to a WTA-binding bacteriophage. WTA biochemical and structural studies indicated that galactosylated WTA was directly required for bacteriophage adsorption and that mutant WTA lacked appreciable galactose in all except one mutant - which retained a level ca. 7% of the parent. All mutants were profoundly attenuated in orally infected mice and were impaired in cell-to-cell spread in vitro. Confocal microscopy of cytosolic mutants revealed that all expressed ActA on their cell surface and formed actin tails with a frequency similar to the parent. However, the mutant tails were significantly shorter - suggesting a defect in actin based motility. Roles for the gene products in WTA galactosylation are proposed. Identification and interruption of WTA decoration pathways may provide a general strategy to discover non-antibiotic therapeutics for gram positive infections. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing and its utility as a predictive marker in invasive breast cancer., Methods: ASCO/CAP convened an Update Committee that included coauthors of the 2007 guideline to conduct a systematic literature review and update recommendations for optimal HER2 testing., Results: The Update Committee identified criteria and areas requiring clarification to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH). The guideline was reviewed and approved by both organizations., Recommendations: The Update Committee recommends that HER2 status (HER2 negative or positive) be determined in all patients with invasive (early stage or recurrence) breast cancer on the basis of one or more HER2 test results (negative, equivocal, or positive). Testing criteria define HER2-positive status when (on observing within an area of tumor that amounts to >10% of contiguous and homogeneous tumor cells) there is evidence of protein overexpression (IHC) or gene amplification (HER2 copy number or HER2/CEP17 ratio by ISH based on counting at least 20 cells within the area). If results are equivocal (revised criteria), reflex testing should be performed using an alternative assay (IHC or ISH). Repeat testing should be considered if results seem discordant with other histopathologic findings. Laboratories should demonstrate high concordance with a validated HER2 test on a sufficiently large and representative set of specimens. Testing must be performed in a laboratory accredited by CAP or another accrediting entity. The Update Committee urges providers and health systems to cooperate to ensure the highest quality testing.