Insufficient Reporting of Race and Ethnicity in Breast Cancer Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Reporting race and ethnicity in clinical trial publications is critical for determining the generalizability and effectiveness of new treatments. This is particularly important for breast cancer, in which Black women have been shown to have between 40 and 100% higher mortality rate yet are underrepresented in trials. Our objective was to describe changes over time in the reporting of race/ethnicity in breast trial publications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify the primary publication linked to trials with results posted from May 2010-2022. Statistical analysis included summed frequencies and a linear regression model of the proportion of articles reporting race/ethnicity and the proportion of non-White enrollees over time.

RESULTS

A proportion of 72 of the 98 (73.4%) studies that met inclusion criteria reported race/ethnicity. In a linear regression model of the proportion of studies reporting race/ethnicity as a function of time, there was no statistically significant change, although we detected a signal toward a decreasing trend (coefficient for quarter = -2.2, p = 0.2). Among all studies reporting race and ethnicity over the study period, the overall percentage of non-White enrollees during the study period was 21.9%, [standard error (s.e.) 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 18.4, 25.5] with a signal towards a decreasing trend in Non-White enrollment [coefficient for year-quarter = -0.8 (p = 0.2)].

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrate that both race reporting and overall representation of minority groups in breast cancer clinical trials did not improve over the last 12 years and may have, in fact, decreased. Increased reporting of race and ethnicity data forces the medical community to confront disparities in access to clinical trials. This may improve efforts to recruit and retain members of minority groups in clinical trials, and over time, reduce racial disparities in oncologic outcomes.

Platinum-based chemotherapy for early triple-negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer associated with shorter survival and a higher likelihood of the cancer returning. In early TNBC, platinum-based chemotherapy has been shown to improve pathological complete response (pCR); however, its effect on long-term survival outcomes has not been fully elucidated and recommendations to include platinum chemotherapy are not consistent in international guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of platinum-based chemotherapy as adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment in people with early triple-negative breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 4 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials examining neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum chemotherapy for early TNBC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Our secondary outcomes were pCR, treatment adherence, grade III or IV toxicity related to chemotherapy, and quality of life. Prespecified subgroups included BRCA mutation status, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status, frequency of chemotherapy, type of platinum agent used, and the presence or absence of anthracycline chemotherapy. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's RoB 1 tool and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

From 3972 records, we included 20 published studies involving 21 treatment comparisons, and 25 ongoing studies. For most domains, risk of bias was low across studies. There were 16 neoadjuvant chemotherapy studies (one of which combined neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy) and four adjuvant chemotherapy trials. Most studies used carboplatin (17 studies) followed by cisplatin (two), and lobaplatin (one). Eight studies had an anthracycline-free intervention arm, five of which had a carboplatin-taxane intervention compared to an anthracycline-taxane control. All studies reporting DFS and OS used carboplatin. Inclusion of platinum chemotherapy improved DFS in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings (neoadjuvant: hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.75; 7 studies, 8 treatment comparisons, 1966 participants; high-certainty evidence; adjuvant: HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88; 4 studies, 1256 participants; high-certainty evidence). Platinum chemotherapy in the regimen improved OS (neoadjuvant: HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.86; 7 studies, 8 treatment comparisons, 1973 participants; high-certainty evidence; adjuvant: 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96; 4 studies, 1256 participants; high-certainty evidence). Median follow-up for survival outcomes ranged from 36 to 97.6 months. Our analysis confirmed platinum chemotherapy increased pCR rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.59; 15 studies, 16 treatment comparisons, 3083 participants; high-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses showed no evidence of differences in DFS according to BRCA mutation status, HRD status, lymph node status, or whether the intervention arm contained anthracycline chemotherapy or not. Platinum chemotherapy was associated with reduced dose intensity, with participants more likely to require chemotherapy delays (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.70 to 2.94; 4 studies, 5 treatment comparisons, 1053 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), dose reductions (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.02; 7 studies, 8 treatment comparisons, 2055 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and early cessation of treatment (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.38; 16 studies, 17 treatment comparisons, 4178 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Increased haematological toxicity occurred in the platinum group who were more likely to experience grade III/IV neutropenia (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.63; 19 studies, 20 treatment comparisons, 4849 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), anaemia (RR 8.20, 95% CI 5.66 to 11.89; 18 studies, 19 treatment comparisons, 4757 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and thrombocytopenia (RR 7.59, 95% CI 5.10 to 11.29; 18 studies, 19 treatment comparisons, 4731 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between chemotherapy groups in febrile neutropenia (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.49; 11 studies, 3771 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Renal impairment was very rare (0.4%, 2 events in 463 participants; note 3 studies reported 0 events in both arms; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Treatment-related death was very rare (0.2%, 7 events in 3176 participants and similar across treatment groups; RR 0.58, 95% 0.14 to 2.33; 10 studies, 11 treatment comparisons; note 8 studies reported treatment-related deaths but recorded 0 events in both groups. Thus, the RR and CIs were calculated from 3 studies rather than 11; 3176 participants; high-certainty evidence). Five studies collected quality of life data but did not report them.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Platinum-based chemotherapy using carboplatin in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting improves long-term outcomes of DFS and OS in early TNBC, with no evidence of differences by subgroup. This was at the cost of more frequent chemotherapy delays and dose reductions, and greater haematological toxicity, though serious adverse events including neuropathy, febrile neutropenia or treatment-related death were not increased. These findings support the use of platinum-based chemotherapy for people with early TNBC. The optimal dose and regimen are not defined by this analysis, but there is a suggestion that similar relative benefits result from the addition of carboplatin to either anthracycline-free regimens or those containing anthracycline agents.

Open questions and controversies in the systemic treatment of breast cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Personalized therapy has revolutionized our approach to breast cancer (BC). Patient selection strategies and new biomarkers are the basis for increasingly complex diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms. In this short review, we discuss recent developments in breast oncology, focusing on controversial topics with relevance for clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of gene expression signatures to guide adjuvant therapy in hormone receptor-positive tumors and personalized strategies for systemic treatment of early stage HER2-positive disease represent significant advances. Additionally, the current role of platinum salts, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and CDK4/6 inhibitors in the (neo)adjuvant treatment remains controversial, with several ongoing randomized clinical trials exploring their use. In the metastatic disease setting, we identify important unmet needs such as the development of predictive biomarkers and the definition of the ideal sequencing algorithm with the incorporation of innovative agents in all subtypes of BC.

SUMMARY

Advances in understanding the molecular biology and heterogeneity of BC have led to the development of new biomarkers and therapeutic agents that significantly impact current and future clinical practice.