1
|
Gralow JR, Barlow WE, Paterson AHG, M'iao JL, Lew DL, Stopeck AT, Hayes DF, Hershman DL, Schubert MM, Clemons M, Van Poznak CH, Dees EC, Ingle JN, Falkson CI, Elias AD, Messino MJ, Margolis JH, Dakhil SR, Chew HK, Dammann KZ, Abrams JS, Livingston RB, Hortobagyi GN. Phase III Randomized Trial of Bisphosphonates as Adjuvant Therapy in Breast Cancer: S0307. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 112:698-707. [PMID: 31693129 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz215] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2019] [Revised: 09/19/2019] [Accepted: 10/25/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Adjuvant bisphosphonates, when given in a low-estrogen environment, can decrease breast cancer recurrence and death. Treatment guidelines include recommendations for adjuvant bisphosphonates in postmenopausal patients. SWOG/Alliance/Canadian Cancer Trials Group/ECOG-ACRIN/NRG Oncology study S0307 compared the efficacy of three bisphosphonates in early-stage breast cancer. METHODS Patients with stage I-III breast cancer were randomly assigned to 3 years of intravenous zoledronic acid, oral clodronate, or oral ibandronate. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) with overall survival as a secondary outcome. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS A total of 6097 patients enrolled. Median age was 52.7 years. Prior to being randomly assigned, 73.2% patients indicated preference for oral vs intravenous formulation. DFS did not differ across arms in a log-rank test (P = .49); 5-year DFS was 88.3% (zoledronic acid: 95% confidence interval [CI] = 86.9% to 89.6%), 87.6% (clodronate: 95% CI = 86.1% to 88.9%), and 87.4% (ibandronate: 95% CI = 85.6% to 88.9%). Additionally, 5-year overall survival did not differ between arms (log rank P = .50) and was 92.6% (zoledronic acid: 95% CI = 91.4% to 93.6%), 92.4% (clodronate: 95% CI = 91.2% to 93.5%), and 92.9% (ibandronate: 95% CI = 91.5% to 94.1%). Bone as first site of recurrence did not differ between arms (P = .93). Analyses based on age and tumor subtypes showed no treatment differences. Grade 3/4 toxicity was 8.8% (zoledronic acid), 8.3% (clodronate), and 10.5% (ibandronate). Osteonecrosis of the jaw was highest for zoledronic acid (1.26%) compared with clodronate (0.36%) and ibandronate (0.77%). CONCLUSIONS We found no evidence of differences in efficacy by type of bisphosphonate, either in overall analysis or subgroups. Despite an increased rate of osteonecrosis of the jaw with zoledronic acid, overall toxicity grade differed little across arms. Given that patients expressed preference for oral formulation, efforts to make oral agents available in the United States should be considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Alison T Stopeck
- Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook University Cancer Center, Stony Brook, NY
| | - Daniel F Hayes
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (DFH, CHVP); Columbia University, New York, NY
| | | | | | - Mark Clemons
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Helen K Chew
- University of California at Davis, Sacramento, CA
| | | | - Jeffrey S Abrams
- Cancer Therapy and Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Woodward WA, Barlow WE, Jagsi R, Buchholz TA, Shak S, Baehner F, Whelan TJ, Davidson NE, Ingle JN, King TA, Ravdin PM, Osborne CK, Tripathy D, Livingston RB, Gralow JR, Hortobagyi GN, Hayes DF, Albain KS. Association Between 21-Gene Assay Recurrence Score and Locoregional Recurrence Rates in Patients With Node-Positive Breast Cancer. JAMA Oncol 2020; 6:505-511. [PMID: 31917424 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.5559] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
Importance The 21-gene assay recurrence score is increasingly used to personalize treatment recommendations for systemic therapy in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor (ER)- or progesterone receptor (PR)-positive, node-positive breast cancer; however, the relevance of the 21-gene assay to radiotherapy decisions remains uncertain. Objective To examine the association between recurrence score and locoregional recurrence (LRR) in a postmenopausal patient population treated with adjuvant chemotherapy followed by tamoxifen or tamoxifen alone. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study was a retrospective analysis of the Southwest Oncology Group S8814, a phase 3 randomized clinical trial of postmenopausal women with ER/PR-positive, node-positive breast cancer treated with tamoxifen alone, chemotherapy followed by tamoxifen, or concurrent tamoxifen and chemotherapy. Patients at North American clinical centers were enrolled from June 1989 to July 1995. Medical records from patients with recurrence score information were reviewed for LRR and radiotherapy use. Primary analysis included 316 patients and excluded 37 who received both mastectomy and radiotherapy, 9 who received breast-conserving surgery without documented radiotherapy, and 5 with unknown surgical type. All analyses were performed from January 22, 2016, to August 9, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures The LRR was defined as a recurrence in the breast; chest wall; or axillary, infraclavicular, supraclavicular, or internal mammary lymph nodes. Time to LRR was tested with log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards regression for multivariate models. Results The final cohort of this study comprised 316 women with a mean (range) age of 60.4 (44-81) years. Median (interquartile range) follow-up for those without LRR was 8.7 (7.0-10.2) years. Seven LRR events (5.8%) among 121 patients with low recurrence score and 27 LRR events (13.8%) among 195 patients with intermediate or high recurrence score occurred. The estimated 10-year cumulative incidence rates were 9.7% for those with a low recurrence score and 16.5% for the group with intermediate or high recurrence score (P = .02). Among patients who had a mastectomy without radiotherapy (n = 252), the differences in the 10-year actuarial LRR rates remained significant: 7.7 % for the low recurrence score group vs 16.8% for the intermediate or high recurrence score group (P = .03). A multivariable model controlling for randomized treatment, number of positive nodes, and surgical type showed that a higher recurrence score was prognostic for LRR (hazard ratio [HR], 2.36; 95% CI, 1.02-5.45; P = .04). In a subset analysis of patients with a mastectomy and 1 to 3 involved nodes who did not receive radiation therapy, the group with a low recurrence score had a 1.5% rate of LRR, whereas the group with an intermediate or high recurrence score had a 11.1% LRR (P = .051). Conclusions and Relevance This study found that higher recurrence scores were associated with increased LRR after adjustment for treatment, type of surgical procedure, and number of positive nodes. This finding suggests that the recurrence score may be used, along with accepted clinical variables, to assess the risk of LRR during radiotherapy decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wendy A Woodward
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | | | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Thomas A Buchholz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Steven Shak
- Department of Pathology, Genomic Health Inc, Redwood City, California
| | - Frederick Baehner
- Department of Pathology, Genomic Health Inc, Redwood City, California.,Department of Pathology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco
| | - Timothy J Whelan
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nancy E Davidson
- Division of Medical Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.,Division of Medical Oncology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - James N Ingle
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Tari A King
- Department of Surgery, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Peter M Ravdin
- Department of Medicine, Cancer Therapy & Research Center, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio
| | - C Kent Osborne
- Department of Medicine, Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | - Debasish Tripathy
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Robert B Livingston
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Arizona, Tucson
| | - Julie R Gralow
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle
| | - Gabriel N Hortobagyi
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Daniel F Hayes
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Kathy S Albain
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Segar JM, Reed D, Stopeck A, Livingston RB, Chalasani P. A Phase II Study of Irinotecan and Etoposide as Treatment for Refractory Metastatic Breast Cancer. Oncologist 2019; 24:1512-e1267. [PMID: 31383812 PMCID: PMC6975935 DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0516] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2019] [Accepted: 07/08/2019] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Lessons Learned. The combination of irinotecan and etoposide showed modest efficacy in terms of response rate in the refractory setting for patients with metastatic breast cancer. The studied dose and schedule of irinotecan and etoposide is very toxic, with >70% grade 3 or 4 treatment‐related adverse events.
Background. As single agents, both irinotecan and etoposide have documented activity against breast cancer among patients who have received multiple lines of prior chemotherapy. Irinotecan interacts with topoisomerase I (Topo I) to stabilize its cleavable complex, and etoposide has an analogous interaction with topoisomerase II (Topo II). This stabilization without rapid resealing of the cleavage point results in apoptotic cell death and accounts for the antitumor activity of these agents. Topo II levels may increase after administration of a Topo I inhibitor, thus providing a rationale for combining these agents in practice. Based on preclinical data, we conducted a phase II trial of the Topo I inhibitor irinotecan combined with the Topo II inhibitor etoposide in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods. This was a single‐arm phase II clinical trial in patients with MBC refractory to prior anthracycline, taxane, and capecitabine therapy. All patients were treated with oral etoposide at 50 mg/day on days 1–14 and intravenous irinotecan at 100mg/m2 on days 1 and 15. Treatment cycles were repeated every 28 days. The primary endpoint was median time to progression. Secondary end points included overall clinical response rate using RECIST criteria and assessing the toxicity and safety profile associated with this combination regimen. Results. We enrolled 31 women with refractory MBC to our trial. Median age was 54 (range, 36‐84), with the majority (64%) having hormone receptor positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2 neg) MBC. Median number of prior therapies was five (range, 3–14). Efficacy was evaluated in 24 patients. Seventeen percent had a partial response, and 38% had stable disease as best response. Median progression‐free survival was 9 weeks (range, 3–59). All 31 patients were evaluable for toxicity assessment, and 22 patients (71 %) experienced treatment‐related grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs; Table 1). The most common grade 3–4 AE was neutropenia. The study was terminated early based on interim analysis assessment that suggested toxicities outweighed the efficacy. Conclusion. Irinotecan and etoposide demonstrated only modest clinical activity and poor tolerability in patients with MBC refractory to anthracycline, taxane, and capecitabine therapy. Further studies testing a lower dose and/or different schedule could be considered given ease of administration and responses seen.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer M Segar
- Division of Hematology Oncology, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, Arizona, USA
| | - Darien Reed
- Department of Medicine, Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, Arizona, USA
| | - Alison Stopeck
- Division of Hematology Oncology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA
| | - Robert B Livingston
- Division of Hematology Oncology, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, Arizona, USA
| | - Pavani Chalasani
- Division of Hematology Oncology, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, Arizona, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Mehta RS, Barlow WE, Albain KS, Vandenberg TA, Dakhil SR, Tirumali NR, Lew DL, Hayes DF, Gralow JR, Linden HH, Livingston RB, Hortobagyi GN. Overall Survival with Fulvestrant plus Anastrozole in Metastatic Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2019; 380:1226-1234. [PMID: 30917258 PMCID: PMC6885383 DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa1811714] [Citation(s) in RCA: 74] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND We previously reported prolonged progression-free survival and marginally prolonged overall survival among postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer who had been randomly assigned to receive the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole plus the selective estrogen-receptor down-regulator fulvestrant, as compared with anastrozole alone, as first-line therapy. We now report final survival outcomes. METHODS We randomly assigned patients to receive either anastrozole or fulvestrant plus anastrozole. Randomization was stratified according to adjuvant tamoxifen use. Analysis of survival was performed by means of two-sided stratified log-rank tests and Cox regression. Efficacy and safety were compared between the two groups, both overall and in subgroups. RESULTS Of 707 patients who had undergone randomization, 694 had data available for analysis. The combination-therapy group had 247 deaths among 349 women (71%) and a median overall survival of 49.8 months, as compared with 261 deaths among 345 women (76%) and a median overall survival of 42.0 months in the anastrozole-alone group, a significant difference (hazard ratio for death, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 0.98; P = 0.03 by the log-rank test). In a subgroup analysis of the two strata, overall survival among women who had not received tamoxifen previously was longer with the combination therapy than with anastrozole alone (median, 52.2 months and 40.3 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.92); among women who had received tamoxifen previously, overall survival was similar in the two groups (median, 48.2 months and 43.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.27) (P = 0.09 for interaction). The incidence of long-term toxic effects of grade 3 to 5 was similar in the two groups. Approximately 45% of the patients in the anastrozole-alone group crossed over to receive fulvestrant. CONCLUSIONS The addition of fulvestrant to anastrozole was associated with increased long-term survival as compared with anastrozole alone, despite substantial crossover to fulvestrant after progression during therapy with anastrozole alone. The results suggest that the benefit was particularly notable in patients without previous exposure to adjuvant endocrine therapy. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00075764.).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rita S Mehta
- From the Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange (R.S.M.); the SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center (W.E.B., D.L.L.) and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and University of Washington Medical Center (J.R.G., H.H.L.) - both in Seattle; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL (K.S.A.); London Health Sciences Centre and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, London, ON, Canada (T.A.V.); the Cancer Center of Kansas and Wichita National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Wichita (S.R.D.); Kaiser Permanente NCORP, Portland, OR (N.R.T.); the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (D.F.H.); the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson (R.B.L.); and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (G.N.H.)
| | - William E Barlow
- From the Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange (R.S.M.); the SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center (W.E.B., D.L.L.) and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and University of Washington Medical Center (J.R.G., H.H.L.) - both in Seattle; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL (K.S.A.); London Health Sciences Centre and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, London, ON, Canada (T.A.V.); the Cancer Center of Kansas and Wichita National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Wichita (S.R.D.); Kaiser Permanente NCORP, Portland, OR (N.R.T.); the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (D.F.H.); the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson (R.B.L.); and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (G.N.H.)
| | - Kathy S Albain
- From the Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange (R.S.M.); the SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center (W.E.B., D.L.L.) and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and University of Washington Medical Center (J.R.G., H.H.L.) - both in Seattle; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL (K.S.A.); London Health Sciences Centre and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, London, ON, Canada (T.A.V.); the Cancer Center of Kansas and Wichita National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Wichita (S.R.D.); Kaiser Permanente NCORP, Portland, OR (N.R.T.); the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (D.F.H.); the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson (R.B.L.); and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (G.N.H.)
| | - Ted A Vandenberg
- From the Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange (R.S.M.); the SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center (W.E.B., D.L.L.) and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and University of Washington Medical Center (J.R.G., H.H.L.) - both in Seattle; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL (K.S.A.); London Health Sciences Centre and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, London, ON, Canada (T.A.V.); the Cancer Center of Kansas and Wichita National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Wichita (S.R.D.); Kaiser Permanente NCORP, Portland, OR (N.R.T.); the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (D.F.H.); the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson (R.B.L.); and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (G.N.H.)
| | - Shaker R Dakhil
- From the Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange (R.S.M.); the SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center (W.E.B., D.L.L.) and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and University of Washington Medical Center (J.R.G., H.H.L.) - both in Seattle; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL (K.S.A.); London Health Sciences Centre and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, London, ON, Canada (T.A.V.); the Cancer Center of Kansas and Wichita National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Wichita (S.R.D.); Kaiser Permanente NCORP, Portland, OR (N.R.T.); the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (D.F.H.); the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson (R.B.L.); and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (G.N.H.)
| | - Nagendra R Tirumali
- From the Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange (R.S.M.); the SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center (W.E.B., D.L.L.) and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and University of Washington Medical Center (J.R.G., H.H.L.) - both in Seattle; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL (K.S.A.); London Health Sciences Centre and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, London, ON, Canada (T.A.V.); the Cancer Center of Kansas and Wichita National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Wichita (S.R.D.); Kaiser Permanente NCORP, Portland, OR (N.R.T.); the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (D.F.H.); the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson (R.B.L.); and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (G.N.H.)
| | - Danika L Lew
- From the Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange (R.S.M.); the SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center (W.E.B., D.L.L.) and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and University of Washington Medical Center (J.R.G., H.H.L.) - both in Seattle; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL (K.S.A.); London Health Sciences Centre and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, London, ON, Canada (T.A.V.); the Cancer Center of Kansas and Wichita National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Wichita (S.R.D.); Kaiser Permanente NCORP, Portland, OR (N.R.T.); the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (D.F.H.); the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson (R.B.L.); and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (G.N.H.)
| | - Daniel F Hayes
- From the Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange (R.S.M.); the SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center (W.E.B., D.L.L.) and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and University of Washington Medical Center (J.R.G., H.H.L.) - both in Seattle; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL (K.S.A.); London Health Sciences Centre and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, London, ON, Canada (T.A.V.); the Cancer Center of Kansas and Wichita National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Wichita (S.R.D.); Kaiser Permanente NCORP, Portland, OR (N.R.T.); the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (D.F.H.); the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson (R.B.L.); and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (G.N.H.)
| | - Julie R Gralow
- From the Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange (R.S.M.); the SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center (W.E.B., D.L.L.) and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and University of Washington Medical Center (J.R.G., H.H.L.) - both in Seattle; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL (K.S.A.); London Health Sciences Centre and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, London, ON, Canada (T.A.V.); the Cancer Center of Kansas and Wichita National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Wichita (S.R.D.); Kaiser Permanente NCORP, Portland, OR (N.R.T.); the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (D.F.H.); the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson (R.B.L.); and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (G.N.H.)
| | - Hannah H Linden
- From the Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange (R.S.M.); the SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center (W.E.B., D.L.L.) and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and University of Washington Medical Center (J.R.G., H.H.L.) - both in Seattle; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL (K.S.A.); London Health Sciences Centre and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, London, ON, Canada (T.A.V.); the Cancer Center of Kansas and Wichita National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Wichita (S.R.D.); Kaiser Permanente NCORP, Portland, OR (N.R.T.); the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (D.F.H.); the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson (R.B.L.); and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (G.N.H.)
| | - Robert B Livingston
- From the Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange (R.S.M.); the SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center (W.E.B., D.L.L.) and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and University of Washington Medical Center (J.R.G., H.H.L.) - both in Seattle; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL (K.S.A.); London Health Sciences Centre and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, London, ON, Canada (T.A.V.); the Cancer Center of Kansas and Wichita National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Wichita (S.R.D.); Kaiser Permanente NCORP, Portland, OR (N.R.T.); the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (D.F.H.); the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson (R.B.L.); and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (G.N.H.)
| | - Gabriel N Hortobagyi
- From the Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange (R.S.M.); the SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center (W.E.B., D.L.L.) and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and University of Washington Medical Center (J.R.G., H.H.L.) - both in Seattle; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL (K.S.A.); London Health Sciences Centre and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, London, ON, Canada (T.A.V.); the Cancer Center of Kansas and Wichita National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Wichita (S.R.D.); Kaiser Permanente NCORP, Portland, OR (N.R.T.); the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (D.F.H.); the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson (R.B.L.); and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (G.N.H.)
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Tyshler LB, Longton GM, Ellis GK, Livingston RB. False Positive Tumor Markers: Elevation in Patients with Breast Cancer on FAC-type Chemotherapy and Correlation with the Development of Hand-foot Syndrome. Int J Biol Markers 2018; 11:203-6. [PMID: 9017443 DOI: 10.1177/172460089601100404] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Breast cancer patients on dose-intensive chemotherapy often have elevated tumor markers during the course of treatment. Our objective was to estimate the incidence of a “false positive” tumor marker screen and to determine whether hand-foot epithelial damage was correlated. Data from 53 patients with high risk primary breast cancer who had undergone adjuvant or neoadjuvant 5FU-containing chemotherapy (FAC or FAC plus G-CSF) for 3 to 12 months were reviewed. The relationship between tumor marker elevation and disease recur- rence, regimen intensity, and the occurrence of hand-foot syndrome was examined. Thirty-three of the 53 patients had elevated tumor markers in the absence of recurrent disease. The false positive rate was higher in patients who underwent FAC plus G-CSF chemotherapy than in patients who underwent FAC chemotherapy (92% vs 55%, p = .01). A false positive marker screen was associated with the occurrence of hand-foot syndrome even when the effect of regimen was accounted for by stratification (p=.01). Tumor marker screening of breast cancer patients on this type of adjuvant chemotherapy has poor specificity for recurrent malignancy. These data suggest tumor marker elevation may be an indicator of epithelial toxicity during chemotherapy, manifested clinically as hand-foot syndrome.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L B Tyshler
- University of Washington Cancer Center, Seattle, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Mehta RS, Barlow WE, Albain KS, Vandenberg TA, Dakhil SR, Tirumali NL, Lew DL, Hayes DF, Gralow JR, Linden HM, Livingston RB, Hortobagyi GN. Abstract PD5-07: A phase III randomized trial of anastrozole and fulvestrant versus anastrozole or sequential anastrozole and fulvestrant as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer: Final survival outcomes of SWOG S0226. Cancer Res 2018. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs17-pd5-07] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Anastrozole depletes estrogen via aromatase inhibition and fulvestrant binds and degrades estrogen receptor. In a Phase III trial we compared the concurrent use of these agents to anastrozole alone or sequential anastrozole and fulvestrant in first-line therapy of hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women, and demonstrated improved progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS)-NEJM 2012. Now we report PFS and OS five years after the initial positive findings. Methods: A total of 707 patients were randomized to either 1 mg anastrozole P.O. daily (Arm 1) or to the combination of anastrozole and fulvestrant (Arm 2). Fulvestrant was administered as a loading dose of 500 mg on day 1, 250 mg on days 14, 28 and monthly thereafter. Randomization was stratified by adjuvant tamoxifen use. The primary endpoint was PFS with OS a secondary outcome. 40% patients not in visceral crisis crossed over to fulvestrant after progression on arm 1. Analysis of survival was by 2-sided stratified log-rank tests and Cox regression using intent-to-treat. Subset analyses include treatment effect by adjuvant tamoxifen exposure, initial sites of metastases and time from diagnosis. Results: There were 646 PFS events (328 and 318 for arms 1 and 2, respectively) among 694 eligible patients (345 and 349, respectively). Overall, median PFS was 13.5 months for arm 1 and 15.0 months for the arm 2 (log-rank p=0.007; HR=0.81 (95% CI 0.69-0.94)). This benefit extended similarly in visceral and non-visceral subgroups. In subset analysis for Arms 1 and 2, respectively, in tamoxifen-naive women (60%, n=414), median PFS was 12.7 vs. 16.7 months (log-rank p=0.002; HR=0.73 (95% CI 0.60-0.89) while in women exposed to tamoxifen, median PFS was 13.9 vs. 13.6 months (log-rank p=0.57; HR=0.93 (95% CI 0.73-1.19)). An improved OS in the combination arm was seen, median OS 42 and 50 months in arms 1 and 2, based on 261 and 247 deaths, respectively (log-rank p=0.028; HR=0.82 (95% CI 0.69-0.98)). In subset analysis in tamoxifen-naive women, median OS was 40.3 vs. 52.2 months for Arms 1 and 2, respectively (log-rank p=0.007; HR=0.73 (95% CI 0.58-0.92)) while in women exposed to tamoxifen, median OS was 43.5 vs. 48.2 months (log-rank p=0.85; HR=0.97 (95% CI 0.74-1.27). Patients with initial diagnosis >10 years benefitted most from the combination (HR=0.66 (95% CI 0.49-0.89)) regardless of tamoxifen exposure. Patients in Arm 1 who crossed over had post-progression survival similar to post-progression survival of Arm 2 patients. Conclusion: The addition of fulvestrant to anastrozole was associated with improved long-term PFS and OS compared to anastrozole alone, despite the use of fulvestrant at a dose lower than the approved, and despite the substantial cross over to fulvestrant after progression on anastrozole alone. The benefit was especially notable in those without recent exposure to adjuvant endocrine therapy. Ongoing translational medicine studies will further refine the need for up front fulvestrant. ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT00075764. Funding: NIH/NCI U10CA180888, U10CA180819 and AstraZeneca.
Citation Format: Mehta RS, Barlow WE, Albain KS, Vandenberg TA, Dakhil SR, Tirumali NL, Lew DL, Hayes DF, Gralow JR, Linden HM, Livingston RB, Hortobagyi GN. A phase III randomized trial of anastrozole and fulvestrant versus anastrozole or sequential anastrozole and fulvestrant as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer: Final survival outcomes of SWOG S0226 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD5-07.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- RS Mehta
- UCIMC, Orange, CA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; London Health Sciences Center/, London, ON, Canada; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology, Wichita, KS; Northwest CCOP/Northwest, Portland, OR; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Puget Sound Cancer Consortium, Seattle, WA; University of Washingtons, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona/Arizona Cancer, Tuscon, AZ; MD Anderson, Houston, TX
| | - WE Barlow
- UCIMC, Orange, CA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; London Health Sciences Center/, London, ON, Canada; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology, Wichita, KS; Northwest CCOP/Northwest, Portland, OR; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Puget Sound Cancer Consortium, Seattle, WA; University of Washingtons, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona/Arizona Cancer, Tuscon, AZ; MD Anderson, Houston, TX
| | - KS Albain
- UCIMC, Orange, CA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; London Health Sciences Center/, London, ON, Canada; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology, Wichita, KS; Northwest CCOP/Northwest, Portland, OR; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Puget Sound Cancer Consortium, Seattle, WA; University of Washingtons, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona/Arizona Cancer, Tuscon, AZ; MD Anderson, Houston, TX
| | - TA Vandenberg
- UCIMC, Orange, CA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; London Health Sciences Center/, London, ON, Canada; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology, Wichita, KS; Northwest CCOP/Northwest, Portland, OR; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Puget Sound Cancer Consortium, Seattle, WA; University of Washingtons, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona/Arizona Cancer, Tuscon, AZ; MD Anderson, Houston, TX
| | - SR Dakhil
- UCIMC, Orange, CA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; London Health Sciences Center/, London, ON, Canada; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology, Wichita, KS; Northwest CCOP/Northwest, Portland, OR; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Puget Sound Cancer Consortium, Seattle, WA; University of Washingtons, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona/Arizona Cancer, Tuscon, AZ; MD Anderson, Houston, TX
| | - NL Tirumali
- UCIMC, Orange, CA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; London Health Sciences Center/, London, ON, Canada; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology, Wichita, KS; Northwest CCOP/Northwest, Portland, OR; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Puget Sound Cancer Consortium, Seattle, WA; University of Washingtons, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona/Arizona Cancer, Tuscon, AZ; MD Anderson, Houston, TX
| | - DL Lew
- UCIMC, Orange, CA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; London Health Sciences Center/, London, ON, Canada; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology, Wichita, KS; Northwest CCOP/Northwest, Portland, OR; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Puget Sound Cancer Consortium, Seattle, WA; University of Washingtons, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona/Arizona Cancer, Tuscon, AZ; MD Anderson, Houston, TX
| | - DF Hayes
- UCIMC, Orange, CA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; London Health Sciences Center/, London, ON, Canada; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology, Wichita, KS; Northwest CCOP/Northwest, Portland, OR; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Puget Sound Cancer Consortium, Seattle, WA; University of Washingtons, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona/Arizona Cancer, Tuscon, AZ; MD Anderson, Houston, TX
| | - JR Gralow
- UCIMC, Orange, CA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; London Health Sciences Center/, London, ON, Canada; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology, Wichita, KS; Northwest CCOP/Northwest, Portland, OR; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Puget Sound Cancer Consortium, Seattle, WA; University of Washingtons, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona/Arizona Cancer, Tuscon, AZ; MD Anderson, Houston, TX
| | - HM Linden
- UCIMC, Orange, CA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; London Health Sciences Center/, London, ON, Canada; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology, Wichita, KS; Northwest CCOP/Northwest, Portland, OR; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Puget Sound Cancer Consortium, Seattle, WA; University of Washingtons, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona/Arizona Cancer, Tuscon, AZ; MD Anderson, Houston, TX
| | - RB Livingston
- UCIMC, Orange, CA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; London Health Sciences Center/, London, ON, Canada; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology, Wichita, KS; Northwest CCOP/Northwest, Portland, OR; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Puget Sound Cancer Consortium, Seattle, WA; University of Washingtons, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona/Arizona Cancer, Tuscon, AZ; MD Anderson, Houston, TX
| | - GN Hortobagyi
- UCIMC, Orange, CA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; London Health Sciences Center/, London, ON, Canada; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology, Wichita, KS; Northwest CCOP/Northwest, Portland, OR; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Puget Sound Cancer Consortium, Seattle, WA; University of Washingtons, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona/Arizona Cancer, Tuscon, AZ; MD Anderson, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Budd GT, Barlow WE, Moore HCF, Hobday TJ, Stewart JA, Isaacs C, Salim M, Cho JK, Rinn K, Albain KS, Chew HK, Burton GV, Moore TD, Srkalovic G, McGregor BA, Flaherty LE, Livingston RB, Lew DL, Gralow J, Hortobagyi GN. SWOG S0221 updated: Randomized comparison of chemotherapy schedules in breast cancer adjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol 2017. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.521] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
521 Background: S0221 investigated weekly vs q 2 week dosing of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) and paclitaxel (P) in patients (pts) with high risk early breast cancer as previously reported (JCO 33:58-64, 2015). After enrollment of 2716 pts randomization to the two AC arms was stopped for futility and an additional 578 pts received 4 cycles of q 2 week AC and were randomized to P weekly (Pw) or P q 2 weeks (P2). We report updated results of the original trial design and the first report of the 578 pts treated with AC x 4 and Pw x 12 or P2 x 6. Methods: Between December 2003 and November 2010, 2716 pts were randomized in a 2x2 factorial design to 1) 15 weeks of weekly AC (A 24 mg/m2/week and C 60 mg/m2/day po) vs 6 cycles of q 2 week AC (A 60 mg/m2 and C 600 mg/m2) and 2) Pw (paclitaxel 80 mg/m2/week x 12) vs P2 (paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 q 2 weeks x 6), with growth factor support as previously described. After study amendment 578 patients received 4 cycles of q 2 week AC followed by Pw or P2. Updated survival was assessed using log-rank tests and Cox regression models. Results: At a median follow-up of 8.5 years, among the pts treated in the original protocol, there were no significant differences among the four treatments for DFS (p=0.21) or OS (p=0.08). The triple-negative subset had worse DFS (P<0.001) than the HER2-positive or ER/PR+/HER2- subsets, with 5 year DFS of 75% vs 83% and 84%, respectively. While we previously found in the triple negative subset that the arm using q 2 weeks for both AC and paclitaxel was marginally superior, the differences among the arms are no longer significant for DFS (p=0.12) or OS (p=0.11). Among the 578 pts assigned ACx4 and randomized to Pw v P2 there were no overall differences in DFS (p=0.70) or OS (p=0.63) after 4.4 years median follow-up. Conclusions: There were no significant differences in DFS or OS between any of the schedules with extended follow-up in the original cohort and no difference in outcome by paclitaxel schedule for the 578 additional patients in the revised protocol. Either paclitaxel schedule may be recommended, with selection based on toxicity, cost, or patient preference rather than efficacy. Support: NCI grants CA32102, CA38926, CA21115, CA21076, CA77597, CA25224, CA77202, CCSRI15469, and Amgen, Inc. Clinical trial information: NCT00070564.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Timothy J. Hobday
- Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN
| | | | - Claudine Isaacs
- Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
| | | | | | | | - Kathy S. Albain
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Maywood, IL
| | - Helen K. Chew
- University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Danika L Lew
- SWOG Statistical Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Pelekanou V, Barlow WE, von Wahlde MK, Wasserman B, Lo YC, Hayes DF, Hortobagyi GN, Gralow J, Tripathy D, Livingston RB, Porter P, Nahleh ZA, Rimm DL, Pusztai L. Effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) on tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) and PD-L1 expression in the SWOG S0800 clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 2017. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.519] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
519 Background: Higher baseline TILs and PD-L1 expression are associated with greater pathologic complete response (pCR) rates, but how chemotherapy affects these immune parameters is unknown. The goal of this study was to examine TIL and PD-L1 expression in pre- and post-NAC tumor specimens from the S0800 clinical trial that compared weekly nab-paclitaxel/bevacizumab + dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) with nab-paclitaxel + AC as NAC for HER2-negative cases. Association between immune parameters, pCR and NAC-induced changes were tested using ER and NAC-arm adjusted logistic regression. Methods: TILs were assessed on H&E stained full sections of 120 pre- and 62 post-NAC tissues (tumor bed of pCR) including 59 matched samples. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry was performed using the FDA cleared 22C3 assay and results were available for 121 baseline and 43 matched post-NAC samples. Results: At baseline, the mean TIL count was 18%; 16% had no TILs and 9% had > 50% TILs. Higher baseline TILs were associated with higher pCR rate (p = 0.043, trend test p = 0.014) but there was no interaction with NAC arm. Post-NAC, the mean TIL counts was 11%; 5% had no TILs and 1.6% had > 50% TILs. In the matching post-NAC samples, the mean change was 15% decrease in TILs, but in 32% of cases TILs increased. Cases with residual disease (n=44) had lesser average decrease (p=0.029) than cases with pCR (n=15). The post-NAC decrease in TILs was also observed after excluding cases with pCR. At baseline, PD-L1 expression either in the stroma or on epithelial cells or in both was detected in 52 (43%) of 121 cases (5 tumor only, 29 stroma only, 18 tumor + stroma). Those with baseline PD-L1 expression had higher pCR (63% vs. 37%; p=0.008). Post-NAC, PD-L1 expression was seen in 14 of 43 (33%) cases (7 stroma only, 7 tumor + stroma). In the 39 matching pre- and post-NAC samples, PD-L1 expression was negative in both in 20, positive in both in 10 cases and 6 patients had PD-L1 expression at baseline but not in the post-NAC sample. Conclusions: TIL counts and PD-L1 expression generallydecreased, but in a minority of cases increased after NAC. The decrease in TIL was significantly greater in cases achieving pCR. Clinical trial information: NCT00856492.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Daniel F. Hayes
- University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | | | - Debu Tripathy
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Peggy Porter
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Albain KS, Crager MR, Barlow WE, Baehner FL, Bergamaschi A, Rae JM, Ravdin PM, Tripathy D, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Osborne CK, Ingle JN, Pritchard KI, Davidson NE, Carey LA, Cherbavaz DB, Sing AP, Shak S, Hortobagyi GN, Hayes DF. Abstract PD7-07: Discovery of molecular predictors of late breast cancer specific events (BCSE) in ER+, node+ breast cancer – new transcriptome expression whole gene analysis of the phase III adjuvant trial SWOG S8814. Cancer Res 2017. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs16-pd7-07] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unique genes and pathways were identified for prognosis on tamoxifen (T, 5 yrs) and prediction on CAF-T vs T in S8814 using whole transcriptome RNA-Seq from archival FFPE tissue. (Albain, et al; Cherbavaz, et al; SABCS 2015) Discovery was robust for early DFS events but sparse for late. The aims of this new analysis were to 1) utilize a new endpoint BCSE for gene discovery of late events, prognosis and prediction and 2) add intronic counts to the previous exonic results to define whole genes impacting on late BCSE.
METHODS: Charts of patients (pts) on CAF-T (212) vs T (142) were reviewed to define the BCSE endpoint (local/regional, contralateral, distant). Deaths without BC were treated as competing risks. BCSE models (including metagenes) of late prognosis and prediction used cumulative incidence functions. Consolidated intronic regions counts within genes were added to exonic regions counts. Using these “whole gene” (WG) counts, association of gene expression with time to BCSE was assessed by Cox regression. A multiple WG score (MWGS) for BCSE prognosis beyond 5 yrs (to 12.5 yrs) was constructed and evaluated for 1-3 and 4+ node (N) groups. False discovery rate was controlled at 10%.
RESULTS: More exons and WG were discovered for prognosis on T alone over 12.5 yrs with the BCSE endpoint than DFS. For prognosis of late BCSE after 5 yrs, more genes were discovered using WG (n=111) than by exons (n=9). There were significantly fewer genes for late BCSE on CAF-T (8, WG; 0, exons). The functions of WG prognostic for late BCSE were: cell cycle/proliferation-26 genes, chromosome segregation/mitotic spindle-22, DNA repair/maintenance-10, transcriptional/translational control-5, cell adhesion/migration-4, immune-3, diverse/unknown-32 and growth factor/hormone receptor signaling-9 (this group was only found by WGs, not exons). Of these 111 WG, a MWGS prognostic for late BCSE on T used 57 previously discovered genes pre-specified for this analysis. Probability of BCSE beyond 5 yrs for low vs high MWGS was 8% vs 21% in N1-3+ and 17% vs 42% in N4+. Late prognosis on T differed by low vs high risk defined in a metagene model: cumulative BCSE at year 10 was 0% vs 47% (low vs high risk, p=0.001). Prediction of 10-yr incidence of BCSE varied by risk level by treatment in a metagene model: low risk- CAF-T=47%, T=0% (p=0.045); high risk- CAF-T=35%, T=45% (p=0.027).
CONCLUSIONS: Gene discovery for prognosis of late BCSE is enhanced with a novel WG transcriptome expression approach. Use of chemotherapy (CT) before T significantly attenuated gene discovery, so that molecular tools for decisions on extending endocrine therapy (ET) may not be reliable in a setting of prior CT. Some pts on ET for 5 yrs may not require either longer ET or CT, given a N+ cohort was defined with no BCSE observed over 12.5 yrs. For prediction of CT benefit, CAF-T appeared to be inferior to T in a low risk metagene model for BCSE. In sum, these results add more evidence that ET alone may be sufficient (perhaps better) in select N+ settings. Validation in SWOG S1007 (RxPONDER) is planned.
SUPPORT: NCI CA180888, 180819, 180821, 180820, 180863; in part, Genomic Health, Inc.
Citation Format: Albain KS, Crager MR, Barlow WE, Baehner FL, Bergamaschi A, Rae JM, Ravdin PM, Tripathy D, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Osborne CK, Ingle JN, Pritchard KI, Davidson NE, Carey LA, Cherbavaz DB, Sing AP, Shak S, Hortobagyi GN, Hayes DF. Discovery of molecular predictors of late breast cancer specific events (BCSE) in ER+, node+ breast cancer – new transcriptome expression whole gene analysis of the phase III adjuvant trial SWOG S8814 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD7-07.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- KS Albain
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - MR Crager
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - WE Barlow
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - FL Baehner
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - A Bergamaschi
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - JM Rae
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - PM Ravdin
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - D Tripathy
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - JR Gralow
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - RB Livingston
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - CK Osborne
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - JN Ingle
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - KI Pritchard
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - NE Davidson
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - LA Carey
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - DB Cherbavaz
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - AP Sing
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - S Shak
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - GN Hortobagyi
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - DF Hayes
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Potkul RK, Unger JM, Livingston RB, Crew KD, Wilczynski SP, Salomon CG, Smith BL, Wong L, Campbell DL, Einspahr DE, Anderson GL, Hershman D, Goodman GE, Brown PH, Meyskens FL, Albain KS. Randomized trial of medroxyprogesterone acetate for the prevention of endometrial pathology from adjuvant tamoxifen for breast cancer: SWOG S9630. NPJ Breast Cancer 2016; 2:16024. [PMID: 28721383 PMCID: PMC5515330 DOI: 10.1038/npjbcancer.2016.24] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2016] [Revised: 05/18/2016] [Accepted: 06/10/2016] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
The proliferative effect of adjuvant tamoxifen on the endometrium can potentially result in endometrial abnormalities, including cancer in postmenopausal women. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to assess endometrial pathological diagnoses in postmenopausal women with early stage, ER-positive breast cancer without endometrial pathology at baseline. They were assigned to tamoxifen alone versus tamoxifen plus cyclical medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA 10 mg for 14 days every 3 months) for 5 years. Endovaginal sonograms (EVS) +/− endometrial biopsies (EMB) were required at baseline, 2 and 5 years. Of 313 patients registered, 296 were eligible and 169 (57%; 89, tamoxifen; 80, tamoxifen+MPA) were evaluable (completed year-2 EVS, with an EMB if stripe width was ⩾5 mm). Sixty (67%) of these in the tamoxifen arm had an endometrial stripe width ⩾5 mm (and underwent subsequent EMB) compared with 48 (60%) in the tamoxifen+MPA arm (P=0.40). There were four cases of proliferative endometrium and one simple hyperplasia on the tamoxifen arm (6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 2–13%) among evaluable patients and one proliferative endometrium on the tamoxifen+MPA arm (P=0.11). The overall fraction with benign endometrial abnormalities at year 2 was 3.6% (6/169; 95% CI: 1.3–7.6%), with only 1 (of 102) new benign proliferative event at year 5. The event rate in both arms was much lower than projected, making treatment arm comparisons less informative. A normal endometrium prior to tamoxifen may provide reassurance regarding future endometrial events. However, validation in a larger trial is needed before changing practice in asymptomatic, postmenopausal women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ronald K Potkul
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Maywood, IL, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Caryl G Salomon
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Maywood, IL, USA
| | - Barbara L Smith
- Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Lucas Wong
- Scott & White Memorial Hospital, Temple, TX, USA
| | - David L Campbell
- University of California at Davis Affiliate, Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital, Grass Valley, CA, USA
| | | | | | | | - Gary E Goodman
- Swedish Cancer Institute/Pacific Cancer Research Consortium NCORP, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | - Frank L Meyskens
- University of California at Irvine, Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, Orange, CA, USA
| | - Kathy S Albain
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Maywood, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Larsen VL, Barlow WE, Yang JJ, Zhu Q, Hutchins LF, Kadlubar SA, Albain KS, Livingston RB, Rae JM, Yeh IT, Ravdin PM, Martino S, Lyss AP, Osborne CK, Hortobagyi GN, Hayes DF, Ambrosone CB, Yao S. Abstract 2032: Germline genetic variants in GATA3 and breast cancer treatment outcomes in SWOG 8897 trial. Cancer Res 2016. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2016-2032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose: GATA3 is involved in estrogen signaling and mammary cell differentiation, and is frequently mutated in breast cancer. Germline variations of GATA3 are prognostic in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Thus, we sought to examine their prognostic and predictive role in breast cancer.
Methods: SWOG S8897 comprised two groups of breast cancer patients. In the first high-risk group, women were randomly assigned to CAF vs. CMF, and secondarily randomized to tamoxifen or not. In the second low risk group, women did not receive any adjuvant therapy after surgery. Germline DNA was extracted from uninvolved axillary lymph nodes and 12 candidate GATA3 SNPs were genotyped. Associations of genotypes with treatment outcomes were evaluated in 441 women in the treated and 799 in the untreated groups separately. Hazard ratio (HR) for disease free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) for each SNP was estimated using multivariate Cox hazard regression. Further stratified analyses by tamoxifen were performed in the treated group.
Results: After correcting for multiple testing, we identified significant associations of two variants (rs3802604 and rs568727) with DFS and OS for patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy. Women carrying the variant GG genotype at rs3802604 had significantly poorer DFS (HR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.27-2.99, p = 0.002) and OS (HR = 2.45, 95% CI: 1.48-4.05, p = 0.0005), compared to women carrying the common AA genotype. Associations of similar magnitude were found for rs568727. In contrast, no association with either SNP was found in the untreated group. Subgroup analysis suggested that these two SNPs more strongly influenced treatment outcomes in the patients who also received tamoxifen. Seven additional variants were also associated with OS and DFS in the tamoxifen treated group. Only 3 of the 12 SNPs analyzed in GATA3 were not associated with survival in this subgroup; however, these three SNPs (rs3781093, rs3824662, and rs3802600) associated with OS in the group not treated with tamoxifen. Functional annotation revealed that several GATA3 SNPs, e.g., rs3802604, rs369421, and rs3824662, are likely to function by affecting transcription factor binding and/or altering regulatory chromatin states at this locus.
Conclusions: GATA3 harbors common germline genetic variants that are related to survival following adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy in breast cancer patients.
Citation Format: Victoria L. Larsen, William E. Barlow, Jun J. Yang, Qianqian Zhu, Laura F. Hutchins, Susan A. Kadlubar, Kathy S. Albain, Robert B. Livingston, James M. Rae, I-Tien Yeh, Peter M. Ravdin, Silvana Martino, Alan P. Lyss, C. Kent Osborne, Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, Daniel F. Hayes, Christine B. Ambrosone, Song Yao. Germline genetic variants in GATA3 and breast cancer treatment outcomes in SWOG 8897 trial. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 2032.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victoria L. Larsen
- 1Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Buffalo, NY
| | | | - Jun J. Yang
- 3St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Pharmaceutical Science, Memphis, TN
| | - Qianqian Zhu
- 4Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Buffalo, NY
| | | | | | - Kathy S. Albain
- 6Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL
| | | | - James M. Rae
- 8University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - I-Tien Yeh
- 9University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX
| | - Peter M. Ravdin
- 9University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX
| | - Silvana Martino
- 10The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA
| | - Alan P. Lyss
- 11Heartland NCORP, Missouri Baptist Medical Center, St. Louis, MO
| | | | | | - Daniel F. Hayes
- 8University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Christine B. Ambrosone
- 1Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Buffalo, NY
| | - Song Yao
- 1Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Buffalo, NY
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Nahleh ZA, Barlow WE, Hayes DF, Schott AF, Gralow JR, Sikov WM, Perez EA, Chennuru S, Mirshahidi HR, Corso SW, Lew DL, Pusztai L, Livingston RB, Hortobagyi GN. SWOG S0800 (NCI CDR0000636131): addition of bevacizumab to neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel with dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide improves pathologic complete response (pCR) rates in inflammatory or locally advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016; 158:485-95. [PMID: 27393622 PMCID: PMC4963434 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-016-3889-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 68] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2016] [Accepted: 06/25/2016] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
SWOG S0800, a randomized open-label Phase II clinical trial, compared the combination of weekly nab-paclitaxel and bevacizumab followed by dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) with nab-paclitaxel followed or preceded by AC as neoadjuvant treatment for HER2-negative locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) or inflammatory breast cancer (IBC). Patients were randomly allocated (2:1:1) to three neoadjuvant chemotherapy arms: (1) nab-paclitaxel with concurrent bevacizumab followed by AC; (2) nab-paclitaxel followed by AC; or (3) AC followed by nab-paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR) with stratification by disease type (non-IBC LABC vs. IBC) and hormone receptor status (positive vs. negative). Overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), and toxicity were secondary endpoints. Analyses were intent-to-treat comparing bevacizumab to the combined control arms. A total of 215 patients were accrued including 11 % with IBC and 32 % with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The addition of bevacizumab significantly increased the pCR rate overall (36 vs. 21 %; p = 0.019) and in TNBC (59 vs. 29 %; p = 0.014), but not in hormone receptor-positive disease (24 vs. 18 %; p = 0.41). Sequence of administration of nab-paclitaxel and AC did not affect the pCR rate. While no significant differences in OS or EFS were seen, a trend favored the addition of bevacizumab for EFS (p = 0.06) in TNBC. Overall, Grade 3-4 adverse events did not differ substantially by treatment arm. The addition of bevacizumab to nab-paclitaxel prior to dose-dense AC neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved the pCR rate compared to chemotherapy alone in patients with triple-negative LABC/IBC and was accompanied by a trend for improved EFS. This suggests reconsideration of the role of bevacizumab in high-risk triple-negative locally advanced breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Z A Nahleh
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Paul L. Foster School of Medicine, El Paso, TX, USA.
| | - W E Barlow
- SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - D F Hayes
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - A F Schott
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - J R Gralow
- Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - W M Sikov
- Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island and Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
| | - E A Perez
- Genentech, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.,Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - S Chennuru
- Hematology Oncology Consultants, Inc., Westerville, OH, USA.,Columbus NCI Community Oncology Research Program, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - H R Mirshahidi
- Loma Linda University Cancer Center, Loma Linda, CA, USA
| | - S W Corso
- Gibbs Cancer Center and Research Institute/Southeast Clinical Oncology Research (SCOR) Consortium NCORP/Upstate Carolina CCOP (previous), Spartanburg, SC, USA
| | - D L Lew
- SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | | | - G N Hortobagyi
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Hertz DL, Barlow WE, Kidwell KM, Albain KS, Vandenberg TA, Dakhil SR, Tirumali NR, Livingston RB, Gralow J, Hayes DF, Hortobagyi GN, Mehta RS, Rae JM. Fulvestrant decreases anastrozole drug concentrations when taken concurrently by patients with metastatic breast cancer treated on SWOG study S0226. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2016; 81:1134-41. [PMID: 26859101 PMCID: PMC4876171 DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12904] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2015] [Revised: 01/25/2016] [Accepted: 02/03/2016] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
AIMS In the SWOG S0226 trial the combination of anastrozole plus fulvestrant (n = 349) was superior to anastrozole alone (n = 345) in hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer. Here we report a pharmacokinetic subset analysis investigating a possible drug interaction between anastrozole and fulvestrant. METHODS Post-menopausal patients with HR-positive metastatic breast cancer were randomized to anastrozole with or without concurrent fulvestrant. Blood samples were collected at 2, 4, 6 and 8 months, just prior to receiving the next dose of anastrozole and fulvestrant. Drug concentrations were measured via LC/MS-MS. Anastrozole concentration was compared in patients on anastrozole alone vs. patients on concomitant fulvestrant. Comparisons were made at each time point using parametric tests and over time using a linear mixed effects model. RESULTS A total of 483 anastrozole concentration measurements were included, 224 samples from 64 patients on the anastrozole alone arm and 259 from 73 patients on the combination arm. The mean anastrozole concentration in the combination arm was significantly lower than that in the anastrozole alone arm at each sample collection time (all P < 0.01) and in the mixed effects model (an estimated difference of 9.85 ng ml(-1) (95% CI 5.69, 14.00 ng ml(-1) ), P < 0.001). CONCLUSION A significant pharmacokinetic drug interaction was detected, in which the addition of fulvestrant to anastrozole treatment decreased the trough anastrozole concentration. Further research is needed to verify whether this interaction affects treatment efficacy and to determine the pharmacological mechanism by which this interaction occurs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel L Hertz
- College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | | | - Kelley M Kidwell
- University of Michigan, School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Kathy S Albain
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL, USA
| | - Ted A Vandenberg
- London Health Sciences Center/National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical, Trials Group, London, ON, Canada
| | | | | | | | - Julie Gralow
- Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Daniel F Hayes
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | | | - Rita S Mehta
- University of California Irvine Medical Center, Chao Family Comprehensive, Cancer Center, Orange, CA, USA
| | - James M Rae
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Albain KS, Unger JM, Livingston RB, Crew KD, Wilczynski SP, Salomon CG, Smith BL, Wong L, Campbell D, Einspahr DE, Anderson GL, Hershman DL, Goodman GE, Brown P, Meyskens FL, Potkul R. Randomized trial of medroxyprogesterone acetate for prevention of endometrial pathology from adjuvant tamoxifen for breast cancer: SWOG S9630. J Clin Oncol 2016. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2016.34.15_suppl.547] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Kathy S. Albain
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Maywood, IL
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Lucas Wong
- Scott and White Memorial Hospital, Temple, TX
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Powel Brown
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Frank L. Meyskens
- University of California at Irvine, Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, Orange, CA
| | - Ronald Potkul
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Maywood, IL
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Albain KS, Crager MR, Barlow WE, Baehner FL, Bergamaschi A, Rae JM, Ravdin PM, Tripathy D, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Osborne CK, Ingle JN, Pritchard KI, Davidson NE, Carey LA, Cherbavaz DB, Sing AP, Shak S, Hortobagyi GN, Hayes DF. Abstract S3-02: Molecular predictors of outcome on adjuvant CAF plus tamoxifen (T) vs T in postmenopausal patients (pts) with ER+, node+ breast cancer – Transcriptome expression analysis of the phase III trial SWOG-8814. Cancer Res 2016. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs15-s3-02] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In SWOG-8814A, pts with ER+ node+ breast cancer and low 21 gene recurrence scores (RS) had good prognosis and no CAF benefit, but high RS predicted longer survival from CAF followed by T (CAF-T) vs T (Albain, Lancet Oncol 2010). The aims of SWOG-8814B were to identify novel genes and networks for 1) prognosis of early and late relapse and 2) prediction of CAF benefit, using whole transcriptome expression analysis with next generation RNA sequencing (NGS).
METHODS: Stored RNA previously extracted for SWOG-8814A (T, CAF-T arms; T, 5 yrs) was analyzed for RNA/library yield (see companion abstract Cherbavaz et al. for methods). Genes were sequenced and expression of mRNA species was related to disease-free survival (DFS) using Cox proportional hazards. Discovery analyses controlled false discovery rate (FDR) at 10%. Genes were identified for prognosis on T and prediction on CAF-T vs T. Networks of genes/pathways were explored. Early (0-5 yrs) and late (5-13+ yrs) time periods were studied. Gene Ontology, Cytoscape, pathway and hierarchical clustering were used for functional gene and metagene analyses.
RESULTS: Of 367 samples, 354 (96%; 142 T, 212 CAF-T; 141 DFS events) had sufficient RNA/library yield, with 20,101 genes sequenced. For prognosis on T, there were 2327 and 568 genes discovered in early and all-yrs follow-up, with only 9 genes prognostic after 5 yrs. Prognosis analyses for residual risk after CAF-T were uninformative. Functional mapping found that genes prognostic for worse DFS were enriched for proliferation (G2M, M-phase), cellular metabolism, DNA repair, stress response and EMT; whereas, those with better DFS involved transcription regulation/repression via zinc finger proteins. Hierarchical clustering (T arm) found significant DFS prognostic metagene signatures for ER-related genes, immune response, ECM/stroma, chromatin remodeling-transcription factor activity and TGFb pathway. All varied for early vs late DFS events. For example, low ER/high stroma expression signatures correlated with high proliferation gene expression and were strongly associated with early events (standardized [st] HR 2.94, p<0.001). Late recurrence was associated with high proliferation, both individually (stHR 1.51, p=.035) and in combination with higher ER expression (stHR 1.51, p=0.09). Fifteen genes predicted CAF benefit (9 better DFS, 6 worse), or 129 genes if FDR relaxed to 20%. Cluster analysis for CAF prediction is ongoing.
CONCLUSIONS: Unique genes, clusters and pathways were identified by NGS of archival material in ER+ N+ breast cancer, including previously unreported signatures. While ER, stroma and proliferation-related signatures were associated with early prognosis, proliferation best predicted worse DFS after 5 yrs. NGS of the primary tumor is most informative for early events in pts with only 5 years of T, with few genes selecting only for late relapse. If validated, these signatures may identify pts with excellent DFS despite positive nodes for endocrine therapy alone as well as others for whom chemotherapy and/or biologics are also required
.
SUPPORT: NCI CA 180888, 180819, 180821, 180820, 180863; in part, Genomic Health, Inc.
Citation Format: Albain KS, Crager MR, Barlow WE, Baehner FL, Bergamaschi A, Rae JM, Ravdin PM, Tripathy D, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Osborne CK, Ingle JN, Pritchard KI, Davidson NE, Carey LA, Cherbavaz DB, Sing AP, Shak S, Hortobagyi GN, Hayes DF. Molecular predictors of outcome on adjuvant CAF plus tamoxifen (T) vs T in postmenopausal patients (pts) with ER+, node+ breast cancer – Transcriptome expression analysis of the phase III trial SWOG-8814. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr S3-02.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- KS Albain
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - MR Crager
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - WE Barlow
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - FL Baehner
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - A Bergamaschi
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - JM Rae
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - PM Ravdin
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - D Tripathy
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - JR Gralow
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - RB Livingston
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - CK Osborne
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - JN Ingle
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - KI Pritchard
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - NE Davidson
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - LA Carey
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - DB Cherbavaz
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - AP Sing
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - S Shak
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - GN Hortobagyi
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - DF Hayes
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Grow JL, Choudhary G, Kuo P, Livingston RB, Gonzalez VJ. Abstract P3-12-12: Incidence of internal mammary node, sternum, and manubrium failure as detected by FDG-18 PET/CT. Cancer Res 2016. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs15-p3-12-12] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction:
Elective radiotherapy to the internal mammary (IM) lymph nodes remains an ongoing subject of debate. While the incidence of occult IM involvement on extended mastectomy ranges from 15-65%, reported rates of IM failure are substantially lower (approximately 1%). Interest in this subject has resurfaced recently as randomized trials have shown a survival benefit to adjuvant regional node irradiation including the IM chain. The mechanism by which extended field radiotherapy leads to improved systemic outcomes has not been clearly demonstrated and the degree of benefit directly attributable to IM irradiation remains to be seen. We hypothesized that the IM lymphatic chain may provide a direct route for tumor cell dissemination into the the sternum or manubrium. As such, sternal metastases may be a manifestation of IM involvement rather than true hematogenous metastases. We sought to better elucidate patterns of failure by evaluating the incidence and timing of IM, sternal, or manubrial involvement identified by PET/CT imaging following diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer.
Patients and Methods:
Between 2007 and 2014, 96 patients with invasive breast cancer were found to have metastatic disease as diagnosed on FDG-18 PET/CT. Site of recurrence was scored as breast/chest wall, axilla/supraclav, IM chain, sternum/manubrium, or distant. IM or sternum/manubrium failure was scored as isolated (occurring without distant metastatic disease), synchronous (involved at initial diagnosis of distant metastatic disease), or metachronous (involved at any time after diagnosis of metastatic disease).
Results:
Isolated IM failures were observed in 3.1% of patients while isolated sternum/manubrium failures were recorded in 7.3% of patients. Isolated involvement of the sternum/manubrium or IM nodes occurred in 11.4%. The rate of synchronous IM failure was 11.4% with the rate of metachronous failure being 13.5%. The rate of synchronous sternum/manubrium failure was 17.7% with the rate of metachronous failure being 23.9%. The incidence of sternum/manubrium or IM involvement at the initial diagnosis of distant metastatic disease was 29.2% with the rate of involvement at any point increasing to 36.5%.
Conclusion:
The rate of internal mammary node failure by PET/CT at the time of metastatic diagnosis is higher than the incidence reported in previous trials. This discrepancy is likely due increased sensitivity of PET/CT and the difficulty of accurately assessing this region once patients have been found to have metastatic disease. Interestingly, sternum and manubrium were more often the first site of recurrence than the IM nodes. This could be due to a tropism of hematogenous metastases for these bones or could represent direct tumor cell dissemination from the internal mammary chain. This is of special interest as this region is incidentally included in the radiotherapy fields when targeting the IM nodes. Overall, our findings suggest that historic patterns of failure studies may underestimate the local benefit of internal mammary node radiotherapy.
Citation Format: Grow JL, Choudhary G, Kuo P, Livingston RB, Gonzalez VJ. Incidence of internal mammary node, sternum, and manubrium failure as detected by FDG-18 PET/CT. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-12-12.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- JL Grow
- University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
| | | | - P Kuo
- University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Chalasani P, Nagy D, Livingston RB, Weterings E, Nagle R, Singh S, Barnes M, Grogan T, Ridder R, Baker AF, Kandavel S. Abstract P4-07-07: Evaluating Rad51/geminin protein expression as an indicator of homologous recombination deficiency in breast cancer models. Cancer Res 2016. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs15-p4-07-07] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) in cancer cells can occur due to mutations (germline or sporadic), methylation or other epigenetic causes. HRD leads to a defect in the conservative, error-free DNA repair mechanism and is associated with enhanced susceptibility to DNA targeting chemotherapy. Currently functional HRD assays are not broadly available for clinical use. Many of the HRD assays used in the experimental setting require fresh frozen tissue for optimal results, or require specialized expertise to interpret the results. We evaluated an immunohistochemical (IHC) assay using formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue to measure protein expression of Rad51 and geminin, a cell proliferation marker, to assess HRD in breast cancer cell line models and clinical breast cancer samples. We hypothesize that Rad51, which is involved in the later stages of HR, can serve as a functional marker of HRD.
Methods: The MCF-7 human breast cancer cell line was used as a model with intact HR. Western blotting of total cell lysates from cells grown in culture was performed to confirm HR response following treatment with DNA damaging chemotherapeutic agents, cisplatin and doxorubicin. Paclitaxel, a microtubule targeting agent, was used as a negative control. Mice with MCF-7 xenograft tumors were also treated with cisplatin, or doxorubicin at two dose levels (low and high) and various time points post treatment to assess the dose and time response to HR markers. Tumors from mice treated with paclitaxel were used as a negative control. Xenograft tumors were fixed and analyzed by IHC using an antibody specific for total Rad51 and geminin expression. DNA damage was also assessed in a portion of the tumor using a pulse gel electrophoresis assay. We also analyzed FFPE breast cancer clinical samples from patients with BRCA1 mutations for Rad51 and geminin expression.
Results: In MCF-7 grown in vitro, total Rad51 was elevated as soon as 4 hours following exposure to doxorubicin and cisplatin, but not in response to paclitaxel treatment. In xenograft tumors, baseline Rad51 and geminin expression were relatively high illustrating proficient HR in an actively proliferating tumor model. Rad51 expression increased post treatment with cisplatin and doxorubicin as early as 6hrs and peaked at 16-24hrs. Geminin expression correlated well with expression of Rad51 at baseline and in time response to treatment. Pulse gel electrophoresis in paired tumor samples confirmed DNA damage was occurring compared to vehicle control treated tumors. However, this technique did not show a strong dose or time response. Five breast tumors from patients with known BRCA1 mutations were stained for Rad51 and geminin expression. High geminin expression and low Rad51 expression was noted in the majority of these tumors.
Conclusions: An IHC assay using FFPE tissue to measure Rad51/geminin is a promising method to assess HRD in breast cancer. Further analytical and clinical validation of this approach is ongoing.
Citation Format: Chalasani P, Nagy D, Livingston RB, Weterings E, Nagle R, Singh S, Barnes M, Grogan T, Ridder R, Baker AF, Kandavel S. Evaluating Rad51/geminin protein expression as an indicator of homologous recombination deficiency in breast cancer models. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-07-07.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Chalasani
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ
| | - D Nagy
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ
| | - RB Livingston
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ
| | - E Weterings
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ
| | - R Nagle
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ
| | - S Singh
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ
| | - M Barnes
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ
| | - T Grogan
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ
| | - R Ridder
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ
| | - AF Baker
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ
| | - S Kandavel
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Kadlubar SA, Barlow WE, Mehta RS, Daniels JR, Albain KS, Vandengerg TA, Dakhil SR, Tirumali NR, Lew DL, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Hortobagiyi GN, Hayes DF, Rae JM. Abstract P3-07-64: Association between gene variants in SULT1A1 and UGT1A4 and disease outcomes in patients enrolled in SWOG S0226 and treated with anastrozole alone or in combination with fulvestrant for metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Res 2016. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs15-p3-07-64] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Anastrozole (A) blocks estrogen production by inhibiting the activity of CYP19 aromatase. Fulvestrant (F) blocks estrogen receptor (ER) signaling by competitive binding, leading to ER degradation by ubiquitination. SWOG S0226 ("Phase III Randomized Trial of Anastrozole versus Anastrozole and Fulvestrant (250mg LD) as First Line Therapy for Post Menopausal Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer," ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT00075764) demonstrated that combination of A+F is superior to A alone as first-line therapy for patients with ER positive metastatic breast cancer (Mehta et al, NEJM, 2012). Our functional preclinical studies have shown that single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in SULT1A1 and UGT1A4, drug conjugation enzymes that inactivate A and F, result in decreased enzyme activity toward these drugs (Edavana et al, DMD, 2013; Edavana et al Pharmgenomics Pers Med 2013). We therefore hypothesized that these SNPs will be associated with disease outcomes in S0226 patients due to altered drug levels.
Methods: Germline DNA was available for 295 (43.5%) patients enrolled in S0226 overall (157 on A and 138 on A+F). SNPs in SULT1A1 and UGT1A4 were determined either by direct sequencing or allele-specific PCR (TaqMan) assays.
Results: There was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) comparing patients with or without available germline DNA (p = 0.86 and 0.36, respectively). The SULT1A1 G902A allele (rs6839), which confers decreased mRNA and enzymatic activity, was associated with improved PFS (GG/GA vs. AA; HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56-0.98, p=0.033) and OS (HR 0.70, 95% 0.50-0.98, p=0.039). In exploratory subset analyses of PFS, the SULT1A1 G902A association was similar across both treatment arms (A HR=0.75; 95% CI 0.51-1.10; A+F HR=0.73; 95% CI 0.48-1.11). For OS there was some evidence of a difference by treatment (A HR=0.60; 95% CI 0.38-0.96; A+F HR=0.82; 95% CI 0.50-1.32), though no significant interaction was evident (p=0.30).
The UGT1A4 G-163A promoter variant, which leads to decreased protein expression, was not associated with PFS (AA/AG vs. GG HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68-1.14, p=0.33); however, this variant was associated with OS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52-0.96, p=0.027). In subset analyses with OS, the difference was marginally stronger in the A arm (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42-0.97, p=0.035) compared to the A+F arm (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.49-1.21, p=0.25), though the interaction was not significant (p=0.40).
Conclusion: SULT1A1 and UGT1A4 gene variants resulting in decreased enzyme activity were associated with better PFS, OS or both in patients enrolled in SWOG S0226. Planned validation studies correlating these SNPs with drug levels and disease outcomes in additional patient cohorts will establish their clinical utility in identifying patients who benefit from A and F alone or in combination.
Funding: Supported by NIH/NCI CA118981; NIH/NCI/NCTN grants CA180888, CA180819, and CA180863; and in part by AstraZeneca.
Citation Format: Kadlubar SA, Barlow WE, Mehta RS, Daniels JR, Albain KS, Vandengerg TA, Dakhil SR, Tirumali NR, Lew DL, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Hortobagiyi GN, Hayes DF, Rae JM. Association between gene variants in SULT1A1 and UGT1A4 and disease outcomes in patients enrolled in SWOG S0226 and treated with anastrozole alone or in combination with fulvestrant for metastatic breast cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-07-64.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- SA Kadlubar
- University of Arkansas Medical Sciences; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; LUMC; LHSC; U Michigan; CCk; KP
| | - WE Barlow
- University of Arkansas Medical Sciences; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; LUMC; LHSC; U Michigan; CCk; KP
| | - RS Mehta
- University of Arkansas Medical Sciences; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; LUMC; LHSC; U Michigan; CCk; KP
| | - JR Daniels
- University of Arkansas Medical Sciences; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; LUMC; LHSC; U Michigan; CCk; KP
| | - KS Albain
- University of Arkansas Medical Sciences; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; LUMC; LHSC; U Michigan; CCk; KP
| | - TA Vandengerg
- University of Arkansas Medical Sciences; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; LUMC; LHSC; U Michigan; CCk; KP
| | - SR Dakhil
- University of Arkansas Medical Sciences; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; LUMC; LHSC; U Michigan; CCk; KP
| | - NR Tirumali
- University of Arkansas Medical Sciences; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; LUMC; LHSC; U Michigan; CCk; KP
| | - DL Lew
- University of Arkansas Medical Sciences; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; LUMC; LHSC; U Michigan; CCk; KP
| | - JR Gralow
- University of Arkansas Medical Sciences; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; LUMC; LHSC; U Michigan; CCk; KP
| | - RB Livingston
- University of Arkansas Medical Sciences; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; LUMC; LHSC; U Michigan; CCk; KP
| | - GN Hortobagiyi
- University of Arkansas Medical Sciences; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; LUMC; LHSC; U Michigan; CCk; KP
| | - DF Hayes
- University of Arkansas Medical Sciences; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; LUMC; LHSC; U Michigan; CCk; KP
| | - JM Rae
- University of Arkansas Medical Sciences; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; LUMC; LHSC; U Michigan; CCk; KP
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Currin E, Peterson LM, Schubert EK, Link JM, Krohn KA, Livingston RB, Mankoff DA, Linden HM. Temporal Heterogeneity of Estrogen Receptor Expression in Bone-Dominant Breast Cancer:18F-Fluoroestradiol PET Imaging Shows Return of ER Expression. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2016; 14:144-7. [DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
20
|
Sucheston-Campbell L, Clay A, Barlow WE, Budd GT, Stram D, Haiman C, Yan L, Zirpoli G, Yao S, Hershman D, Albain KS, Hayes DF, Moore H, Hobday TJ, Stewart JA, Isaacs C, Salim M, Gralow JR, Hortobagyi GN, Livingston RB, Sheng X, Kroetz DL, Ambrosone CB. Abstract 5489: A genome-wide association study identifies novel loci associated with taxane-related sensory neuropathy in breast cancer patients enrolled in a cooperative group clinical trial (SWOG S0221). Cancer Res 2015. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2015-5489] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction: The use of multi-drug regimens, including taxanes (T), has increased survival for breast cancer patients. However, T-induced neuropathy, one of the most common side effects, cannot be predicted, prevented or effectively treated. Using genome wide analyses (GWA), we sought to identify common genetic variants that infer susceptibility to clinical and self-reported neuropathy.
Methods: Women with high risk breast cancer were enrolled in SWOG 0221, a trial of dosing schedules for AC and T. Genotyping was performed using the Illumina 1M chip and SNPs examined in relation to CTCAE grade 3 and 4 neurotoxicity and self-reported symptoms (FACT-TAXANE) among women providing blood samples. Significant associations were tested for replication in CALGB40101.
Results: Among 1269 European Americans (EA) and 139 African Americans (AA) in S0221, there were 147 and 31 grade 3+ neuropathies, respectively. In CALGB40101, grade 3 toxicity was less frequent (59/855 EA and 15/117 AA). In S0221 EA patients, loci on chromosomes 7, 10, 16 and 17 showed associations with grades 3 and 4 neuropathy at p<5×10e-06, with the most significant genetic association on chromosome 17, rs910920, p = 6.8×10e-08, odds ratio (OR) = 0.44 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.32-0.61); this SNP is a cis eQTL, thought likely to affect transcription factor binding and linked to expression of VPS53 in lymphoblastoid cell lines. While the rs910920 association was specific to EA, the A allele in rs1858826 on chromosome 7 was associated with reduced odds of neuropathy in both EA (p = 7×10e-07) and AA (p = .02) groups. The S0221 associations at p<5×10e-06 did not replicate in CALGB40101.
A subset of patients (n = 677 EA and n = 42 AA) completed the FACT-TAXANE. The most significant associations with this neuropathy phenotype (p<5×10e-07) were on chromosomes 2 (rs4267555 and rs4443044) and 3 (rs2421468). Of the 168 SNPs tested for association with neuropathy in previous studies, rs1695 in GSTP1 (p = 0.0009) and rs228591 in ATM (p = 0.0006), showed some evidence of association with FACT-TAXANE scores; the latter SNP was significant at p = .005 in ordinal regression analysis of neuropathy grades 0-4 in CALGB40101. None of these SNPs were significantly associated with grade 3 CTCAE neuropathy at p<.05, nor were the top CTCAE associations in relation to FACT-TAXANE scores. Replication of the most significant S0221 FACT-TAXANE findings in CALGB40101 is ongoing.
Conclusions: Failure to replicate S0221 in CALGB40101, and the lack of coherence between self-report and clinical grade in S0221 could be attributable to differences in trial designs as well as differences in defining a complex phenotype. Larger homogeneous trials with similar dosing and criteria for defining neuropathy are needed to assess the relationship of genetics and the neuropathy symptom spectrum.
Citation Format: Lara Sucheston-Campbell, Alyssa Clay, William E. Barlow, G Thomas Budd, Dan Stram, Chris Haiman, Li Yan, Gary Zirpoli, Song Yao, Dawn Hershman, Kathy S. Albain, Daniel F. Hayes, Halle Moore, Timothy J. Hobday, James A. Stewart, Claudine Isaacs, Muhammad Salim, Julie R. Gralow, Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, Robert B. Livingston, Xin Sheng, Deanna L. Kroetz, Christine B. Ambrosone. A genome-wide association study identifies novel loci associated with taxane-related sensory neuropathy in breast cancer patients enrolled in a cooperative group clinical trial (SWOG S0221). [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr 5489. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-5489
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Dan Stram
- 4University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Chris Haiman
- 4University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Li Yan
- 5SUNY-Buffalo, Buffalo, NY
| | | | - Song Yao
- 1Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY
| | | | - Kathy S. Albain
- 7Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Maywood, IL
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Muhammad Salim
- 12Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
| | | | | | | | - Xin Sheng
- 4University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Goyal U, Gonzalez VJ, Ley MLB, Chalasani P, Viscusi RK, Lebeau L, Livingston RB. Concurrent capecitabine and radiotherapy for high risk breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.e12034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Rebecca Klein Viscusi
- The University of Arizona College of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Section of Surgical Oncology, Tucson, AZ
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Gralow J, Barlow WE, Paterson AHG, Lew D, Stopeck A, Hayes DF, Hershman DL, Schubert M, Clemons MJ, Van Poznak CH, Dees EC, Ingle JN, Falkson CI, Elias AD, Messino MJ, Margolis JH, Dakhil SR, Chew HK, Livingston RB, Hortobagyi GN. Phase III trial of bisphosphonates as adjuvant therapy in primary breast cancer: SWOG/Alliance/ECOG-ACRIN/NCIC Clinical Trials Group/NRG Oncology study S0307. J Clin Oncol 2015. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.503] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Julie Gralow
- University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | | | | | - Danika Lew
- Southwest Oncology Group Statistical Center, Seattle, WA
| | | | - Daniel F. Hayes
- University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Livingston RB. Radiation-chemotherapy interactions in limited small cell lung cancer. Front Radiat Ther Oncol 2015; 26:72-82. [PMID: 1324878 DOI: 10.1159/000421057] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
|
24
|
Hart JS, Ignall E, Trujillo JM, Livingston RB, Murphy W, Ahearn M, Bodey GP. The clinical significance of prognostic factors in human neoplasia. Antibiot Chemother (1971) 2015; 23:157-80. [PMID: 348075 DOI: 10.1159/000401481] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
|
25
|
Chalasani P, Marron M, Roe D, Clarke K, Iannone M, Livingston RB, Shan JS, Stopeck AT. A phase I clinical trial of bavituximab and paclitaxel in patients with HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Med 2015; 4:1051-9. [PMID: 25826750 PMCID: PMC4529343 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.447] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2015] [Revised: 02/06/2015] [Accepted: 02/11/2015] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Bavituximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that targets phosphatidylserine (PS). PS is externalized on cells in the tumor microenvironment when exposed to hypoxia and/or other physiological stressors. On attaching to PS, bavituximab is thought to promote antitumor immunity through its effects on PS receptors in monocytes, and myeloid-derived suppressor cells, as well as trigger antitumor effects by inducing an antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity on tumor-associated endothelial cells. We conducted a phase I clinical trial of bavituximab in combination with paclitaxel in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Patients were treated with weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 for 3/4 weeks) and weekly bavituximab (3 mg/kg for 4/4 weeks). Correlative studies included the measurement of circulating microparticles, endothelial cells, and apoptotic tumor cells by flow cytometry. Fourteen patients with metastatic breast cancer were enrolled; all were evaluable for toxicity and 13 were evaluable for response. Treatment resulted in an overall response rate (RR) of 85% with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.3 months. Bone pain, fatigue, headache, and neutropenia were the most common adverse effects. Infusion-related reactions were the most common adverse event related to bavituximab therapy. Correlative studies showed an increase in the PS-expressing apoptotic circulating tumor cells in response to bavituximab, but not with paclitaxel. No changes in the number of circulating endothelial cells or apoptotic endothelial cells were observed with therapy. Platelet and monocyte-derived microparticles decreased after initiation of bavituximab. Bavituximab in combination with paclitaxel is well tolerated for treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer with promising results observed in terms of clinical RRs and PFS. The toxicity profile of bavituximab is notable for manageable infusion-related reactions with no evidence for increased thrombogenicity. Recent preclinical data suggest that bavituximab can also promote antitumor immune activity that should be explored in future clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pavani Chalasani
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, 1515 N Campbell Ave, Tucson, Arizona, 85724
| | - Marilyn Marron
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, 1515 N Campbell Ave, Tucson, Arizona, 85724
| | - Denise Roe
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, 1515 N Campbell Ave, Tucson, Arizona, 85724
| | - Kathryn Clarke
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, 1515 N Campbell Ave, Tucson, Arizona, 85724
| | - Maria Iannone
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, 1515 N Campbell Ave, Tucson, Arizona, 85724
| | - Robert B Livingston
- University of Arizona Cancer Center, 1515 N Campbell Ave, Tucson, Arizona, 85724
| | - Joseph S Shan
- Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 14282 Franklin Avenue, Tustin, California, 92780
| | - Alison T Stopeck
- Stonybrook Medicine University, PO Box 1554, Stonybrook, New York, 11790
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Budd GT, Barlow WE, Moore HCF, Hobday TJ, Stewart JA, Isaacs C, Salim M, Cho JK, Rinn KJ, Albain KS, Chew HK, Burton GV, Moore TD, Srkalovic G, McGregor BA, Flaherty LE, Livingston RB, Lew DL, Gralow JR, Hortobagyi GN. SWOG S0221: a phase III trial comparing chemotherapy schedules in high-risk early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014; 33:58-64. [PMID: 25422488 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2014.56.3296] [Citation(s) in RCA: 79] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine the optimal dose and schedule of anthracycline and taxane administration as adjuvant therapy for early-stage breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS A 2 × 2 factorial design was used to test two hypotheses: (1) that a novel continuous schedule of doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide was superior to six cycles of doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide once every 2 weeks and (2) that paclitaxel once per week was superior to six cycles of paclitaxel once every 2 weeks in patients with node-positive or high-risk node-negative early-stage breast cancer. With 3,250 patients, a disease-free survival (DFS) hazard ratio of 0.82 for each randomization could be detected with 90% power with two-sided α = .05. Overall survival (OS) was a secondary outcome. RESULTS Interim analyses crossed the futility boundaries for demonstrating superiority of both once-per-week regimens and once-every-2-weeks regimens. After a median follow-up of 6 years, a significant interaction developed between the two randomization factors (DFS P = .024; OS P = .010) in the 2,716 patients randomly assigned in the original design, which precluded interpretation of the two factors separately. Comparing all four arms showed a significant difference in OS (P = .040) but not in DFS (P = .11), with all treatments given once every 2 weeks associated with the highest OS. This difference in OS seemed confined to patients with hormone receptor-negative/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -negative tumors (P = .067), with no differences seen with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative (P = .90) or HER2-positive tumors (P = .40). CONCLUSION Patients achieved a similar DFS with any of these regimens. Subset analysis suggests the hypothesis that once-every-2-weeks dosing may be best for patients with hormone receptor-negative/HER2-negative tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- George T Budd
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ.
| | - William E Barlow
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Halle C F Moore
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Timothy J Hobday
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - James A Stewart
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Claudine Isaacs
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Muhammad Salim
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Jonathan K Cho
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Kristine J Rinn
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Kathy S Albain
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Helen K Chew
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Gary V Burton
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Timothy D Moore
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Gordan Srkalovic
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Bradley A McGregor
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Lawrence E Flaherty
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Robert B Livingston
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Danika L Lew
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Julie R Gralow
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Gabriel N Hortobagyi
- George T. Budd, Halle C. F. Moore, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Timothy D. Moore, Mid Ohio Oncology Hematology, Columbus, OH; William E. Barlow, Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Kristine J. Rinn, Swedish Cancer Institute; Julie R Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Timothy J. Hobday Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; James A. Stewart, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Muhammad Salim, Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada; Jonathan K. Cho, University of Hawaii MBCCOP, Honolulu, HI; Kathy S. Albain, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine; Chicago, IL; Helen K. Chew, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA; Gary V. Burton, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Lawrence E. Flaherty, Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; Bradley A. McGregor, Willford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Robert B. Livingston, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Smerage JB, Barlow WE, Hortobagyi GN, Winer EP, Leyland-Jones B, Srkalovic G, Tejwani S, Schott AF, O'Rourke MA, Lew DL, Doyle GV, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Hayes DF. Circulating tumor cells and response to chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: SWOG S0500. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32:3483-9. [PMID: 24888818 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2014.56.2561] [Citation(s) in RCA: 445] [Impact Index Per Article: 44.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Increased circulating tumor cells (CTCs; five or more CTCs per 7.5 mL of whole blood) are associated with poor prognosis in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). A randomized trial of patients with persistent increase in CTCs tested whether changing chemotherapy after one cycle of first-line chemotherapy would improve the primary outcome of overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with MBC who did not have increased CTCs at baseline remained on initial therapy until progression (arm A). Patients with initially increased CTCs that decreased after 21 days of therapy remained on initial therapy (arm B). Patients with persistently increased CTCs after 21 days of therapy were randomly assigned to continue initial therapy (arm C1) or change to an alternative chemotherapy (arm C2). RESULTS Of 595 eligible and evaluable patients, 276 (46%) did not have increased CTCs (arm A). Of those with initially increased CTCs, 31 (10%) were not retested, 165 were assigned to arm B, and 123 were randomly assigned to arm C1 or C2. No difference in median OS was observed between arm C1 and C2 (10.7 and 12.5 months, respectively; P = .98). CTCs were strongly prognostic. Median OS for arms A, B, and C (C1 and C2 combined) were 35 months, 23 months, and 13 months, respectively (P < .001). CONCLUSION This study confirms the prognostic significance of CTCs in patients with MBC receiving first-line chemotherapy. For patients with persistently increased CTCs after 21 days of first-line chemotherapy, early switching to an alternate cytotoxic therapy was not effective in prolonging OS. For this population, there is a need for more effective treatment than standard chemotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeffrey B Smerage
- Jeffrey B. Smerage, Anne F. Schott, and Daniel F. Hayes, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Sheela Tejwani, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; William E. Barlow and Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Julie R. Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Eric P. Winer, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Brian Leyland-Jones, Avera Cancer Institute, Sioux Falls, SD; Mark A. O'Rourke, Greenville Health System Cancer Institute/Greenville Community Clinical Oncology Program, Greenville, SC; Gerald V. Doyle, Immunicon, Huntingdon Valley, PA; and Robert B. Livingston, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - William E Barlow
- Jeffrey B. Smerage, Anne F. Schott, and Daniel F. Hayes, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Sheela Tejwani, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; William E. Barlow and Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Julie R. Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Eric P. Winer, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Brian Leyland-Jones, Avera Cancer Institute, Sioux Falls, SD; Mark A. O'Rourke, Greenville Health System Cancer Institute/Greenville Community Clinical Oncology Program, Greenville, SC; Gerald V. Doyle, Immunicon, Huntingdon Valley, PA; and Robert B. Livingston, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Gabriel N Hortobagyi
- Jeffrey B. Smerage, Anne F. Schott, and Daniel F. Hayes, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Sheela Tejwani, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; William E. Barlow and Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Julie R. Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Eric P. Winer, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Brian Leyland-Jones, Avera Cancer Institute, Sioux Falls, SD; Mark A. O'Rourke, Greenville Health System Cancer Institute/Greenville Community Clinical Oncology Program, Greenville, SC; Gerald V. Doyle, Immunicon, Huntingdon Valley, PA; and Robert B. Livingston, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Eric P Winer
- Jeffrey B. Smerage, Anne F. Schott, and Daniel F. Hayes, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Sheela Tejwani, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; William E. Barlow and Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Julie R. Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Eric P. Winer, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Brian Leyland-Jones, Avera Cancer Institute, Sioux Falls, SD; Mark A. O'Rourke, Greenville Health System Cancer Institute/Greenville Community Clinical Oncology Program, Greenville, SC; Gerald V. Doyle, Immunicon, Huntingdon Valley, PA; and Robert B. Livingston, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Brian Leyland-Jones
- Jeffrey B. Smerage, Anne F. Schott, and Daniel F. Hayes, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Sheela Tejwani, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; William E. Barlow and Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Julie R. Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Eric P. Winer, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Brian Leyland-Jones, Avera Cancer Institute, Sioux Falls, SD; Mark A. O'Rourke, Greenville Health System Cancer Institute/Greenville Community Clinical Oncology Program, Greenville, SC; Gerald V. Doyle, Immunicon, Huntingdon Valley, PA; and Robert B. Livingston, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Gordan Srkalovic
- Jeffrey B. Smerage, Anne F. Schott, and Daniel F. Hayes, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Sheela Tejwani, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; William E. Barlow and Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Julie R. Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Eric P. Winer, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Brian Leyland-Jones, Avera Cancer Institute, Sioux Falls, SD; Mark A. O'Rourke, Greenville Health System Cancer Institute/Greenville Community Clinical Oncology Program, Greenville, SC; Gerald V. Doyle, Immunicon, Huntingdon Valley, PA; and Robert B. Livingston, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Sheela Tejwani
- Jeffrey B. Smerage, Anne F. Schott, and Daniel F. Hayes, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Sheela Tejwani, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; William E. Barlow and Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Julie R. Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Eric P. Winer, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Brian Leyland-Jones, Avera Cancer Institute, Sioux Falls, SD; Mark A. O'Rourke, Greenville Health System Cancer Institute/Greenville Community Clinical Oncology Program, Greenville, SC; Gerald V. Doyle, Immunicon, Huntingdon Valley, PA; and Robert B. Livingston, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Anne F Schott
- Jeffrey B. Smerage, Anne F. Schott, and Daniel F. Hayes, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Sheela Tejwani, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; William E. Barlow and Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Julie R. Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Eric P. Winer, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Brian Leyland-Jones, Avera Cancer Institute, Sioux Falls, SD; Mark A. O'Rourke, Greenville Health System Cancer Institute/Greenville Community Clinical Oncology Program, Greenville, SC; Gerald V. Doyle, Immunicon, Huntingdon Valley, PA; and Robert B. Livingston, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Mark A O'Rourke
- Jeffrey B. Smerage, Anne F. Schott, and Daniel F. Hayes, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Sheela Tejwani, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; William E. Barlow and Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Julie R. Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Eric P. Winer, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Brian Leyland-Jones, Avera Cancer Institute, Sioux Falls, SD; Mark A. O'Rourke, Greenville Health System Cancer Institute/Greenville Community Clinical Oncology Program, Greenville, SC; Gerald V. Doyle, Immunicon, Huntingdon Valley, PA; and Robert B. Livingston, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Danika L Lew
- Jeffrey B. Smerage, Anne F. Schott, and Daniel F. Hayes, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Sheela Tejwani, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; William E. Barlow and Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Julie R. Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Eric P. Winer, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Brian Leyland-Jones, Avera Cancer Institute, Sioux Falls, SD; Mark A. O'Rourke, Greenville Health System Cancer Institute/Greenville Community Clinical Oncology Program, Greenville, SC; Gerald V. Doyle, Immunicon, Huntingdon Valley, PA; and Robert B. Livingston, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Gerald V Doyle
- Jeffrey B. Smerage, Anne F. Schott, and Daniel F. Hayes, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Sheela Tejwani, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; William E. Barlow and Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Julie R. Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Eric P. Winer, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Brian Leyland-Jones, Avera Cancer Institute, Sioux Falls, SD; Mark A. O'Rourke, Greenville Health System Cancer Institute/Greenville Community Clinical Oncology Program, Greenville, SC; Gerald V. Doyle, Immunicon, Huntingdon Valley, PA; and Robert B. Livingston, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Julie R Gralow
- Jeffrey B. Smerage, Anne F. Schott, and Daniel F. Hayes, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Sheela Tejwani, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; William E. Barlow and Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Julie R. Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Eric P. Winer, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Brian Leyland-Jones, Avera Cancer Institute, Sioux Falls, SD; Mark A. O'Rourke, Greenville Health System Cancer Institute/Greenville Community Clinical Oncology Program, Greenville, SC; Gerald V. Doyle, Immunicon, Huntingdon Valley, PA; and Robert B. Livingston, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Robert B Livingston
- Jeffrey B. Smerage, Anne F. Schott, and Daniel F. Hayes, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Sheela Tejwani, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; William E. Barlow and Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Julie R. Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Eric P. Winer, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Brian Leyland-Jones, Avera Cancer Institute, Sioux Falls, SD; Mark A. O'Rourke, Greenville Health System Cancer Institute/Greenville Community Clinical Oncology Program, Greenville, SC; Gerald V. Doyle, Immunicon, Huntingdon Valley, PA; and Robert B. Livingston, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | - Daniel F Hayes
- Jeffrey B. Smerage, Anne F. Schott, and Daniel F. Hayes, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor; Gordan Srkalovic, Sparrow Regional Cancer Center, Lansing; Sheela Tejwani, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; William E. Barlow and Danika L. Lew, SWOG Statistical Center; Julie R. Gralow, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Eric P. Winer, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Brian Leyland-Jones, Avera Cancer Institute, Sioux Falls, SD; Mark A. O'Rourke, Greenville Health System Cancer Institute/Greenville Community Clinical Oncology Program, Greenville, SC; Gerald V. Doyle, Immunicon, Huntingdon Valley, PA; and Robert B. Livingston, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ.
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Budd GT, Barlow WE, Moore HCF, Hobday TJ, Stewart JA, Isaacs C, Salim M, Cho JK, Albain KS, Rinn K, Chew HK, Burton GV, Moore TD, Srkalovic G, McGregor BA, Flaherty LE, Livingston RB, Lew D, Gralow J, Hortobagyi GN. Outcome of male patients and black patients enrolled in S0221, an intergroup chemotherapy study. J Clin Oncol 2014. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.1016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Gary Von Burton
- Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center/Feist Weiller cancer center, Shreveport, LA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Danika Lew
- Southwest Oncology Group Statistical Center, Seattle, WA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
Gralow J, Barlow WE, Paterson AHG, Lew D, Stopeck A, Hayes DF, Hershman DL, Schubert M, Clemons M, Van Poznak CH, Dees EC, Ingle JN, Falkson CI, Elias AD, Messino MJ, Margolis JH, Dakhil SR, Chew HK, Livingston RB, Hortobagyi GN. SWOG S0307 phase III trial of bisphosphonates as adjuvant therapy in primary breast cancer: Comparison of toxicities and patient-stated preference for oral versus intravenous delivery. J Clin Oncol 2014. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.558] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Julie Gralow
- University of Washington, School of Medicine, Seattle, WA
| | | | | | - Danika Lew
- Southwest Oncology Group Statistical Center, Seattle, WA
| | | | - Daniel F. Hayes
- The University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | | | - Mark Clemons
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center, University of Ottawa & The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Lee ES, Lundberg TM, Ley MB, Waer A, Livingston RB, Stopeck AT, Chalasani P, Gonzalez VJ, LeBeau LG, Rose JF, Viscusi RK. Abstract P1-12-03: Primary squamous cell carcinoma of the breast. Cancer Res 2013. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs13-p1-12-03] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary squamous cell carcinoma of the breast (PSCCB) is one of the rarest forms of breast cancer, accounting for less than 0.1% of all breast cancers. PSCCB can be aggressive with no typical radiologic findings on mammogram, often leading to delays in diagnoses or missed diagnoses. Previously reported cases of PSCCB have illustrated a wide range of clinical presentations, from an abnormal mammogram with no obvious breast mass to a breast abscess. In addition, due to the rarity of this disease, no clear consensus on definitive treatment or prognosis exists.
METHODS: Using a search of our pathology database, we identified females diagnosed with PSCCB at our institution from 2007-2012. Inclusion criteria included female patients over the age of 18 years old with a primary tumor consisting of >90% malignant cells of squamous origin. Likewise, exclusion criteria included squamous cell cancer that had metastasized to the breast from elsewhere or lesions that were not independent of the overlying skin or nipple. We then performed a retrospective review to evaluate patient characteristics, presentation, tumor characteristics, treatment modalities and outcomes.
RESULTS: We identified three patients who were diagnosed with PSCCB during that timeframe. Their ages ranged from 35-65 years old, with two being post-menopausal and one pre-menopausal. Of the three, two were Caucasian and one was Hispanic. All three presented after self-palpating a breast mass. The average size of the mass seen on mammogram was 2.9 cm (range of 2.4 to 3.6 cm). Histologically, all three of the cancers were moderately to poorly differentiated. In addition, they all had a negative estrogen, progesterone, and HER2 receptor status with an elevated Ki-67. One patient was diagnosed at our institution but did not proceed to surgery and was lost to follow up. For the other two patients, one chose to undergo breast conservation with partial mastectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy followed by whole breast radiation. The second patient proceeded with a total mastectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy without radiation. There was no evidence of regional nodal disease in either patient at time of surgery. Furthermore, neither patient received any systemic therapy. Both patients were disease free at last follow up which was 5 and 11 months respectively.
CONCLUSION: Because PSCCB is so rare, prognosis and optimal treatment are still controversial. Most of the current literature portrays PSCCB as an aggressive cancer with a poor prognosis. This often leads to multimodality therapy consisting of mastectomy with axillary nodal clearance, adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation. In addition, locoregional and distant recurrences are common despite this aggressive treatment leading to the conclusion that PSCCB is relatively radioresistant with limited activity seen when using conventional breast cancer systemic therapies. Because treatment options can be limited, more research is needed to further elucidate the biological behavior of this rare cancer as well prognostic factors that may allow us to treat a patient more conservatively.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P1-12-03.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- ES Lee
- University of Arizona Health Network, Tucson, AZ
| | - TM Lundberg
- University of Arizona Health Network, Tucson, AZ
| | - MB Ley
- University of Arizona Health Network, Tucson, AZ
| | - A Waer
- University of Arizona Health Network, Tucson, AZ
| | | | - AT Stopeck
- University of Arizona Health Network, Tucson, AZ
| | - P Chalasani
- University of Arizona Health Network, Tucson, AZ
| | - VJ Gonzalez
- University of Arizona Health Network, Tucson, AZ
| | - LG LeBeau
- University of Arizona Health Network, Tucson, AZ
| | - JF Rose
- University of Arizona Health Network, Tucson, AZ
| | - RK Viscusi
- University of Arizona Health Network, Tucson, AZ
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Yao S, Sucheston LE, Zhao H, Barlow WE, Zirpoli G, Liu S, Moore HCF, Thomas Budd G, Hershman DL, Davis W, Ciupak GL, Stewart JA, Isaacs C, Hobday TJ, Salim M, Hortobagyi GN, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Albain KS, Hayes DF, Ambrosone CB. Germline genetic variants in ABCB1, ABCC1 and ALDH1A1, and risk of hematological and gastrointestinal toxicities in a SWOG Phase III trial S0221 for breast cancer. Pharmacogenomics J 2013; 14:241-7. [PMID: 23999597 PMCID: PMC3940691 DOI: 10.1038/tpj.2013.32] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2013] [Revised: 07/25/2013] [Accepted: 07/31/2013] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
Hematological and gastrointestinal toxicities are common among patients treated with cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin for breast cancer. To examine whether single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in key pharmacokinetic genes were associated with risk of hematological or gastrointestinal toxicity, we analyzed 78 SNPs in ABCB1, ABCC1 and ALDH1A1 in 882 breast cancer patients enrolled in the SWOG trial S0221 and treated with cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin. A two-SNP haplotype in ALDH1A1 was associated with an increased risk of grade 3 and 4 hematological toxicity (odds ratio=1.44, 95% confidence interval=1.16-1.78), which remained significant after correction for multiple comparisons. In addition, four SNPs in ABCC1 were associated with gastrointestinal toxicity. Our findings provide evidence that SNPs in pharmacokinetic genes may have an impact on the development of chemotherapy-related toxicities. This is a necessary first step toward building a clinical tool that will help assess risk of adverse outcomes before undergoing chemotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Yao
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - L E Sucheston
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - H Zhao
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - W E Barlow
- SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - G Zirpoli
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - S Liu
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - H C F Moore
- Department of Solid Tumor Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - G Thomas Budd
- Department of Solid Tumor Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - D L Hershman
- Columbia University Medical Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - W Davis
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - G L Ciupak
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - J A Stewart
- Department of medicine, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA, USA
| | - C Isaacs
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - M Salim
- Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, SK, Canada
| | - G N Hortobagyi
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - J R Gralow
- Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - R B Livingston
- College of Medicine, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | - K S Albain
- Loyola University Chicago Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Maywood, IL, USA
| | - D F Hayes
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - C B Ambrosone
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Budd GT, Barlow WE, Moore HCF, Hobday TJ, Stewart JA, Isaacs C, Salim M, Cho JK, Rinn K, Albain KS, Chew HK, Burton GV, Moore TD, Srkalovic G, McGregor BA, Flaherty LE, Livingston RB, Lew D, Gralow J, Hortobagyi GN. S0221: Comparison of two schedules of paclitaxel as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2013.31.18_suppl.cra1008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
CRA1008 Background: S0221 is a SWOG-coordinated phase III adjuvant chemotherapy intergroup trial in node-positive and high-risk node-negative operable breast cancer which hypothesized that 1) the weekly AC+G regimen is superior to ddAC x 6 and 2) 12 weeks of weekly paclitaxel (wP) is superior to q 2 week paclitaxel x 6 (ddP). Methods: Between December 2003 and November 2010, 2,716 patients were randomized in a 2 x 2 factorial design to 1) AC+G vs ddAC and 2) P 80 mg/m2/week x 12 vs P 175 mg/m2 q 2 weeks x 6. If there was no significant interaction between the factors, the trial was powered to find a disease-free survival hazard ratio (HR) ≤ 0.82 for weekly vs q 2 week for each factor. At the first interim analysis, the AC randomization was halted for futility, and S0221 was closed to accrual 10 November 2010. S0221 reopened 15 December 2010, after which time all patients received 4 cycles of ddAC and randomization to P weekly x 12 and ddP x 6 continued. Accrual halted at a total of 3,294 in January 2012. Results: By September 7, 2012, 487 events and 340 deaths had occurred, prompting the third planned interim analysis. The Data Safety and Monitoring Committee recommended reporting the results since the futility boundary was crossed. A Cox model adjusting for the AC arms had a HR = 1.08 (95% CI 0.90-1.28; p=0.42), with the 99.5% CI excluding the original alternative hypothesis that the HR=0.82. There was no significant interaction of the two factors. Estimated 5-year progression-free survivals were 82% for weekly P and 81% for ddP. Toxicity data were available for 1,385 patients treated with ddP and 1,367 treated with weekly P. Grade 5 toxicity occurred in 4 patients on ddP and 2 on weekly P. Percent grade 3-4 toxicity per arm are shown in the Table. Conclusions: Either ddPx6 or weekly P x 12 are acceptable schedules of P administration. The differences in leukopenia likely reflect ascertainment bias against weekly P. If this is accepted, weekly P x 12 produces less overall toxicity than 6 cycles of ddP. Support: NCI grants CA32102, CA38926, CA21115, CA21076, CA77597, CA25224, CA77202, CCSRI15469, and Amgen, Inc. Clinical trial information: NCT00070564. [Table: see text]
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Helen K. Chew
- University of California, Davis Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Danika Lew
- Southwest Oncology Group Statistical Center, Seattle, WA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Brown-Glaberman UA, Specht JM, Iannone M, Kurland BF, Livingston RB, Stopeck A. Circulating biomarkers in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with sunitinib for locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.1089] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
1089 Background: Biomarkers to guide the use of antiangiogenic therapy are lacking. Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) and their progenitor cells (CEPs) are increased in cancer patients. VCAM is an endothelial protein increased in response to VEGF stimulation, while CAIX is elevated in states of hypoxia; both correlate with tumor aggressiveness. Methods: We examined these circulating biomarkers in a phase II neoadjuvant trial in 63 patients (pts) with locally advanced HER2 negative breast cancer treated with 12 weeks (wks) of paclitaxel (T) plus sunitinib (S) followed by 15 wks of daily oral cyclophosphamide and weekly doxorubicin plus daily G-CSF (AC+G-CSF). Toxicity and clinical outcomes are reported as a separate abstract. Blood was collected at baseline, wk 12 and pre-surgery. For this analysis, responders were defined as patients with a pathologic complete response (pCR) and/or MDACC CPS+EG score ≤ 2 (a validated score combining clinical and pathologic results for predicting survival in the neoadjuvant setting). Plasma VCAM and CAIX levels were measured by ELISA using commercially available validated kits and CEC/CEPs by flow cytometry in our laboratory as previously published. Results: 28 (44%) pts were responders. CECs decreased significantly in response to T+S (p = 0.04) but not further with AC+G-CSF. No significant changes were seen in CEPs. VCAM and CAIX levels increased in pts with baseline levels below the median in response to T+S (VCAM p = 0.0003, CAIX p = 0.009). ER negative tumors had higher levels of plasma VCAM and CAIX at baseline compared to ER positive tumors (VCAM p = 0.01, CAIX p = 0.1). Lower baseline levels of VCAM and CAIX were associated with both response and pCR. VCAM and CAIX levels were correlated at baseline (r = 0.4, p = 0.01). Conclusions: CEC, VCAM, and CAIX levels significantly changed after treatment with T + S. Higher baseline levels of VCAM and CAIX were associated with ER negative tumors and lower response rates. Our results suggest that elevated baseline VCAM and CAIX levels are associated with more aggressive biology, and may correspond to less (not more) favorable outcome with the addition of a targeted antiangiogenic agent. Clinical trial information: NCT00513695.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Brenda F. Kurland
- Clinical Statistics, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
34
|
Budd GT, Barlow WE, Moore HCF, Hobday TJ, Stewart JA, Isaacs C, Salim M, Cho JK, Rinn K, Albain KS, Chew HK, Burton GV, Moore TD, Srkalovic G, McGregor BA, Flaherty LE, Livingston RB, Lew D, Gralow J, Hortobagyi GN. S0221: Comparison of two schedules of paclitaxel as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.cra1008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
CRA1008 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Monday, June, 3, 2013, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2013, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Monday edition of ASCO Daily News.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Helen K. Chew
- University of California, Davis Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Danika Lew
- Southwest Oncology Group Statistical Center, Seattle, WA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Specht JM, Kurland BF, Linden HM, Gralow J, Gadi VK, Ellis GK, Rodler ET, Chai X, Eun J, Brown-Glaberman UA, Livingston RB. A phase II study evaluating the safety and efficacy of sunitinib with weekly paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin and daily oral cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) for locally advanced (LABC) or inflammatory breast cancer (IBC). J Clin Oncol 2013. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.1090] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
1090 Background: Sunitinib (S) is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor with anti-tumor and anti-angiogenic activity. The primary objective of this trial was to assess the pathologic complete response rate (pCR) in patients (pts) treated with NC consisting of S with weekly paclitaxel (T) followed by doxorubicin and daily oral cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF (AC+G-CSF). Correlative studies including circulating biomarkers are reported separately. Methods: Pts with HER2 negative LABC or IBC were eligible for this multicenter, phase II trial. Pts received S 25 mg po daily with T 80 mg/m2 IV Qweek (wk) x 12 wks, then AC+G-CSF (doxorubicin 24 mg/m2 IV Qwk + oral cyclophosphamide 60 mg/m2po daily + G-CSF 5 mcg/kg SC days 2-7) x 15 wks. pCR in the breast and axilla was assessed at surgery, and the MDACC CPS+EG score (validated score combining clinical and pathologic results for predicting survival in the neoadjuvant setting) was calculated. Results: 70 pts (ages 33-79) were enrolled; 68 received protocol therapy. 37 (53%) had ER and/or PR positive tumors. 2 patients were unevaluable (hypersensitivity to T, toxicity possibly related to S) and 3 withdrew consent prior to surgery. 61 pts reported any grade AE in S+P period. Among grade 3 or 4 AEs, neutropenia was most common in S+P period occurring in 31/68 (46%). pCR in the breast was observed in 27% (17/63, 95% CI 17%-40%) and breast and axilla in 15/63 (24%). In pts with ER positive tumors, pCR rate in breast was 8/34 (24%) and 9/29 (31%) for pts with ER negative tumors. 18 evaluable pts (29%) had CPS+EG scores ≤2, 40 (63%) had CPS+EG scores of ≥3, and 5 had insufficient information to calculate the CPS+EG score. When response was defined as pCR and/or CPS+EG score ≤ 2, 28 pts (44%) were responders. Conclusions: NC with T+S followed by AC+G-CSF was well tolerated. Using a combined definition of response of pCR and/or CPS+EG score ≤2, 28/63 (44%) pts had response; 19/34 (56%) for ER positive and 9/29 (31%) for ER negative disease. The addition of S to NC may result in promising incremental benefit for pts with ER positive breast cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT00513695.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Brenda F. Kurland
- Clinical Statistics, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Xiaoyu Chai
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | - Jinny Eun
- Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S, Robert NJ, Muss HB, Livingston RB, Davidson NE, Perez EA, Chavarri-Guerra Y, Cameron DA, Pritchard KI, Whelan T, Shepherd LE, Tu D. Impact of premenopausal status at breast cancer diagnosis in women entered on the placebo-controlled NCIC CTG MA17 trial of extended adjuvant letrozole. Ann Oncol 2013; 24:355-361. [PMID: 23028039 PMCID: PMC3551482 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds330] [Citation(s) in RCA: 71] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2012] [Revised: 07/10/2012] [Accepted: 07/11/2012] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND MA17 showed improved outcomes in postmenopausal women given extended letrozole (LET) after completing 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen. PATIENTS AND METHODS Exploratory subgroup analyses of disease-free survival (DFS), distant DFS (DDFS), overall survival (OS), toxic effects and quality of life (QOL) in MA17 were performed based on menopausal status at breast cancer diagnosis. RESULTS At diagnosis, 877 women were premenopausal and 4289 were postmenopausal. Extended LET was significantly better than placebo (PLAC) in DFS for premenopausal [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13-0.55; P = 0.0003] and postmenopausal women (HR = 0.67; 95% CI 0.51-0.89; P = 0.006), with greater DFS benefit in those premenopausal (interaction P = 0.03). In adjusted post-unblinding analysis, those who switched from PLAC to LET improved DDFS in premenopausal (HR = 0.15; 95% CI 0.03-0.79; P = 0.02) and postmenopausal women (HR = 0.45; 95% CI 0.22-0.94; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Extended LET after 5 years of tamoxifen was effective in pre- and postmenopausal women at diagnosis, and significantly better in those premenopausal. Women premenopausal at diagnosis should be considered for extended adjuvant therapy with LET if menopausal after completing tamoxifen.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P E Goss
- Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
| | - J N Ingle
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester
| | - S Martino
- Breast Cancer Division, Los Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica
| | - N J Robert
- Virgina Cancer Specialists, Inova Fairfax Hospital, Virgina
| | - H B Muss
- Department of Medicine and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
| | | | - N E Davidson
- Cancer Institute and UPMC Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh
| | - E A Perez
- Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Jacksonville, USA
| | | | - D A Cameron
- Edinburgh Breast Unit, Western General Hospital and, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - K I Pritchard
- Sunnybrook Odette Regional Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto
| | - T Whelan
- Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton
| | - L E Shepherd
- National Cancer Institute of Canada, Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, Canada
| | - D Tu
- National Cancer Institute of Canada, Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Nokes BT, Cunliffe HE, Lafleur B, Mount DW, Livingston RB, Futscher BW, Lang JE. In Vitro Assessment of the Inflammatory Breast Cancer Cell Line SUM 149: Discovery of 2 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in the RNase L Gene. J Cancer 2013; 4:104-16. [PMID: 23386909 PMCID: PMC3563072 DOI: 10.7150/jca.5002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2012] [Accepted: 11/12/2012] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is a rare, highly aggressive form of breast cancer. The mechanism of IBC carcinogenesis remains unknown. We sought to evaluate potential genetic risk factors for IBC and whether or not the IBC cell lines SUM149 and SUM190 demonstrated evidence of viral infection. Methods: We performed single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping for 2 variants of the ribonuclease (RNase) L gene that have been correlated with the risk of prostate cancer due to a possible viral etiology. We evaluated dose-response to treatment with interferon-alpha (IFN-α); and assayed for evidence of the putative human mammary tumor virus (HMTV, which has been implicated in IBC) in SUM149 cells. A bioinformatic analysis was performed to evaluate expression of RNase L in IBC and non-IBC. Results: 2 of 2 IBC cell lines were homozygous for RNase L common missense variants 462 and 541; whereas 2 of 10 non-IBC cell lines were homozygous positive for the 462 variant (p= 0.09) and 0 of 10 non-IBC cell lines were homozygous positive for the 541 variant (p = 0.015). Our real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and Southern blot analysis for sequences of HMTV revealed no evidence of the putative viral genome. Conclusion: We discovered 2 SNPs in the RNase L gene that were homozygously present in IBC cell lines. The 462 variant was absent in non-IBC lines. Our discovery of these SNPs present in IBC cell lines suggests a possible biomarker for risk of IBC. We found no evidence of HMTV in SUM149 cells. A query of a panel of human IBC and non-IBC samples showed no difference in RNase L expression. Further studies of the RNase L 462 and 541 variants in IBC tissues are warranted to validate our in vitro findings.
Collapse
|
38
|
Mehta RS, Barlow WE, Albain KS, Vandenberg TA, Dakhil SR, Tirumali NR, Lew DL, Hayes DF, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Hortobagyi GN. Combination anastrozole and fulvestrant in metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:435-44. [PMID: 22853014 PMCID: PMC3951300 DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa1201622] [Citation(s) in RCA: 282] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aromatase inhibitor anastrozole inhibits estrogen synthesis. Fulvestrant binds and accelerates degradation of estrogen receptors. We hypothesized that these two agents in combination might be more effective than anastrozole alone in patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer. METHODS Postmenopausal women with previously untreated metastatic disease were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive either 1 mg of anastrozole orally every day (group 1), with crossover to fulvestrant alone strongly encouraged if the disease progressed, or anastrozole and fulvestrant in combination (group 2). Patients were stratified according to prior or no prior receipt of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. Fulvestrant was administered intramuscularly at a dose of 500 mg on day 1 and 250 mg on days 14 and 28 and monthly thereafter. The primary end point was progression-free survival, with overall survival designated as a prespecified secondary outcome. RESULTS The median progression-free survival was 13.5 months in group 1 and 15.0 months in group 2 (hazard ratio for progression or death with combination therapy, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.94; P=0.007 by the log-rank test). The combination therapy was generally more effective than anastrozole alone in all subgroups, with no significant interactions. Overall survival was also longer with combination therapy (median, 41.3 months in group 1 and 47.7 months in group 2; hazard ratio for death, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.00; P=0.05 by the log-rank test), despite the fact that 41% of the patients in group 1 crossed over to fulvestrant after progression. Three deaths that were possibly associated with treatment occurred in group 2. The rates of grade 3 to 5 toxic effects did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS The combination of anastrozole and fulvestrant was superior to anastrozole alone or sequential anastrozole and fulvestrant for the treatment of HR-positive metastatic breast cancer, despite the use of a dose of fulvestrant that was below the current standard. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca; SWOG ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00075764.).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rita S Mehta
- University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA 92868, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Kurland BF, Gadi VK, Specht JM, Allison KH, Livingston RB, Rodler ET, Peterson LM, Schubert EK, Chai X, Mankoff DA, Linden HM. Feasibility study of FDG PET as an indicator of early response to aromatase inhibitors and trastuzumab in a heterogeneous group of breast cancer patients. EJNMMI Res 2012; 2:34. [PMID: 22731662 PMCID: PMC3444390 DOI: 10.1186/2191-219x-2-34] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2012] [Accepted: 06/25/2012] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In breast cancer endocrine therapy, post-therapy Ki-67 assay of biopsy material predicts recurrence-free survival but is invasive and prone to sampling error. [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) has shown an early agonist or 'flare' response to tamoxifen and estradiol, but has not been tested in response to estrogen-lowering aromatase inhibitors (AIs). We hypothesized that decreased agonistic response to AIs would result in early FDG uptake decline. We also measured early response to trastuzumab (T), another targeted agent for breast cancer with differing mechanisms of action. Our study was designed to test for an early decline in FDG uptake in response to AI or T and to examine association with Ki-67 measures of early response. METHODS Patients with any stage of newly diagnosed or recurrent breast cancer were eligible and enrolled prior to initiation (or resumption) of AI or T therapy. FDG PET and tissue biopsy were planned before and after 2 weeks of AI or T therapy, with pretreatment archival tissue permitted. Cutoffs of ≥20% decline in standardized uptake value (SUV) as FDG PET early response and ≤5% post-treatment expression as Ki-67 early response were defined prior to analysis. RESULTS Forty-two patients enrolled, and 40 (28 AI, 12 T) completed serial FDG-PET imaging. Twenty-two patients (17 AI, 5 T) had newly diagnosed disease, and 23 (14 AI, 9 T) had metastatic disease (5 newly diagnosed). Post-treatment biopsy was performed in 25 patients (63%) and was either refused or not feasible in 15. Post-treatment biopsy yielded tumor in only 17/25 cases (14 AI, 3 T). Eleven of 14 AI patients with post-therapy tissue showed FDG PET early response, and there was 100% concordance of PET and post-therapy Ki-67 early response. For the T group, 6/12 showed an FDG PET early response, including 2/3 patients with post-therapy biopsy, all with Ki-67 >5%. CONCLUSIONS Substantial changes in FDG PET SUV occurred over 2 weeks of AI therapy and were associated with low post-therapy proliferation. SUV decline was seen in response to T, but few tissue samples were available to test association with Ki-67. Our results support further investigation of FDG PET as a biomarker for early response to AI therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brenda F Kurland
- Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Schott AF, Barlow WE, Albain KS, Chew HK, Wade JL, Lanier KS, Lew DL, Hayes DF, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Hortobagyi GN. Phase II trial of simple oral therapy with capecitabine and cyclophosphamide in patients with metastatic breast cancer: SWOG S0430. Oncologist 2012; 17:179-87. [PMID: 22267853 DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0235] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Interest in oral agents for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has increased because many patients prefer oral to i.v. regimens. We evaluated a simple oral combination of capecitabine with cyclophosphamide (CPA) for MBC. METHODS The trial was designed to determine whether or not combination therapy would achieve a 42% response rate (RR) using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) in MBC. Patients with two or fewer prior chemotherapy regimens for MBC were eligible. Those with estrogen receptor-positive MBC had to have progressed on endocrine therapy. Patients had measurable disease or elevated mucin (MUC)-1 antigen and received CPA, 100 mg daily on days 1-14, and capecitabine, 1,500 mg twice daily on days 8-21, in 21-day cycles. RESULTS In 96 eligible patients, the median progression-free survival (PFS) interval was 5.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.7-8.0 months) and median overall survival (OS) time was 18.8 months (95% CI, 13.1-22.0 months). The RR was 36% (95% CI, 26%-48%) in 80 patients with measurable disease. The MUC-1 antigen RR was 33% (95% CI, 20%-48%), occurring in 15 of 46 patients with elevated MUC-1 antigen. Toxicity was mild, with no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS PFS, OS, and RR outcomes with capecitabine plus CPA compare favorably with those of capecitabine monotherapy and combination therapy with bevacizumab, sorafenib, or ixabepilone. The addition of these other agents to capecitabine does not improve OS time in MBC patients, and this single-arm study does not suggest that the addition of CPA to capecitabine has this potential in an unselected MBC population. When OS prolongation is the goal, clinicians should choose single-agent capecitabine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne F Schott
- University of Michigan, Division of Hematology/Oncology, 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive, Suite A3400, PO Box 483, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Livingston RB, Barlow WE, Kash JJ, Albain KS, Gralow JR, Lew DL, Flaherty LE, Royce ME, Hortobagyi GN. SWOG S0215: a phase II study of docetaxel and vinorelbine plus filgrastim with weekly trastuzumab for HER2-positive, stage IV breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011; 130:123-31. [PMID: 21826527 PMCID: PMC3513946 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1698-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2011] [Accepted: 07/22/2011] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
SWOG trial S0102 showed significant activity of the combination of docetaxel and vinorelbine in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). For HER2-positive patients, additional benefit may occur with the addition of trastuzumab due to its synergy with docetaxel and vinorelbine. Patients with HER2-positive MBC, but without prior chemotherapy for MBC or adjuvant taxane, were eligible. Docetaxel (60 mg/m²) was given intravenously on Day 1, vinorelbine (27.5 mg/m²) intravenously on Days 8 and 15, and filgrastim (5 µg/kg) on Days 2-21 of a 21-day cycle. In addition, patients received weekly infusions of trastuzumab (2 mg/kg) after an initial bolus of 4 mg/kg. The primary outcome was 1 year overall survival (OS), with secondary outcomes of progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, and toxicity. Due to slow accrual (February 2003-December 2006), enrollment was stopped after 76 of 90 planned patients. There have been 32 deaths and 51 progressions among the 74 eligible patients who received treatment. The estimated 1 year OS was 93% (95% CI 84-97%) with a median of 48 months. One-year PFS was 70% (95% CI 58-79%) with a median of 20 months. Response rate for measurable disease was 84%. No deaths were attributed to treatment. Grade 4 toxicities were reported for 19% with neutropenia the most common (15%). The most common grade 3 toxicities (33%) were leucopenia (14%) and fatigue (10%). The combination of trastuzumab, docetaxel, and vinorelbine is effective as first-line chemotherapy in HER2-positive MBC with minimal toxicity. One-year survival estimates are among the highest reported in this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert B Livingston
- Arizona Cancer Center, Hematology/Oncology Section, Tucson, AZ, 85724-5024, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
Sucheston LE, Zhao H, Yao S, Zirpoli G, Liu S, Barlow WE, Moore HCF, Thomas Budd G, Hershman DL, Davis W, Ciupak GL, Stewart JA, Isaacs C, Hobday TJ, Salim M, Hortobagyi GN, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Albain KS, Hayes DF, Ambrosone CB. Genetic predictors of taxane-induced neurotoxicity in a SWOG phase III intergroup adjuvant breast cancer treatment trial (S0221). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011; 130:993-1002. [PMID: 21766209 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1671-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2011] [Accepted: 06/29/2011] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Taxanes have resulted in improved survival for breast cancer patients, but often cause neurological toxicities. Identification of biomarkers related to toxicities could be important for dictating treatment regimen. We evaluated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the Fanconi Anemia (FA)/BRCA pathway in relation to grade 3/4 neurotoxicities in patients (n = 888) from SWOG0221, a phase III adjuvant trial for breast cancer of 4 dose/schedules of cyclophosphamide (C), doxorubicin (A), and paclitaxel (T). In a separate cohort, we measured the correlation of significant FANCD2 SNPs with corresponding gene expression. For FANCD2, permutation testing revealed that 4 (out of 20) SNPs were significantly associated with an almost two-fold increased risk of toxicity. Two FANCD2 haplotypes were also associated with neurological toxicity, with odds ratios (OR) in the overall population of 1.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3, 2.5) and 1.7 (95% CI, 1.2, 2.4). Although numbers were small, an African-American-specific haplotype was associated with an almost 3-fold increase in risk of neurologic toxicity (OR = 2.84, 95% CI = 1.2, 6.9). Expression analyses revealed that significant FANCD2 SNPs were associated with FANCD2 expression levels (P = 0.03). There were no associations between SNPs in BRCA1 and neurotoxicities. In this trial of CA+T for breast cancer, SNPs in FANCD2, but not in BRCA1, were associated with a 70-80% increase in the odds of grade 3/4 neurological toxicities and increased expression of the gene. If replicated, women with these genotypes should be closely monitored for toxicities and could be targeted for preventive measures or alternative therapeutic approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lara E Sucheston
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
43
|
Linden HM, Kurland BF, Peterson LM, Schubert EK, Gralow JR, Specht JM, Ellis GK, Lawton TJ, Livingston RB, Petra PH, Link JM, Krohn KA, Mankoff DA. Fluoroestradiol positron emission tomography reveals differences in pharmacodynamics of aromatase inhibitors, tamoxifen, and fulvestrant in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2011; 17:4799-805. [PMID: 21750198 PMCID: PMC3139698 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-10-3321] [Citation(s) in RCA: 94] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine, by molecular imaging, how in vivo pharmacodynamics of estrogen-estrogen receptor (ER) binding differ between types of standard endocrine therapy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN The ER has been a highly successful target for breast cancer treatment. ER-directed treatments include lowering ligand concentration by using aromatase inhibitors (AI) and blocking the receptor with agents like tamoxifen (TAM) or fulvestrant (FUL). We measured regional estrogen-ER binding by using positron emission tomography with (18)F-fluoroestradiol (FES PET) prior to and during treatment with AI, TAM, or FUL in a series of 30 metastatic breast cancer patients. FES PET measured in vivo estrogen binding at all tumor sites in heavily pretreated women with metastatic bone soft tissue-dominant breast cancer. In patients with uterus (n = 16) changes in uterine FES uptake were also measured. RESULTS As expected, tumor FES uptake declined more markedly on ER blockers (TAM and FUL, average 54% decline) compared with a less than 15% average decline on estrogen-depleting AIs (P < 0.001). The rate of complete tumor blockade [FES standardized uptake value (SUV) ≤1.5] following TAM (5/5 patients) was greater than the blockade rate following FUL (4/11; 2-sided mid P = 0.019). Percent FES SUV change in the uterus showed a strong association with tumoral change (ρ = 0.63, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS FES PET can assess the in vivo pharmacodynamics of ER-targeted agents and may give insight into the activity of established therapeutic agents. Imaging revealed significant differences between agents, including differences in the efficacy of blockade by different ER antagonists in current clinical use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah M Linden
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Yao S, Barlow WE, Albain KS, Choi JY, Zhao H, Livingston RB, Davis W, Rae JM, Yeh IT, Hutchins LF, Ravdin PM, Martino S, Lyss AP, Osborne CK, Abeloff M, Hortobagyi GN, Hayes DF, Ambrosone CB. Gene polymorphisms in cyclophosphamide metabolism pathway,treatment-related toxicity, and disease-free survival in SWOG 8897 clinical trial for breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2011; 16:6169-76. [PMID: 21169260 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-10-0281] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE There are no established genetic markers for prediction of outcomes after cyclophosphamide (CP)-containing adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. In an ancillary study to a SWOG (Southwest Oncology Group) trial (S8897), we investigated functional polymorphisms in 4 genes in CP pharmacokinetic pathways in relation to hematologic toxicity and disease-free survival (DFS). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Germline DNA was available from 458 women who were at high risk of relapse and was randomized to CAF (CP, intravenous doxorubicin, and 5-fluorouracil) versus CMF (CP, intravenous methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil) ± tamoxifen, and from 874 women who had a presumed favorable prognosis and did not receive adjuvant therapy. Odds ratios for grade 3 and 4 hematologic toxicity in the treated group and hazard ratios for DFS associated with selected functional polymorphisms in CYP2B6CYP3A4GSTA1 and GSTP1 were estimated by logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard regression. RESULTS Compared with women with AA genotypes, those with at least 1 GSTP1 variant G allele had reduced risk of grade 3 and 4 neutropenia [odds ratios (OR) = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.41-0.97] and leucopenia (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.39-0.89). No other associations between single nucleotide polymorphisms and toxicity or survival were found in the treated or untreated group. CONCLUSION Known genetic variants in genes involved in CP pharmacokinetics may not have major effects on DFS in breast cancer patients. The lower risk of developing high-grade hematologic toxicity among women with variant GSTP1 alleles suggests that genetic markers in combination with clinical factors may be useful in defining a subgroup of women who are less susceptible to adverse hematologic toxicities with CP-containing therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Song Yao
- Department of Cancer Prevention and Control, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York 14263, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Dunnwald LK, Doot RK, Specht JM, Gralow JR, Ellis GK, Livingston RB, Linden HM, Gadi VK, Kurland BF, Schubert EK, Muzi M, Mankoff DA. PET tumor metabolism in locally advanced breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: value of static versus kinetic measures of fluorodeoxyglucose uptake. Clin Cancer Res 2011; 17:2400-9. [PMID: 21364034 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-10-2649] [Citation(s) in RCA: 82] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Changes in tumor metabolism from positron emission tomography (PET) in locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) are predictive of pathologic response. Serial dynamic [(18)F]-FDG (fluorodeoxyglucose) PET scans were used to compare kinetic parameters with the standardized uptake value (SUV) as predictors of pathologic response, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Seventy-five LABC patients underwent FDG PET prior to and at midpoint of NC. FDG delivery (K(1)), FDG flux (K(i)), and SUV measures were calculated and compared by clinical and pathologic tumor characteristics using regression methods and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Associations between K(1), K(i), and SUV and DFS and OS were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS Tumors that were hormone receptor negative, high grade, highly proliferative, or of ductal histology had higher FDG K(i) and SUV values; on an average, FDG K(1) did not differ systematically by tumor features. Predicting pathologic response in conjunction with estrogen receptor (ER) and axillary lymph node positivity, kinetic measures (AUC = 0.97) were more robust predictors than SUV (AUC = 0.84, P = 0.005). Changes in K(1) and K(i) predicted both DFS and OS, whereas changes in SUV predicted OS only. In multivariate modeling, only changes in K(1) remained an independent prognosticator of DFS and OS. CONCLUSION Kinetic measures of FDG PET for LABC patients treated with NC accurately measured treatment response and predicted outcome compared with static SUV measures, suggesting that kinetic analysis may hold advantage of static uptake measures for response assessment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa K Dunnwald
- Division of Nuclear Medicine and Medical Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98109, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
Ganz PA, Land SR, Geyer CE, Cecchini RS, Costantino JP, Pajon ER, Fehrenbacher L, Atkins JN, Polikoff JA, Vogel VG, Erban JK, Livingston RB, Perez EA, Mamounas EP, Wolmark N, Swain SM. Menstrual history and quality-of-life outcomes in women with node-positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant therapy on the NSABP B-30 trial. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:1110-6. [PMID: 21300930 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2010.29.7689] [Citation(s) in RCA: 95] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Premenopausal women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy are at risk for amenorrhea. The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-30 trial included menstrual history (MH) and quality-of-life (QOL) studies to compare treatments on these outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to sequential doxorubicin (A) and cyclophosphamide (C) followed by docetaxel (T; AC→T), concurrent TAC, or AT, which varied in duration (24, 12, 12 weeks, respectively), and use of C. Endocrine therapy was prescribed for women with hormone receptor-positive tumors. MH and QOL were assessed with standardized questionnaires at baseline; cycle 4, day 1; and every 6 months through 24 months. Prespecified analyses examined rates of amenorrhea by treatment arm, the relationship between amenorrhea and QOL, and QOL by treatment arm. RESULTS Amenorrhea 12 months after random assignment was significantly different between treatment groups: 69.8% for AC→T, 57.7% for TAC, and 37.9% for AT (P < .001). The AT group without tamoxifen had the lowest rate of amenorrhea. QOL was poorer for patients receiving AC→T at 6 months but similar to others by 12 months. Post-treatment symptoms were increased above baseline for all treatments. Multivariable repeated measures modeling demonstrated that treatment arm, time point, age, and tamoxifen use were significantly associated with symptom severity (all P values < .002). CONCLUSION Amenorrhea rates differed significantly by treatment arm, with the AT arm having the lowest rate. Patients treated with longer duration therapy (AC→T) had greater symptom severity and poorer QOL at 6 months, but did not differ from shorter duration treatments at 12 months.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patricia A Ganz
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Operations Center (NSABP), Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Ellis GK, Barlow WE, Gralow JR, Hortobagyi GN, Russell CA, Royce ME, Perez EA, Lew D, Livingston RB. Phase III comparison of standard doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide versus weekly doxorubicin and daily oral cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor as neoadjuvant therapy for inflammatory and locally advanced breast cancer: SWOG 0012. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:1014-21. [PMID: 21220618 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2009.27.6543] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Patients with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) or locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) were randomly assigned to 21-day doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide administered for five cycles (standard arm) versus weekly doxorubicin and daily oral cyclophosphamide administered with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support for 15 weeks (continuous arm). All patients had subsequent weekly paclitaxel for 12 weeks before surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients (n = 372) were randomly assigned to the standard arm (n = 186) or the continuous arm (n = 186) stratified by disease type (LABC, n = 256; IBC, n = 116). The primary outcome was microscopic pathologic complete response (pCR) at surgery. Secondary outcomes included disease-free survival, overall survival, and toxicity. RESULTS More patients in the standard arm had grade 3 to 4 leukopenia and neutropenia, but there were more instances of stomatitis/pharyngitis and hand-foot skin reaction in the continuous arm. Assessed among 356 eligible patients, pCR was not different between the treatment groups stratified by disease type (P = .42). In subset analysis, higher pCR rates were observed in the continuous arm versus the standard arm only for stage IIIB disease (P = .0057) and in IBC (P = .06). Comparison of overall survival and disease-free survival showed no difference between treatment groups (P = .37 and P = .87, respectively). CONCLUSION No significant clinical benefit was seen for the investigational arm in this trial overall.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Georgiana K Ellis
- Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, 825 Eastlake Ave East, Seattle, WA 98109-1023, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Swain SM, Jeong JH, Geyer CE, Costantino JP, Pajon ER, Fehrenbacher L, Atkins JN, Polikoff J, Vogel VG, Erban JK, Rastogi P, Livingston RB, Perez EA, Mamounas EP, Land SR, Ganz PA, Wolmark N. Longer therapy, iatrogenic amenorrhea, and survival in early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362:2053-65. [PMID: 20519679 PMCID: PMC2935316 DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa0909638] [Citation(s) in RCA: 236] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Chemotherapy regimens that combine anthracyclines and taxanes result in improved disease-free and overall survival among women with operable lymph-node-positive breast cancer. The effectiveness of concurrent versus sequential regimens is not known. METHODS We randomly assigned 5351 patients with operable, node-positive, early-stage breast cancer to receive four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by four cycles of docetaxel (sequential ACT); four cycles of doxorubicin and docetaxel (doxorubicin-docetaxel); or four cycles of doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and docetaxel (concurrent ACT). The primary aims were to examine whether concurrent ACT was more effective than sequential ACT and whether the doxorubicin-docetaxel regimen would be as effective as the concurrent-ACT regimen. The secondary aims were to assess toxic effects and to correlate amenorrhea with outcomes in premenopausal women. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 73 months, overall survival was improved in the sequential-ACT group (8-year overall survival, 83%) as compared with the doxorubicin-docetaxel group (overall survival, 79%; hazard ratio for death, 0.83; P=0.03) and the concurrent-ACT group (overall survival, 79%; hazard ratio, 0.86; P=0.09). Disease-free survival was improved in the sequential-ACT group (8-year disease-free survival, 74%) as compared with the doxorubicin-docetaxel group (disease-free survival, 69%; hazard ratio for recurrence, a second malignant condition, or death, 0.80; P=0.001) and the concurrent-ACT group (disease-free survival, 69%; hazard ratio, 0.83; P=0.01). The doxorubicin-docetaxel regimen showed noninferiority to the concurrent-ACT regimen for overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.14). Overall survival was improved in patients with amenorrhea for 6 months or more across all treatment groups, independently of estrogen-receptor status. CONCLUSIONS Sequential ACT improved disease-free survival as compared with doxorubicin-docetaxel or concurrent ACT, and it improved overall survival as compared with doxorubicin-docetaxel. Amenorrhea was associated with improved survival regardless of the treatment and estrogen-receptor status. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003782.)
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sandra M Swain
- National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Washington Cancer Institute at Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC 20010, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Specht JM, Kurland BF, Montgomery SK, Dunnwald LK, Doot RK, Gralow JR, Ellis GK, Linden HM, Livingston RB, Allison KH, Schubert EK, Mankoff DA. Tumor metabolism and blood flow as assessed by positron emission tomography varies by tumor subtype in locally advanced breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16:2803-10. [PMID: 20460489 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-10-0026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 61] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) imaging can identify patterns of breast cancer metabolism and perfusion in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) that are predictive of response. This analysis examines tumor metabolism and perfusion by tumor subtype. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Tumor subtype was defined by immunohistochemistry in 71 patients with locally advanced breast cancer undergoing NC. Subtype was defined as luminal [estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR) positive], triple negative [TN; ER/PR negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negative], and HER2 (ER/PR negative, HER2 overexpressing). Metabolic rate (MRFDG) and blood flow (BF) were calculated from PET imaging before NC. Pathologic complete response (pCR) to NC was classified as pCR versus other. RESULTS Twenty-five (35%) of 71 patients had TN tumors; 6 (8%) were HER2 and 40 (56%) were luminal. MRFDG for TN tumors was on average 67% greater than for luminal tumors (95% confidence interval, 9-156%) and average MRFDG/BF ratio was 53% greater in TN compared with luminal tumors (95% confidence interval, 9-114%; P<0.05 for both). Average BF levels did not differ by subtype (P=0.73). Most luminal tumors showed relatively low MRFDG and BF (and did not achieve pCR); high MRFDG was generally matched with high BF in luminal tumors and predicted pCR. This was not true in TN tumors. CONCLUSION The relationship between breast tumor metabolism and perfusion differed by subtype. The high MRFDG/BF ratio that predicts poor response to NC was more common in TN tumors. Metabolism and perfusion measures may identify subsets of tumors susceptible and resistant to NC and may help direct targeted therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer M Specht
- Medical Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98109, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Slovak ML, Bedell V, Lew D, Albain KS, Ellis GK, Livingston RB, Martino S, Perez EA, Hortobagyi GN, Sher D, Stock W. Screening for clonal hematopoiesis as a predictive marker for development of therapy-related myeloid neoplasia (t-MN) following neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group study (S0012). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010; 119:391-8. [PMID: 19851858 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-009-0597-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2009] [Accepted: 10/11/2009] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
A serious complication associated with breast cancer treatment is the increased risk for development of therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (t-MN). To determine whether dose-intensive adjuvant regimens for breast cancer induce genetic damage to hematopoietic stem cells, defined by the emergence of clonal hematopoiesis, and whether detection of clonal hematopoiesis could be used as an early marker for the subsequent development of t-MN, the Southwest Oncology Group designed a pilot clonality investigation to estimate the incidence of clonal hematopoiesis during and shortly after completion of the dose intensive neoadjuvant regimens for high-risk breast cancer patients. Peripheral blood samples from 274 patients obtained prior to treatment, at time of surgery, and at 6 and 12 months post-surgery were examined by two different clonality assays: the HUMARA (HUMan Androgen Receptor) assay to estimate the incidence of early genetic damage by clonal proliferation, and microsatellite instability (MSI) testing to screen for LOH or defective DNA mismatch repair mechanisms. Clonal hematopoiesis was negative in 93.5% of the samples analyzed. Five patients showed a HUMARA-positive/MSI-negative pattern, and no patients showed a HUMARA-negative/MSI-positive pattern. With a median follow-up of 3.1 years, one patient in our study developed t-AML at 3 years 5 months after randomization. Our results indicate that clonal hematopoiesis assays performed within the 2 years following dose-intensive neoadjuvant therapy failed to identify an emerging clonal hematopoietic stem cell population. Longer clinical follow-up will be necessary to define better the positive predictive value of detecting clonal hematopoiesis in the HUMARA+/MSI- cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marilyn L Slovak
- Department of Cytogenetics, City of Hope, 1500 E. Duarte Rd., Duarte, CA 91010, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|