Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this clinical guideline to update recommendations on newer pharmacologic treatments of type 2 diabetes. This clinical guideline is based on the best available evidence for effectiveness, comparative benefits and harms, consideration of patients' values and preferences, and costs.

METHODS

This clinical guideline is based on a systematic review of the effectiveness and harms of newer pharmacologic treatments of type 2 diabetes, including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, a GLP-1 agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins, used either as monotherapy or in combination with other medications. The Clinical Guidelines Committee prioritized the following outcomes, which were evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach: all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, progression of chronic kidney disease, serious adverse events, and severe hypoglycemia. Weight loss, as measured by percentage of participants who achieved at least 10% total body weight loss, was a prioritized outcome, but data were insufficient for network meta-analysis and were not rated with GRADE.

AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION

The audience for this clinical guideline is physicians and other clinicians. The population is nonpregnant adults with type 2 diabetes.

RECOMMENDATION 1

ACP recommends adding a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence). • Use an SGLT-2 inhibitor to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, progression of chronic kidney disease, and hospitalization due to congestive heart failure. • Use a GLP-1 agonist to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and stroke.

RECOMMENDATION 2

ACP recommends against adding a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control to reduce morbidity and all-cause mortality (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence).

Extending the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Model of Invasive Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

We extended the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) version 2 (v2) model of invasive breast cancer risk to include BMI, extended family history of breast cancer, and age at first live birth (version 3 [v3]) to better inform appropriate breast cancer prevention therapies and risk-based screening.

METHODS

We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the age- and race- and ethnicity-specific relative hazards for family history of breast cancer, breast density, history of benign breast biopsy, BMI, and age at first live birth for invasive breast cancer in the BCSC cohort. We evaluated calibration using the ratio of expected-to-observed (E/O) invasive breast cancers in the cohort and discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 1,455,493 women age 35-79 years without a history of breast cancer. During a mean follow-up of 7.3 years, 30,266 women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. The BCSC v3 model had an E/O of 1.03 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.04) and an AUROC of 0.646 for 5-year risk. Compared with the v2 model, discrimination of the v3 model improved most in Asian, White, and Black women. Among women with a BMI of 30.0-34.9 kg/m2, the true-positive rate in women with an estimated 5-year risk of 3% or higher increased from 10.0% (v2) to 19.8% (v3) and the improvement was greater among women with a BMI of ≥35 kg/m2 (7.6%-19.8%).

CONCLUSION

The BCSC v3 model updates an already well-calibrated and validated breast cancer risk assessment tool to include additional important risk factors. The inclusion of BMI was associated with the largest improvement in estimated risk for individual women.

Population Attributable Risk of Advanced-Stage Breast Cancer by Race and Ethnicity

Importance

Advanced-stage breast cancer rates vary by race and ethnicity, with Black women having a 2-fold higher rate than White women among regular screeners. Clinical risk factors that explain a large proportion of advanced breast cancers by race and ethnicity are unknown.

Objective

To evaluate the population attributable risk proportions (PARPs) for advanced-stage breast cancer (prognostic pathologic stage IIA or higher) associated with clinical risk factors among routinely screened premenopausal and postmenopausal women by race and ethnicity.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used data collected prospectively from Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium community-based breast imaging facilities from January 2005 to June 2018. Participants were women aged 40 to 74 years undergoing 3 331 740 annual (prior screening within 11-18 months) or biennial (prior screening within 19-30 months) screening mammograms associated with 1815 advanced breast cancers diagnosed within 2 years of screening examinations. Data analysis was performed from September 2022 to August 2023.

Exposures

Heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, first-degree family history of breast cancer, overweight/obesity (body mass index >25.0), history of benign breast biopsy, and screening interval (biennial vs annual) stratified by menopausal status and race and ethnicity (Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic/Latinx, White, other/multiracial).

Main Outcomes and Measures

PARPs for advanced breast cancer.

Results

Among 904 615 women, median (IQR) age was 57 (50-64) years. Of the 3 331 740 annual or biennial screening mammograms, 10.8% were for Asian or Pacific Islander women; 9.5% were for Black women; 5.3% were for Hispanic/Latinx women; 72.0% were for White women; and 2.0% were for women of other races and ethnicities, including those who were Alaska Native, American Indian, 2 or more reported races, or other. Body mass index PARPs were larger for postmenopausal vs premenopausal women (30% vs 22%) and highest for postmenopausal Black (38.6%; 95% CI, 32.0%-44.8%) and Hispanic/Latinx women (31.8%; 95% CI, 25.3%-38.0%) and premenopausal Black women (30.3%; 95% CI, 17.7%-42.0%), with overall prevalence of having overweight/obesity highest in premenopausal Black (84.4%) and postmenopausal Black (85.1%) and Hispanic/Latinx women (72.4%). Breast density PARPs were larger for premenopausal vs postmenopausal women (37% vs 24%, respectively) and highest among premenopausal Asian or Pacific Islander (46.6%; 95% CI, 37.9%-54.4%) and White women (39.8%; 95% CI, 31.7%-47.3%) whose prevalence of dense breasts was high (62%-79%). For premenopausal and postmenopausal women, PARPs were small for family history of breast cancer (5%-8%), history of breast biopsy (7%-12%), and screening interval (2.1%-2.3%).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study among routinely screened women, the proportion of advanced breast cancers attributed to biennial vs annual screening was small. To reduce the number of advanced breast cancer diagnoses, primary prevention should focus on interventions that shift patients with overweight and obesity to normal weight.

Impact of BMI on Prevalence of Dense Breasts by Race and Ethnicity

BACKGROUND

Density notification laws require notifying women of dense breasts with dense breast prevalence varying by race/ethnicity. We evaluated whether differences in body mass index (BMI) account for differences in dense breasts prevalence by race/ethnicity.

METHODS

Prevalence of dense breasts (heterogeneously or extremely dense) according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System and obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m2) were estimated from 2,667,207 mammography examinations among 866,033 women in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) from January 2005 through April 2021. Prevalence ratios (PR) for dense breasts relative to overall prevalence by race/ethnicity were estimated by standardizing race/ethnicity prevalence in the BCSC to the 2020 U.S. population, and adjusting for age, menopausal status, and BMI using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Dense breasts were most prevalent among Asian women (66.0%) followed by non-Hispanic/Latina (NH) White (45.5%), Hispanic/Latina (45.3%), and NH Black (37.0%) women. Obesity was most prevalent in Black women (58.4%) followed by Hispanic/Latina (39.3%), NH White (30.6%), and Asian (8.5%) women. The adjusted prevalence of dense breasts was 19% higher [PR = 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19-1.20] in Asian women, 8% higher (PR = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.07-1.08) in Black women, the same in Hispanic/Latina women (PR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01), and 4% lower (PR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.96-0.97) in NH White women relative to the overall prevalence.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically important differences in breast density prevalence are present across racial/ethnic groups after accounting for age, menopausal status, and BMI.

IMPACT

If breast density is the sole criterion used to notify women of dense breasts and discuss supplemental screening it may result in implementing inequitable screening strategies across racial/ethnic groups. See related In the Spotlight, p. 1479.

The effectiveness and value of gene therapy for hemophilia: A Summary from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's California Technology Assessment Forum

DISCLOSURES: Dr Tice and Mr Sarker received ICER grants during the conduct of the study. Dr Moradi, Ms Herce-Hagiwara, Dr Faghim, Dr Agboola, Dr Rind, and Dr Pearson reports grants from Arnold Ventures, grants from Blue Cross Blue Shield of MA, grants from California Healthcare Foundation, grants from The Commonwealth Fund, grants from The Peterson Center on Healthcare, during the conduct of the study; other from Aetna, other from America's Health Insurance Plans, other from Anthem, other from AbbVie, other from Alnylam, other from AstraZeneca, other from Biogen, other from Blue Shield of CA, other from Cambia Health Services, other from CVS, other from Editas, other from Express Scripts, other from Genentech/Roche, other from GlaxoSmithKline, other from Harvard Pilgrim, other from Health Care Service Corporation, other from Health Partners, other from Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), other from Kaiser Permanente, other from LEO Pharma, other from Mallinckrodt, other from Merck, other from Novartis, other from National Pharmaceutical Council, other from Premera, other from Prime Therapeutics, other from Regeneron, other from Sanofi, other from Spark Therapeutics, other from United Healthcare, other from HealthFirst, other from Pfizer, other from Boehringer-Ingelheim, other from uniQure, other from Evolve Pharmacy Solutions, other from Humana, other from Sun Life, outside the submitted work.

Pharmacologic Treatment of Primary Osteoporosis or Low Bone Mass to Prevent Fractures in Adults: A Living Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

This guideline updates the 2017 American College of Physicians (ACP) recommendations on pharmacologic treatment of primary osteoporosis or low bone mass to prevent fractures in adults.

METHODS

The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on an updated systematic review of evidence and graded them using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system.

AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION

The audience for this guideline includes all clinicians. The patient population includes adults with primary osteoporosis or low bone mass.

RECOMMENDATION 1A

ACP recommends that clinicians use bisphosphonates for initial pharmacologic treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal females diagnosed with primary osteoporosis (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 1B

ACP suggests that clinicians use bisphosphonates for initial pharmacologic treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in males diagnosed with primary osteoporosis (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 2A

ACP suggests that clinicians use the RANK ligand inhibitor (denosumab) as a second-line pharmacologic treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal females diagnosed with primary osteoporosis who have contraindications to or experience adverse effects of bisphosphonates (conditional recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 2B

ACP suggests that clinicians use the RANK ligand inhibitor (denosumab) as a second-line pharmacologic treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in males diagnosed with primary osteoporosis who have contraindications to or experience adverse effects of bisphosphonates (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 3

ACP suggests that clinicians use the sclerostin inhibitor (romosozumab, moderate-certainty evidence) or recombinant PTH (teriparatide, low-certainty evidence), followed by a bisphosphonate, to reduce the risk of fractures only in females with primary osteoporosis with very high risk of fracture (conditional recommendation).

RECOMMENDATION 4

ACP suggests that clinicians take an individualized approach regarding whether to start pharmacologic treatment with a bisphosphonate in females over the age of 65 with low bone mass (osteopenia) to reduce the risk of fractures (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Treatments of Adults in the Acute Phase of Major Depressive Disorder: A Living Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this guideline from the American College of Physicians (ACP) is to present updated clinical recommendations on nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions as initial and second-line treatments during the acute phase of a major depressive disorder (MDD) episode, based on the best available evidence on the comparative benefits and harms, consideration of patient values and preferences, and cost.

METHODS

The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on an updated systematic review of the evidence.

AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION

The audience for this guideline includes clinicians caring for adult patients in the acute phase of MDD in ambulatory care. The patient population includes adults in the acute phase of MDD.

RECOMMENDATION 1A

ACP recommends monotherapy with either cognitive behavioral therapy or a second-generation antidepressant as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 1B

ACP suggests combination therapy with cognitive behavioral therapy and a second-generation antidepressant as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). The informed decision on the options of monotherapy with cognitive behavioral therapy versus second-generation antidepressants or combination therapy should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients' specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences.

RECOMMENDATION 2

ACP suggests monotherapy with cognitive behavioral therapy as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of mild major depressive disorder (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 3

ACP suggests one of the following options for patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder who did not respond to initial treatment with an adequate dose of a second-generation antidepressant: • Switching to or augmenting with cognitive behavioral therapy (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence) • Switching to a different second-generation antidepressant or augmenting with a second pharmacologic treatment (see Clinical Considerations) (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence) The informed decision on the options should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients' specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences.

Cumulative 6-Year Risk of Screen-Detected Ductal Carcinoma In Situ by Screening Frequency

IMPORTANCE

Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) by mammography screening is a controversial outcome with potential benefits and harms. The association of mammography screening interval and woman's risk factors with the likelihood of DCIS detection after multiple screening rounds is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a 6-year risk prediction model for screen-detected DCIS according to mammography screening interval and women's risk factors.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium cohort study assessed women aged 40 to 74 years undergoing mammography screening (digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis) from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2020, at breast imaging facilities within 6 geographically diverse registries of the consortium. Data were analyzed between February and June 2022.

EXPOSURES

Screening interval (annual, biennial, or triennial), age, menopausal status, race and ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, benign breast biopsy history, breast density, body mass index, age at first birth, and false-positive mammography history.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Screen-detected DCIS defined as a DCIS diagnosis within 12 months after a positive screening mammography result, with no concurrent invasive disease.

RESULTS

A total of 916 931 women (median [IQR] age at baseline, 54 [46-62] years; 12% Asian, 9% Black, 5% Hispanic/Latina, 69% White, 2% other or multiple races, and 4% missing) met the eligibility criteria, with 3757 screen-detected DCIS diagnoses. Screening round-specific risk estimates from multivariable logistic regression were well calibrated (expected-observed ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03) with a cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.639 (95% CI, 0.630-0.648). Cumulative 6-year risk of screen-detected DCIS estimated from screening round-specific risk estimates, accounting for competing risks of death and invasive cancer, varied widely by all included risk factors. Cumulative 6-year screen-detected DCIS risk increased with age and shorter screening interval. Among women aged 40 to 49 years, the mean 6-year screen-detected DCIS risk was 0.30% (IQR, 0.21%-0.37%) for annual screening, 0.21% (IQR, 0.14%-0.26%) for biennial screening, and 0.17% (IQR, 0.12%-0.22%) for triennial screening. Among women aged 70 to 74 years, the mean cumulative risks were 0.58% (IQR, 0.41%-0.69%) after 6 annual screens, 0.40% (IQR, 0.28%-0.48%) for 3 biennial screens, and 0.33% (IQR, 0.23%-0.39%) after 2 triennial screens.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, 6-year screen-detected DCIS risk was higher with annual screening compared with biennial or triennial screening intervals. Estimates from the prediction model, along with risk estimates of other screening benefits and harms, could help inform policy makers' discussions of screening strategies.

Cumulative Advanced Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model Developed in a Screening Mammography Population

BACKGROUND

Estimating advanced breast cancer risk in women undergoing annual or biennial mammography could identify women who may benefit from less or more intensive screening. We developed an actionable model to predict cumulative 6-year advanced cancer (prognostic pathologic stage II or higher) risk according to screening interval.

METHODS

We included 931 186 women aged 40-74 years in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium undergoing 2 542 382 annual (prior mammogram within 11-18 months) or 752 049 biennial (prior within 19-30 months) screening mammograms. The prediction model includes age, race and ethnicity, body mass index, breast density, family history of breast cancer, and prior breast biopsy subdivided by menopausal status and screening interval. We used fivefold cross-validation to internally validate model performance. We defined higher than 95th percentile as high risk (>0.658%), higher than 75th percentile to 95th or less percentile as intermediate risk (0.380%-0.658%), and 75th or less percentile as low to average risk (<0.380%).

RESULTS

Obesity, high breast density, and proliferative disease with atypia were strongly associated with advanced cancer. The model is well calibrated and has an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.682 (95% confidence interval = 0.670 to 0.694). Based on women's predicted advanced cancer risk under annual and biennial screening, 69.1% had low or average risk regardless of screening interval, 12.4% intermediate risk with biennial screening and average risk with annual screening, and 17.4% intermediate or high risk regardless of screening interval.

CONCLUSION

Most women have low or average advanced cancer risk and can undergo biennial screening. Intermediate-risk women may consider annual screening, and high-risk women may consider supplemental imaging in addition to annual screening.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Belimumab and Voclosporin for Patients with Lupus Nephritis in the United States

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Despite existing therapies, people with lupus nephritis progress to kidney failure and have reduced life expectancy. Belimumab and voclosporin are two new disease-modifying therapies recently approved for the treatment of lupus nephritis.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

A de novo economic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these therapies, including the following health states: "complete response," "partial response," and "active disease" defined by eGFR and proteinuria changes, kidney failure, and death. Short-term data and mean cohort characteristics were sourced from pivotal clinical trials of belimumab (the Belimumab International Study in Lupus Nephritis) and voclosporin (the Aurinia Urinary Protection Reduction Active-Lupus with Voclosporin trial and Aurinia Renal Response in Active Lupus With Voclosporin). Risk of mortality and kidney failure were on the basis of survival modeling using published Kaplan-Meier data. Each drug was compared with the standard of care as represented by the comparator arm in its respective pivotal trial(s) using US health care sector perspective, with a societal perspective also explored.

RESULTS

In the health care perspective probabilistic analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for belimumab compared with its control arm was estimated to be approximately $95,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The corresponding incremental ratio for voclosporin compared with its control arm was approximately $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Compared with their respective standard care arms, the probabilities of belimumab and voclosporin being cost effective at a threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year were 69% and 49%, respectively. Cost-effectiveness was dependent on assumptions made regarding survival in response states, costs and utilities in active disease, and the utilities in response states. In the analysis from a societal perspective, the incremental ratio for belimumab was estimated to be approximately $66,000 per quality-adjusted life year, and the incremental ratio for voclosporin was estimated to be approximately $133,000 per quality-adjusted life year.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with their respective standard care arms, belimumab but not voclosporin met willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Despite potential clinical superiority in the informing trials, there remains high uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of voclosporin.

Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Results After 10 Years of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography

Importance

Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis may decrease false-positive results compared with digital mammography.

Objective

To estimate the probability of receiving at least 1 false-positive result after 10 years of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

An observational comparative effectiveness study with data collected prospectively for screening examinations was performed between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2018, at 126 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Analysis included 903 495 individuals aged 40 to 79 years. Data analysis was conducted from February 9 to September 7, 2021.

Exposures

Screening modality, screening interval, age, and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Cumulative risk of at least 1 false-positive recall for further imaging, short-interval follow-up recommendation, and biopsy recommendation after 10 years of annual or biennial screening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography, accounting for competing risks of breast cancer diagnosis and death.

Results

In this study of 903 495 women, 2 969 055 nonbaseline screening examinations were performed with interpretation by 699 radiologists. Mean (SD) age of the women at the time of the screening examinations was 57.6 (9.9) years, and 58% of the examinations were in individuals younger than 60 years and 46% were performed in women with dense breasts. A total of 15% of examinations used tomosynthesis. For annual screening, the 10-year cumulative probability of at least 1 false-positive result was significantly lower with tomosynthesis vs digital mammography for all outcomes: 49.6% vs 56.3% (difference, -6.7; 95% CI, -7.4 to -6.1) for recall, 16.6% vs 17.8% (difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.6) for short-interval follow-up recommendation, and 11.2% vs 11.7% (difference, -0.5; 95% CI, -1.0 to -0.1) for biopsy recommendation. For biennial screening, the cumulative probability of a false-positive recall was significantly lower for tomosynthesis vs digital mammography (35.7% vs 38.1%; difference, -2.4; 95% CI, -3.4 to -1.5), but cumulative probabilities did not differ significantly by modality for short-interval follow-up recommendation (10.3% vs 10.5%; difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.7 to 0.5) or biopsy recommendation (6.6% vs 6.7%; difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.4). Decreases in cumulative probabilities of false-positive results with tomosynthesis vs digital mammography were largest for annual screening in women with nondense breasts (differences for recall, -6.5 to -12.8; short-interval follow-up, 0.1 to -5.2; and biopsy recommendation, -0.5 to -3.1). Regardless of modality, cumulative probabilities of false-positive results were substantially lower for biennial vs annual screening (overall recall, 35.7 to 38.1 vs 49.6 to 56.3; short-interval follow-up, 10.3 to 10.5 vs 16.6 to 17.8; and biopsy recommendation, 6.6 to 6.7 vs 11.2 to 11.7); older vs younger age groups (eg, among annual screening in women ages 70-79 vs 40-49, recall, 39.8 to 47.0 vs 60.8 to 68.0; short-interval follow-up, 13.3 to 14.2 vs 20.7 to 20.9; and biopsy recommendation, 9.1 to 9.3 vs 13.2 to 13.4); and women with entirely fatty vs extremely dense breasts (eg, among annual screening in women aged 50-59 years, recall, 29.1 to 36.3 vs 58.8 to 60.4; short-interval follow-up, 8.9 to 11.6 vs 19.5 to 19.8; and biopsy recommendation, 4.9 to 8.0 vs 15.1 to 15.3).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this comparative effectiveness study, 10-year cumulative probabilities of false-positive results were lower on digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography. Biennial screening interval, older age, and nondense breasts were associated with larger reductions in false-positive probabilities than screening modality.

Abstract P5-19-01: The impact of streamlined processes and patient-directed messaging to improve enrollment in a remote, pragmatic clinical trial

Background Recent advances in technology have made it possible to conduct remote clinical trials that allow individuals to participate from home with comfort, privacy, and ease. Despite these advances, challenges persist in running remote trials, such as survey question redundancies, lack of patient-initiated data-sharing tools, and unclear patient communication around critical enrollment steps. The Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of risk (WISDOM) Study is a pragmatic, preference-tolerant randomized control breast cancer screening trial comparing personalized risk-based screening to traditional, annual screening. The study population includes women ages 40-74 without a history of breast cancer or DCIS. Since 2016, study enrollment has been available to all women in the U.S. who meet study eligibility criteria. Since October 2020, WISDOM has implemented multiple strategies to improve participant experience: participant-initiated data-sharing tools and clear participant messaging. This abstract presents the efficacy of these interventions as they relate to increasing patient enrollment in remote, pragmatic clinical trials. Methods The WISDOM Study online enrollment process includes registration, participant study arm selection or randomization, online consent, and enrollment (submission of multiple study surveys over a secure, online platform). Barriers to online enrollment were uncovered through an internally-conducted needs assessment of participants who enrolled between 2019-2020, and participant feedback obtained through phone interviews conducted by WISDOM’s embedded ethics study. Improvements to our online enrollment procedures were executed in October 2020 and included: improving the clarity of study arm selection options, streamlining data collection surveys, and enacting a secure, patient-initiated online data-sharing tool and an online portal feature with auto-launch of critical information. Study metrics were obtained through Google Analytics and Salesforce. Results Prior to the end of 2020, only 62% of the 30,046 participants who registered for the WISDOM Study completed study enrollment. After improving the enrollment process, of the 5,334 participants registered for the study between Jan-June 2021, 69% completed the enrollment process finishing both the online consent and survey forms. Conversion from consent to enrollment went from 78% in January 2020 to 93% in June 2021. Currently, 56% participants complete enrollment in one day. Streamlining online patient questionnaires led to an increase in completion rates, with 75% of participants completing their yearly surveys, compared to 59% prior to April 2021. A secure patient upload feature for data sharing led to 1,054 participants successfully sharing their mammogram reports with WISDOM between March - June 2021. Previously, mammogram reports were missing for 20% of enrolled participants. This feature has enabled WISDOM to process 300 additional mammogram reports per month. Integration of an auto-launch feature in the participant’s portal in Feb 2021 has led to a 17% increase in participants viewing their screening recommendations in Yr 1. Prior to auto-launch, only 59% (n=6328) of Yr 1 screening recommendations and 61% (n=3681) of genetic testing reports were viewed by participants. Since implementation, the numbers increased to 78% (n=8406) and 85% (n=5160), respectively. Conclusions. Streamlining data to the most essential elements, and minimizing the steps required to share clinical documents, complete questionnaires and open key study notification is essential to improving enrollment rates in virtual, pragmatic trials. Patient-initiated data-sharing tools such as the ability for participants to share documents through secure, online portals is one example of success.

Citation Format: Patricia Choy, Tomiyuri Lewis, Stephanie Flores, Leah Sabacan, Halle Thannickal, Steffanie Goodman, Yiwey Shieh, Lisa Madlensky, Jeffrey A. Tice, Elad Ziv, Martin Eklund, Amie Blanco, Barry Tong, Deborah Goodman, Nancy Anderson, Heather Harvey, Steele Fors, Hannah Lui Park, Antonia Petruse, Skye Stewart, Samrrah Raouf, Janet Wernisch, Barbara Koenig, Celia Kaplan, Robert Hiatt, Neil Wenger, Vivian Lee, Diane Heditsian, Susie Brain, Dolores Moorehead, Barbara A Parker, Alexander Borowsky, Hoda Anton-Culver, Arash Naeim, Andrea Kaster, Laura van 't Veer, Andrea Z LaCroix, Olufunmilayo I. Olopade, Deepa Sheth, Agustin Garcia, Rachel Lancaster, Jennifer James, Galen Joseph, Wisdom Study, Athena Breast Health Network Investigators and Advocates, Allison Stover Fiscallini, Laura Esserman. The impact of streamlined processes and patient-directed messaging to improve enrollment in a remote, pragmatic clinical trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-19-01.

Comparing Mammographic Density Assessed by Digital Breast Tomosynthesis or Digital Mammography: The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

Background Consistency in reporting Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density on mammograms is important because breast density is used for breast cancer risk assessment and is reported directly to women and clinicians to inform decisions about supplemental screening. Purpose To assess the consistency of BI-RADS density reporting between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM) and evaluate density as a breast cancer risk factor when assessed using DM versus DBT. Materials and Methods The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium is a prospective cohort study of women undergoing mammography with DM or DBT. This secondary analysis included women aged 40-79 years who underwent at least two screening mammography examinations less than 36 months apart. Percentage agreement and κ statistic were estimated for pairs of BI-RADS density assessments. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) of breast density as a risk factor for invasive breast cancer. Results A total of 403 326 pairs of mammograms from 342 149 women were evaluated. There were no significant differences in breast density assessment in pairs consisting of one DM and one DBT examination (57 516 of 74 729 [77%]; κ = 0.64), two DM examinations (238 678 of 301 743 [79%]; κ = 0.67), and two DBT examinations (20 763 of 26 854 [77%]; κ = 0.65). Results were similar when restricting the analyses to pairs read by the same radiologist. The breast cancer HRs for breast density were similar for DM and DBT (P = .45 for interaction). The HRs for density acquired using DM and DBT, respectively, were 0.55 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.63) and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.66) for almost entirely fat, 1.47 (95% CI: 1.37, 1.58) and 1.36 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.82) for heterogeneously dense, and 1.72 (95% CI: 1.54, 1.93) and 2.05 (95% CI: 1.25, 3.36) for extremely dense breasts. Conclusion Radiologist reporting of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System density obtained with digital breast tomosynthesis did not differ from that obtained with digital mammography. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

The effectiveness and value of eculizumab and efgartigimod for generalized myasthenia gravis

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Life Financial, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Nikitin, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Tice, Touchette, and Lien received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary.

The effectiveness and value of belimumab and voclosporin for lupus nephritis

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Pearson is employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Tice, Mandrik, Thokala, and Fotheringham received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary.

Association of Endogenous Pregnenolone, Progesterone, and Related Metabolites with Risk of Endometrial and Ovarian Cancers in Postmenopausal Women: The BFIT Cohort

BACKGROUND

Postmenopausal pregnenolone and/or progesterone levels in relation to endometrial and ovarian cancer risks have been infrequently evaluated. To address this, we utilized a sensitive and reliable assay to quantify prediagnostic levels of seven markers related to endogenous hormone metabolism.

METHODS

Hormones were quantified in baseline serum collected from postmenopausal women in a cohort study nested within the Breast and Bone Follow-up to the Fracture Intervention Trial (B∼FIT). Women using exogenous hormones at baseline (1992-1993) were excluded. Incident endometrial (n = 65) and ovarian (n = 67) cancers were diagnosed during 12 follow-up years and compared with a subcohort of 345 women (no hysterectomy) and 413 women (no oophorectomy), respectively. Cox models with robust variance were used to estimate cancer risk.

RESULTS

Circulating progesterone levels were not associated with endometrial [tertile (T)3 vs. T1 HR (95% confidence interval): 1.87 (0.85-4.11); P _trend = 0.17] or ovarian cancer risk [1.16 (0.58-2.33); 0.73]. Increasing levels of the progesterone-to-estradiol ratio were inversely associated with endometrial cancer risk [T3 vs. T1: 0.29 (0.09-0.95); 0.03]. Increasing levels of 17-hydroxypregnenolone were inversely associated with endometrial cancer risk [0.40 (0.18-0.91); 0.03] and positively associated with ovarian cancer risk [3.11 (1.39-6.93); 0.01].

CONCLUSIONS

Using sensitive and reliable assays, this study provides novel data that endogenous progesterone levels are not strongly associated with incident endometrial or ovarian cancer risks. 17-hydroxypregnenolone was positively associated with ovarian cancer and inversely associated with endometrial cancer.

IMPACT

While our results require replication in large studies, they provide further support of the hormonal etiology of endometrial and ovarian cancers.

Elevated risk thresholds predict endocrine risk-reducing medication use in the Athena screening registry

Risk-reducing endocrine therapy use, though the benefit is validated, is extremely low. The FDA has approved tamoxifen and raloxifene for a 5-year Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) risk ≥ 1.67%. We examined the threshold at which high-risk women are likely to be using endocrine risk-reducing therapies among Athena Breast Health Network participants from 2011-2018. We identified high-risk women by a 5-year BCRAT risk ≥ 1.67% and those in the top 10% and 2.5% risk thresholds by age. We estimated the odds ratio (OR) of current medication use based on these thresholds using logistic regression. One thousand two hundred and one (1.2%) of 104,223 total participants used medication. Of the 33,082 participants with 5-year BCRAT risk ≥ 1.67%, 772 (2.3%) used medication. Of 2445 in the top 2.5% threshold, 209 (8.6%) used medication. Participants whose 5-year risk exceeded 1.67% were more likely to use medication than those whose risk was below this threshold, OR 3.94 (95% CI = 3.50-4.43). The top 2.5% was most strongly associated with medication usage, OR 9.50 (8.13-11.09) compared to the bottom 97.5%. Women exceeding a 5-year BCRAT ≥ 1.67% had modest medication use. We demonstrate that women in the top 2.5% have higher odds of medication use than those in the bottom 97.5% and compared to a risk of 1.67%. The top 2.5% threshold would more effectively target medication use and is being tested prospectively in a randomized control clinical trial.

Development and pilot of an online, personalized risk assessment tool for a breast cancer precision medicine trial

Breast cancer risk reduction has been validated by large-scale clinical trials, but uptake remains low. A risk communication tool could provide personalized risk-reduction information for high-risk women. A low-literacy-friendly, visual, and personalized tool was designed as part of the Women Informed to Screen Depending On Measures of risk (WISDOM) study. The tool integrates genetic, polygenic, and lifestyle factors, and quantifies the risk-reduction from undertaking medication and lifestyle interventions. The development and design process utilized feedback from clinicians, decision-making scientists, software engineers, and patient advocates. We piloted the tool with 17 study participants, collecting quantitative and qualitative feedback. Overall, participants felt they better understood their personalized breast cancer risk, were motivated to reduce their risk, and considered lifestyle interventions. The tool will be used to evaluate whether risk-based screening leads to more informed decisions and higher uptake of risk-reduction interventions among those most likely to benefit.

Endogenous Progestogens and Colorectal Cancer Risk among Postmenopausal Women

BACKGROUND

The role of progestogens in colorectal cancer development is poorly characterized. To address this, our group developed a highly sensitive assay to measure concentrations of seven markers of endogenous progestogen metabolism among postmenopausal women.

METHODS

The markers were measured in baseline serum collected from postmenopausal women in a case-cohort study within the breast and bone follow-up to the fracture intervention trial (B∼FIT). We followed women not using exogenous hormones at baseline (1992-1993) for up to 12 years: 187 women with incident colorectal cancer diagnosed during follow-up and a subcohort of 495 women selected on strata of age and clinical center. We used adjusted Cox regression models with robust variance to estimate risk for colorectal cancer [hazard ratios (HR), 95% confidence intervals (CI)].

RESULTS

High concentrations of pregnenolone and progesterone were not associated with colorectal cancer [quintile(Q)5 versus Q1: pregnenolone HR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.40-1.25; progesterone HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.71-2.22]. A trend of increasing risk was suggested, but statistically imprecise across quintiles of 17-hydroxypregnenolone (Q2 to Q5 HRs, 0.75-1.44; P _trend, 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

We used sensitive and reliable assays to measure multiple circulating markers of progestogen metabolism. Progestogens were generally unassociated with colorectal cancer risk in postmenopausal women.

IMPACT

Our findings are consistent with most prior research on circulating endogenous sex hormones, which taken together suggest that sex hormones may not be major drivers of colorectal carcinogenesis in postmenopausal women.

The effectiveness and value of digital health technologies as an adjunct to medication-assisted therapy for opioid use disorder

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Whittington, Campbell, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Tice reports contracts to his institution, University of California, San Francisco, from ICER during the conduct of this study.

The effectiveness and value of novel treatments for cystic fibrosis

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Seidner, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Tice reports contracts to his institution, University of California, San Francisco, from ICER during the conduct of this study. Wherry has nothing to disclose.

Acceptability of an mHealth breast cancer risk-reduction intervention promoting risk assessment, education, and discussion of risk in the primary care setting

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer risk assessment tools and risk reduction strategies have advanced significantly over the past few decades but are underutilized in practice, due in part to limited acceptability by patients and physicians. We implemented a tablet-based Breast Cancer Risk Education Intervention (BreastCARE) tailored towards increasing patients' knowledge about their individual risk of developing breast cancer, increasing patient-physician discussion of breast cancer risk reduction practices, and increasing participation in recommended screening.

METHODS

We surveyed patients and physicians who received the BreastCARE intervention and analyzed their satisfaction and acceptability of the intervention. We compared patient satisfaction measures by race/ethnicity and used multivariable logistic regression models to examine the effect of race/ethnicity on measures of patient satisfaction with the tablet-based risk assessment and with the breast cancer risk report. We also compared measures of physician satisfaction by resident vs. attending/NP status. Finally, we identified patients' and physicians' suggestions for implementation.

RESULTS

Overall, both patients and physicians were highly satisfied with BreastCARE, with some variation by patient race/ethnicity and breast cancer risk status. The risk assessment tool and accompanying risk report helped transmit complex information in an efficient way.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient self-administered risk assessment with a health education component at the point of care is acceptable for both patients and physicians, and represents a novel approach to facilitating health promotion. This risk assessment tool should be made routine in primary care accompanied by results that are easy for the patient to understand and actionable for the clinician.

Abstract 2359: Endogenous progestogens and colorectal cancer risk among postmenopausal women

Progestogens are sex steroid hormones that serve as precursors to androgens, estrogens, and corticosteroids. While known to influence breast and endometrial cancer risk, the exact roles progestogens play in cancer development are poorly characterized–especially for colorectal cancer. Nor have we been able to determine the utility of measuring circulating progestogens for cancer risk prediction in epidemiologic studies and clinical settings. These gaps in knowledge are largely attributable to the difficulty in measuring hormones among postmenopausal women, when concentrations are low. To address this problem, we developed a highly sensitive and reliable liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay to measure concentrations of seven markers of endogenous progestogen metabolism: pregnenolone (a progestogen precursor), progesterone, the two 17-alpha-hydroxy (17OH) forms of these hormones (which are androgen precursors), and three progesterone metabolites. These markers were measured in prediagnostic serum collected from women in a case-cohort study within the Breast and Bone Follow-up to the Fracture Intervention Trial (B~FIT). From the 15,595 postmenopausal women in B~FIT, we followed women not using exogenous hormones at baseline (1992-1993) for up to twelve years: 187 women with incident colorectal cancer diagnosed during follow-up and a subcohort of 495 women selected on strata of age (10-year windows) and clinical center. We used Cox regression models to estimate risk for colorectal cancer (hazard ratios [HR], 95% confidence intervals [CI]); models were adjusted for age, body mass index, clinic site, and enrollment arm from the original clinical trial. High concentrations of progestogens were not associated with colorectal cancer risk (quintile(Q)5 vs. Q1: pregnenolone HR 0.71, CI 0.40-1.25; progesterone HR 1.25, CI 0.71, 2.22). A trend of increasing risk was suggested, but imprecise across quintiles of 17OH-pregnenolone (Q2 to Q5 HRs 0.75 to 1.44, p-trend 0.06), but no association was noted with 17OH-progesterone. Using 5-knot splines, we identified non-linear risk relationships with several of the progestogens–indicating that biologic mechanisms unique to each hormone may exist. However, circulating progestogens were generally unrelated to colorectal cancer risk in postmenopausal women, which is in line with prior work indicating that circulating estrogen metabolites are also not associated with risk.

Citation Format: Kara A. Michels, Roni T. Falk, Ashley M. Geczik, Doug C. Bauer, Diana S. Buist, Jane A. Cauley, Cher M. Dallal, Trisha F. Hue, James V. Lacey, Andrea Z. LaCroix, Jeffrey A. Tice, Xia Xu, Louise A. Brinton, Britton Trabert. Endogenous progestogens and colorectal cancer risk among postmenopausal women [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 2359.

The Effectiveness and Value of Oral Immunotherapy and Viaskin Peanut for Peanut Allergy

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, Commonwealth Fund, California Health Care Foundation, National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM), New England States Consortium Systems Organization, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, and Partners HealthCare to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Herron-Smith and Pearson are employed by ICER, which has a contract with the University of California, San Francisco, to perform work for these analyses. Segal was employed by ICER at the time of this review. Tice and Walsh are employed by the University of California, San Francisco. Gazauskas and Hansen have nothing to disclose.

Association of Circulating Progesterone With Breast Cancer Risk Among Postmenopausal Women

IMPORTANCE

The role of endogenous progesterone in the development of breast cancer remains largely unexplored to date, primarily owing to assay sensitivity limitations and low progesterone concentrations in postmenopausal women. Recently identified progesterone metabolites may provide insights as experimental data suggest that 5α-dihydroprogesterone (5αP) concentrations reflect cancer-promoting properties and 3α-dihydroprogesterone (3αHP) concentrations reflect cancer-inhibiting properties.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between circulating progesterone and progesterone metabolite levels and breast cancer risk.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Using a sensitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay, prediagnostic serum levels of progesterone and progesterone metabolites were quantified in a case-cohort study nested within the Breast and Bone Follow-up to the Fracture Intervention Trial (n = 15 595). Participation was limited to women not receiving exogenous hormone therapy at the time of blood sampling (1992-1993). Incident breast cancer cases (n = 405) were diagnosed during 12 follow-up years and a subcohort of 495 postmenopausal women were randomly selected within 10-year age and clinical center strata. Progesterone assays were completed in July 2017; subsequent data analyses were conducted between July 15, 2017, and December 20, 2018.

EXPOSURES

Circulating concentrations of pregnenolone, progesterone, and their major metabolites.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Development of breast cancer, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs was estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for key confounders, including estradiol. Evaluation of hormone ratios and effect modification were planned a priori.

RESULTS

The present study included 405 incident breast cancer cases and a subcohort of 495 postmenopausal women; the mean (SD) age at the time of the blood draw was 67.2 (6.2) years. Progesterone concentrations were a mean (SD) of 4.6 (1.7) ng/dL. Women with higher circulating progesterone levels were at an increased risk for breast cancer per SD increase in progesterone levels (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.00-1.35; P = .048). The association with progesterone was linear in a 5-knot spline and stronger for invasive breast cancers (n = 267) (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.43; P = .004). Among women in the lowest quintile (Q1) of circulating estradiol (<6.30 pg/mL) elevated progesterone concentrations were associated with reduced breast cancer risk per SD increase in progesterone levels (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15-0.95; P = .04) and increased risk among women in higher quintiles of estradiol (Q2-Q5; ≥6.30 pg/mL) (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04-1.35; P = .01; P = .04 for interaction).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this case-cohort study of postmenopausal women, elevated circulating progesterone levels were associated with a 16% increase in the risk of breast cancer. Additional research should be undertaken to assess how postmenopausal breast cancer risk is associated with both endogenous progesterone and progesterone metabolites and their interactions with estradiol.

An Intervention Tool to Increase Patient-Physician Discussion of Lifestyle Risk Factors for Breast Cancer

Background: Risk assessment and discussion of lifestyle in primary care are crucial elements of breast cancer prevention and risk reduction. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of a breast cancer risk assessment and education tool on patient-physician discussion of behaviors and breast cancer risk. Materials and Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial with an ethnically and linguistically diverse sample of women, ages 40-74, from two primary care practices. Intervention participants completed a tablet computer-based Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Education (BreastCARE) intervention in the waiting room before a scheduled visit. Both patients and physicians received an individualized risk report to discuss during the visit. Control patients underwent usual care. Telephone surveys assessed patient-physician discussion of weight, exercise, and alcohol use 1 week following the visit. Results: Among the 1235 participants, 27.7% (161/580) intervention and 22.3% (146/655) usual-care patients were high risk for breast cancer. Adjusting for clustering by physician, the intervention increased discussions of regular exercise (odds ratios [OR] = 1.94, 1.50-2.51) and weight (OR = 1.56, 1.23-1.96). There was no effect of the intervention on discussion of alcohol. Women with some college education were more likely to discuss their weight than those with high school education or less (OR = 1.75, 1.03-2.96). Similarly, non-English speakers were more likely to discuss their weight compared with English speakers (OR = 2.33, 1.04-5.22). Conclusions: BreastCARE is a feasible risk assessment tool that can successfully promote discussions about modifiable breast cancer risk factors between patients and primary care physicians.

The Effectiveness and Value of Biologic Therapies for the Treatment of Uncontrolled Asthma

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this summary was contributed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Blue Shield of California, and California Health Care Foundation to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, AHIP, Anthem, Blue Shield of California, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Cambia Health Solutions, United Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente, Premera Blue Cross, AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Prime Therapeutics, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, Health Care Service Corporation, Editas, Alnylam, Regeneron, Mallinkrodt, Biogen, HealthPartners, and Novartis. Synnott, Kumar, Adair, Rind, and Pearson are employees of ICER, which provided grants to the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of Colorado to perform work for these analyses. Tice and Walsh are employed by the University of California, San Francisco, and Campbell and Whittington are employed by the University of Colorado.

Abstract 589: Circulating progesterone is associated with increased postmenopausal breast cancer risk: B~FIT cohort

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic data provide compelling evidence of the association between elevated endogenous estrogens and androgens and increased postmenopausal breast cancer risk. However, the role of progesterone remains largely unexplored, primarily due to limitations in assay sensitivity and precision of progesterone measurements at low concentrations in postmenopausal women. Recently identified progesterone metabolites may provide etiologic insights as experimental data suggest that relative changes in concentrations of 5-α dihydroprogesterone (5αP) and 3-α dihydroprogesterone (3αHP) reflect cancer promoting and cancer inhibiting properties, respectively.

METHODS: We developed a sensitive and reliable liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assay and quantified prediagnostic levels of progesterone/progesterone metabolites in a case-cohort study within the Breast and Bone Follow-up to the Fracture Intervention Trial (B~FIT) including 405 breast cancer cases diagnosed during follow-up and a subcohort of 495 postmenopausal women not using exogenous hormones at blood draw. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox regression and linearity was assessed using splines.

RESULTS: Hormone concentrations among women in the subcohort were on average 4.6 pg/mL (range 2.3-21.6) for progesterone; all measured values were above the assay detection limit. Women with higher circulating progesterone levels had an elevated postmenopausal breast cancer risk [HR (95% CI) per 10 pg/mL increase in progesterone: 1.18 (0.99-1.41)]. This association was linear in a 5-knot spline and strengthened [1.24 (1.03-1.49)] in models excluding women who reported current use of tamoxifen/raloxifene. Higher levels of 5αP relative to 3αHP were associated with a 4% increased postmenopausal breast cancer risk [per unit increase in ratio: 1.04 (1.00-1.07)]. For the individual metabolites, higher levels of both 5αP [per 10 pg/mL increase: 1.04 (0.93-1.18) and 3αHP [per 3 pg/mL increase: 1.11 (0.999-1.24)] were associated with elevated risk. All associations remained after adjustment for circulating estrogen levels.

CONCLUSIONS: Our prospective data suggest that postmenopausal women with increased serum progesterone concentrations, measured using a highly sensitive LC-MS/MS assay, are at increased risk of breast cancer. Consistent with experimental studies, higher levels of 5αP relative to 3αHP were indicative of increased breast cancer risk. Unlike experimental studies, our data do not suggest that endogenous concentrations of 3αHP are associated with reduced breast cancer risk; instead both metabolites were associated with elevated risk. The identification of these risk-related progesterone metabolites supports the need for additional research regarding their role in the etiology of breast cancer.

Citation Format: Britton Trabert, Doug C. Bauer, Louise A. Brinton, Diane S. Buist, Jane A. Cauley, Cher M. Dallal, Gretchen L. Gierach, Roni T. Falk, Trisha F. Hue, James V. Lacey, Andrea Z. LaCroix, Jeffrey A. Tice, Xia Xu. Circulating progesterone is associated with increased postmenopausal breast cancer risk: B~FIT cohort [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 589.

Validation of the breast cancer surveillance consortium model of breast cancer risk

PURPOSE

In order to use a breast cancer prediction model in clinical practice to guide screening and prevention, it must be well calibrated and validated in samples independent from the one used for development. We assessed the accuracy of the breast cancer surveillance consortium (BCSC) model in a racially diverse population followed for up to 10 years.

METHODS

The BCSC model combines breast density with other risk factors to estimate a woman's 5- and 10-year risk of invasive breast cancer. We validated the model in an independent cohort of 252,997 women in the Chicago area. We evaluated calibration using the ratio of expected to observed (E/O) invasive breast cancers in the cohort and discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

RESULTS

In an independent cohort of 252,997 women (median age 50 years, 26% non-Hispanic Black), the BCSC model was well calibrated (E/O = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.98), but underestimated the incidence of invasive breast cancer in younger women and in women with low mammographic density. The AUROC was 0.633, similar to that observed in prior validation studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The BCSC model is a well-validated risk assessment tool for breast cancer that may be particularly useful when assessing the utility of supplemental screening in women with dense breasts.

Abstract P1-08-04: Withdrawn

This abstract was withdrawn by the authors.

Citation Format: Trabert B, Bauer DC, Brinton LA, Buist DS, Cauley JA, Dallal CM, Gierach GL, Falk RT, Hue TF, Lacey, Jr. JV, LaCroix AZ, Tice JA, Xu X. Withdrawn [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-08-04.

Long-term Survival and Cost-effectiveness Associated With Axicabtagene Ciloleucel vs Chemotherapy for Treatment of B-Cell Lymphoma

IMPORTANCE

Axicabtagene ciloleucel, a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, represents a new and potentially curative treatment option for B-cell lymphoma. It is expected to have long-term survival benefits; however, long-term survival data are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the long-term survival and cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel for treatment of relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphoma.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Economic evaluation study using a survival analysis that digitized and extrapolated survival curves published in the ZUMA-1 trial (Safety and Efficacy of KTE-C19 in Adults With Refractory Aggressive Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma), which enrolled patients between November 2015 and September 2016 and had a maximum follow-up of 24 months. Five different survival models (standard parametric, flexible parametric, 2 mixture cure models, and a flexible parametric mixture model) were used to extrapolate the survival curves to a lifetime horizon from January through June 2018. A cost-effectiveness analysis, from both a trial-based and lifetime horizon, was also conducted to inform the value of this novel therapy. The model was based on data from 111 patients with B-cell lymphoma who were enrolled in the ZUMA-1 trial.

INTERVENTIONS

One-time administration of axicabtagene ciloleucel compared with chemotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Undiscounted and discounted life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total costs, and incremental costs per LY and QALY gained.

RESULTS

The modeled cohort of 111 patients started at 58 years of age. At the end of the trial, treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel resulted in 0.48 more LYs and 0.34 more QALYs than chemotherapy, producing a cost-effectiveness estimate of $896 600 per QALY for public payers and $1 615 000 per QALY for commercial payers. Extrapolated long-term survival for patients treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel ranged from 2.83 to 9.19 discounted LYs and from 2.07 to 7.62 discounted QALYs. Incrementally, treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel was associated with 1.89 to 5.82 discounted LYs and 1.52 to 4.90 discounted QALYs vs chemotherapy. With the use of these incremental estimates of survival, cost-effectiveness estimates ranged from $82 400 to $230 900 per QALY gained for public payers and from $100 400 to $289 000 per QALY gained for commercial payers.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel appears to be associated with incremental gains in survival over chemotherapy. The range in projected long-term survival was wide and reflected uncertainty owing to limited follow-up data. Cost-effectiveness is associated with long-term survival, with further evidence needed to reduce uncertainty.

Long-term Survival and Value of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy for Pediatric Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Leukemia

IMPORTANCE

Among children and young adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, the rate of 5-year disease-free survival is 10% to 20%. Approval of tisagenlecleucel, a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, represents a new and potentially curative treatment option. However, tisagenlecleucel is expensive, with a current list price of $475 000 per one-time administration.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the long-term survival and value of tisagenlecleucel for children and young adults with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, a decision analytic model was designed to extrapolate trial evidence to a patient lifetime horizon. The survival evidence for the model was extracted from 3 studies: B2202 (enrolled patients from April 8, 2015, to November 23, 2016), B2205J (enrolled patients from August 14, 2014, to February 1, 2016), and B2101J (enrolled patients from March 15, 2012, to November 30, 2015). Long-term survival and outcomes of patients younger than 25 years with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia that is refractory or in second or later relapse were derived using flexible parametric modeling from the direct extrapolation of event-free survival and overall survival curves. The published Kaplan-Meier curves were digitized from November 1, 2017, to November 30, 2017, using an algorithm to impute patient-level time-to-event data. Sensitivity and scenario analyses assessed uncertainty in the evidence and model assumptions to further bound the range of cost-effectiveness. Data were analyzed from December 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

The primary intervention of interest was tisagenlecleucel. The comparator of interest was the chemoimmunotherapeutic agent clofarabine.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Model outcomes included life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and incremental costs per life-year and QALY gained.

RESULTS

Forty percent of patients initiating treatment with tisagenlecleucel are expected to be long-term survivors, or alive and responding to treatment after 5 years. Tisagenlecleucel had a total discounted cost of $667 000, with discounted life-years gained of 10.34 years and 9.28 QALYs gained. The clofarabine comparator had a total discounted cost of approximately $337 000, with discounted life-years gained of 2.43 years and 2.10 QALYs gained. This difference resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately $42 000 per life-year gained and approximately $46 000 per QALY gained for tisagenlecleucel vs clofarabine. These results were robust to probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Across scenario analyses that included more conservative assumptions regarding long-term relapse and survival, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from $37 000 to $78 000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Tisagenlecleucel likely provides gains in survival and seems to be priced in alignment with these benefits. This study suggests that payers and innovators should develop novel payment models that reduce the risk and uncertainty around long-term value and provide safeguards to ensure high-value care.

Disease-Modifying Therapies for Relapsing-Remitting and Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: A Cost-Utility Analysis

BACKGROUND

Several disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) treat relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS). Few comprehensive cost-effectiveness analyses exist in this area, particularly from a payer perspective, despite rapidly increasing prices of DMTs.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically compare cost effectiveness of all relevant DMTs for first-line treatment of RRMS, second-line treatment of RRMS, and first-line treatment of PPMS.

METHODS

We used a Markov model with health states based on Expanded Disability Status Score categories. Upon discontinuing first-line treatment, RRMS patients continued to second-line therapy then to supportive care, and PPMS patients moved directly to supportive care. Data was sourced from clinical trials and commercially and publicly available sources. The target population was treatment-naïve adults with RRMS or PPMS. We used a lifetime horizon from a US payer perspective, and compared DMTs for RRMS (first-line: dimethyl fumarate, glatiramer acetate, interferon β-1a, interferon β-1b, peginterferon β-1a, teriflunomide, natalizumab, fingolimod, and ocrelizumab; second-line: alemtuzumab, natalizumab, fingolimod, and ocrelizumab), ocrelizumab for PPMS, and supportive care. Outcome measures included total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

For RRMS first-line therapy, ocrelizumab dominated the other DMTs with an ICER of US$166,338/QALY compared with supportive care. For RRMS second-line therapy, alemtuzumab dominated the other three DMTs, providing more QALYs for lower costs. For PPMS, ocrelizumab had an ICER of US$648,799/QALY compared with supportive care. Wide variability in results was observed in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results were sensitive to the relative risk of progression and cost of DMTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Ocrelizumab would likely be cost effective as a first-line treatment for RRMS with a discounted price but was not cost effective for PPMS. Alemtuzumab dominated other options for second-line treatment of RRMS. Other DMTs were generally similar in terms of costs and health outcomes, providing health benefits compared to supportive care but with significant added costs. If drug prices were lowered, more DMTs could be cost effective.

Family History and Breast Cancer Risk Among Older Women in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Cohort

IMPORTANCE

First-degree family history is a strong risk factor for breast cancer, but controversy exists about the magnitude of the association among older women.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether first-degree family history is associated with increased risk of breast cancer among older women, and identify whether the association varies by breast density.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Prospective cohort study between 1996 and 2012 from 7 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries located in New Hampshire, North Carolina, San Francisco Bay area, western Washington state, New Mexico, Colorado, and Vermont. During a mean (SD) follow-up of 6.3 (3.2) years, 10 929 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed in a cohort of 403 268 women 65 years and older with data from 472 220 mammography examinations. We estimated the 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer by first-degree family history, breast density, and age groups. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to estimate the association of first-degree family history with risk of invasive breast cancer (after adjustment for breast density, BCSC registry, race/ethnicity, body mass index, postmenopausal hormone therapy use, and benign breast disease for age groups 65 to 74 years and 75 years and older, separately). Data analyses were performed between June 2016 and June 2017.

EXPOSURE

First-degree family history of breast cancer.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incident breast cancer.

RESULTS

In 403 268 women 65 years and older, first-degree family history was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among women ages 65 to 74 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.35-1.61) and 75 years and older (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.28-1.62). Estimates were similar for women 65 to 74 years with first-degree relative's diagnosis age younger than 50 years (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.25-1.73) vs 50 years and older (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.17-1.51) and for women ages 75 years and older with the relative's diagnosis age younger than 50 years (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05-1.63) vs 50 years and older (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.33-1.81). Among women ages 65 to 74 years, the risk associated with first-degree family history was highest among those with fatty breasts (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.27-2.21), whereas in women 75 years and older the risk associated with family history was highest among those with dense breasts (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.29-1.87).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

First-degree family history was associated with increased risk of invasive breast cancer in all subgroups of older women irrespective of a relative's age at diagnosis.

Breast Density and Risk of Invasive Breast Cancer among Older Women Undergoing Mammography: The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Cohort Study

This study examined whether breast density is associated with risk of breast cancer in women age ≥65 years undergoing screening mammography in community practice. Methods: We used prospective cohort data between 1996 and 2012 from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). We calculated separate cumulative incidence models for breast cancer incidence according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density for women ages 65–74 and ages ≥75. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were fitted to determine the risk of invasive breast cancer adjusted for BCSC registry, race/ethnicity, BMI, hormone therapy use and benign breast disease. Results: Among the 403,268 women included in the study, approximately 40% were ages ≥75. The annual incidence rate of invasive breast cancer increased with increasing breast density among women ages 65–74 [BI- RADS fatty breasts: 2.2% (95% CI, 2.1%–2.4%) vs. heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts: 4.7% (95% CI, 4.6%–4.9%)] and women ages 75+ [BI-RADS fatty breasts: 2.3% (95% CI, 2.1%–2.5%) vs. heterogeneously or extremely dense: 4.3% (95% CI, 4.1%–4.5%)]. Women with BI-RADS fatty breasts had a decreased risk of breast cancer among women ages 65–74 [HR: 0.66 (95% CI: 0.58%–0.78%) and women ages ≥75 [HR: 0.73 (95% CI: 0.62%–0.87%). Women with BI-RADS heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts were found to have increased risk of breast cancer among women ages 65–74 [HR: 1.39 (95% CI: 1.28%–1.51%)] and women ages ≥75 [HR: 1.23 (95% CI: 1.10%–1.37%)]. Conclusions: Older women with higher BI-RADS density had a significantly increased risk of breast cancer. These findings add further evidence that breast density continues to be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, even among women age ≥75 years.

Updated Cost-effectiveness Analysis of PCSK9 Inhibitors Based on the Results of the FOURIER Trial

This study uses the results of the FOURIER trial to assess the current cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitors over the lifetime analytic horizon for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the United States.

Joint relative risks for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer from a clinical model, polygenic risk score, and sex hormones

BACKGROUND

Models that predict the risk of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancers may improve our ability to target chemoprevention. We investigated the contributions of sex hormones to the discrimination of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk model and a polygenic risk score comprised of 83 single nucleotide polymorphisms.

METHODS

We conducted a nested case-control study of 110 women with ER-positive breast cancers and 214 matched controls within a mammography screening cohort. Participants were postmenopausal and not on hormonal therapy. The associations of estradiol, estrone, testosterone, and sex hormone binding globulin with ER-positive breast cancer were evaluated using conditional logistic regression. We assessed the individual and combined discrimination of estradiol, the BCSC risk score, and polygenic risk score using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

RESULTS

Of the sex hormones assessed, estradiol (OR 3.64, 95% CI 1.64-8.06 for top vs bottom quartile), and to a lesser degree estrone, was most strongly associated with ER-positive breast cancer in unadjusted analysis. The BCSC risk score (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00-1.75 per 1% increase) and polygenic risk score (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06-2.36 per standard deviation) were also associated with ER-positive cancers. A model containing the BCSC risk score, polygenic risk score, and estradiol levels showed good discrimination for ER-positive cancers (AUROC 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.79), representing a significant improvement over the BCSC risk score (AUROC 0.58, 95% CI 0.50-0.65).

CONCLUSION

Adding estradiol and a polygenic risk score to a clinical risk model improves discrimination for postmenopausal ER-positive breast cancers.

Abstract P5-09-05: A model with polygenic risk score and mammographic density predicts interval cancers

Introduction:

Interval breast cancers present with clinical symptoms following a normal screening mammogram. They are associated with unfavorable biological features and with dense breasts. Models predictive of aggressive phenotypes may facilitate tailored screening for women at elevated risk of interval cancers. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) represent the cumulative effects of multiple single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and can be used to risk-stratify women. In prior reports, PRS is preferentially associated with screen-detected rather than interval cancers. We investigated methods to refine the PRS to preferentially predict interval cancers, and tested the performance of the PRS in joint models with mammographic breast density (MBD).

Methods:

We used data from 1058 breast cancer cases from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) as the discovery set for our PRS. We selected 107 SNPs from genomewide association studies of breast cancer risk for testing against tumor status at last follow-up in TCGA. Presence of tumor indicated recurrence, progression, or positive margins after resection. Women with tumor present at &lt;100 days of follow-up were excluded. Suggestive associations (p&lt;0.2) were used to construct a PRS, calculated as the sum across all SNPs of the per-allele log-odds ratio multiplied by the number of risk alleles for each SNP. We tested the performance of the PRS in a nested case-control dataset with 471 cases (102 interval cancers, 369 screen detected) and 496 controls from the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute cohort. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between PRS, MBD and interval cancers. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was used to measure discrimination.

Results:

Of 107 SNPs, 23 had suggestive associations with presence of tumor at last follow-up in TCGA. The 23-SNP PRS discriminated between women with interval cancers and controls, with AUROC 0.57 (95% CI 0.51-0.63). With the inclusion of MBD in the model, the AUROC was 0.68 (95% CI 0.62-0.74). Women in the highest PRS quintile had an unadjusted 2.07-fold odds (95% CI 1.05-4.07) of developing interval cancers compared with women in the lowest quintile; adjustment for MBD did not change the point estimate. The PRS also discriminated between women with interval and screen-detected cancers, although the findings did not reach statistical significance (AUROC 0.55, 95% CI 0.48-0.61). With the inclusion of MBD in the model, the AUROC was 0.63 (95% CI 0.57-0.69).

Discussion:

A PRS associated with presence of tumor at last follow-up was independently predictive of interval cancers relative to controls. Models with PRS and MBD discriminated between interval and screen-detected cancers, although MBD provided most of the predictive power. Our findings are limited by the size and low number of recurrences in TCGA. It is possible that tumor status largely reflects treatment received, and may only partially represent the biological pathways of interval cancers. Our results suggest that SNPs may potentially identify women at risk for developing interval breast cancer, although further validation is required.

Citation Format: Shieh Y, Hu D, Huntsman S, Ma L, Gard CC, Leung JWT, Tice JA, Cummings SR, Kerlikowske K, Ziv E. A model with polygenic risk score and mammographic density predicts interval cancers [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 P5-09-05.

Breast Cancer Screening in the Precision Medicine Era: Risk-Based Screening in a Population-Based Trial

Ongoing controversy over the optimal approach to breast cancer screening has led to discordant professional society recommendations, particularly in women age 40 to 49 years. One potential solution is risk-based screening, where decisions around the starting age, stopping age, frequency, and modality of screening are based on individual risk to maximize the early detection of aggressive cancers and minimize the harms of screening through optimal resource utilization. We present a novel approach to risk-based screening that integrates clinical risk factors, breast density, a polygenic risk score representing the cumulative effects of genetic variants, and sequencing for moderate- and high-penetrance germline mutations. We demonstrate how thresholds of absolute risk estimates generated by our prediction tools can be used to stratify women into different screening strategies (biennial mammography, annual mammography, annual mammography with adjunctive magnetic resonance imaging, defer screening at this time) while informing the starting age of screening for women age 40 to 49 years. Our risk thresholds and corresponding screening strategies are based on current evidence but need to be tested in clinical trials. The Women Informed to Screen Depending On Measures of risk (WISDOM) Study, a pragmatic, preference-tolerant randomized controlled trial of annual vs personalized screening, will study our proposed approach. WISDOM will evaluate the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of risk-based screening beginning in the fall of 2016. The adaptive design of this trial allows continued refinement of our risk thresholds as the trial progresses, and we discuss areas where we anticipate emerging evidence will impact our approach.

Using Breast Cancer Risk Associated Polymorphisms to Identify Women for Breast Cancer Chemoprevention

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer can be prevented with selective estrogen receptor modifiers (SERMs) and aromatase inhibitors (AIs). The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that women with a 5-year breast cancer risk ≥3% consider chemoprevention for breast cancer. More than 70 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been associated with breast cancer. We sought to determine how to best integrate risk information from SNPs with other risk factors to risk stratify women for chemoprevention.

METHODS

We used the risk distribution among women ages 35-69 estimated by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) risk model. We modeled the effect of adding 70 SNPs to the BCSC model and examined how this would affect how many women are reclassified above and below the threshold for chemoprevention.

RESULTS

We found that most of the benefit of SNP testing a population is achieved by testing a modest fraction of the population. For example, if women with a 5-year BCSC risk of >2.0% are tested (~21% of all women), ~75% of the benefit of testing all women (shifting women above or below 3% 5-year risk) would be derived. If women with a 5-year risk of >1.5% are tested (~36% of all women), ~90% of the benefit of testing all women would be derived.

CONCLUSION

SNP testing is effective for reclassification of women for chemoprevention, but is unlikely to reclassify women with <1.5% 5-year risk. These results can be used to implement an efficient two-step testing approach to identify high risk women who may benefit from chemoprevention.

Risk Factors That Increase Risk of Estrogen Receptor-Positive and -Negative Breast Cancer

Background

Risk factors may differentially influence development of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive vs -negative breast cancer. We examined associations with strong, prevalent risk factors by ER subtype.

Methods

Of 1 279 443 women age 35 to 74 years participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 14 969 developed ER-positive and 3617 developed ER-negative invasive breast cancer. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression and compared ER subtype hazard ratios at representative ages or by menopausal status using Wald tests. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

For women age 40 years, compared with no prior biopsy, ER-positive vs ER-negative HRs were 1.53 (95% CI = 1.30 to 1.81) vs 1.26 (95% CI = 0.90 to 1.76) for nonproliferative disease, 1.63 (95% CI = 1.23 to 2.17) vs 1.41 (95% CI = 0.78 to 2.57) for proliferative disease without atypia, and 4.47 (95% CI = 2.88 to 6.96) vs 0.20 (95% CI = 0.02 to 2.51) for proliferative disease with atypia. Benign disease proliferation risk was stronger for ER-positive than ER-negative cancer for women age 35 years (Wald P = .04), age 40 years (Wald P = .04), and age 50 years (Wald P = .06). Among pre/perimenopausal women, body mass index (BMI) had a stronger association with ER-negative than ER-positive cancer (obese II/III vs. normal weight: HR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.94; vs 1.21, 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.36). Increasing BMI similarly increased ER-positive and ER-negative cancer risk among postmenopausal hormone users (Wald P = .15) and nonusers (Wald P = .08). Associations with ER subtype varied by race/ethnicity across all ages (P < .001) and by family history of breast cancer and breast density for specific ages.

Conclusions

Strength of risk factor associations differed by ER subtype. Separate risk models for ER subtypes may improve identification of women for targeted prevention strategies.

Assessing the value of mepolizumab for severe eosinophilic asthma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Adding mepolizumab to standard treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and controller medications could decrease asthma exacerbations and use of long-term oral steroids in patients with severe disease and increased eosinophils; however, mepolizumab is costly and its cost effectiveness is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost effectiveness of mepolizumab.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to determine the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for mepolizumab plus standard of care (SoC) and for SoC alone. The population, adults with severe eosinophilic asthma, was modeled for a lifetime time horizon. A responder scenario analysis was conducted to determine the cost effectiveness for a cohort able to achieve and maintain asthma control.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime treatment horizon, 23.96 exacerbations were averted per patient receiving mepolizumab plus SoC. Avoidance of exacerbations and decrease in long-term oral steroid use resulted in more than $18,000 in cost offsets among those receiving mepolizumab, but treatment costs increased by more than $600,000. Treatment with mepolizumab plus SoC vs SoC alone resulted in a cost-effectiveness estimate of $386,000 per QALY. To achieve cost effectiveness of approximately $150,000 per QALY, mepolizumab would require a more than 60% price discount. At current pricing, treating a responder cohort yielded cost-effectiveness estimates near $160,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

The estimated cost effectiveness of mepolizumab exceeds value thresholds. Achieving these thresholds would require significant discounts from the current list price. Alternatively, treatment limited to responders improves the cost effectiveness toward, but remains still slightly above, these thresholds. Payers interested in improving the efficiency of health care resources should consider negotiations of the mepolizumab price and ways to predict and assess the response to mepolizumab.

Cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 Inhibitor Therapy in Patients With Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia or Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

IMPORTANCE

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors were recently approved for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and have potential for broad ASCVD prevention. Their long-term cost-effectiveness and effect on total health care spending are uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitors and their potential effect on US health care spending.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model, a simulation model of US adults aged 35 to 94 years, was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe in heterozygous FH or ASCVD. The model incorporated 2015 annual PCSK9 inhibitor costs of $14,350 (based on mean wholesale acquisition costs of evolocumab and alirocumab); adopted a health-system perspective, lifetime horizon; and included probabilistic sensitivity analyses to explore uncertainty.

EXPOSURES

Statin therapy compared with addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Lifetime major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke), incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and total effect on US health care spending over 5 years.

RESULTS

Adding PCSK9 inhibitors to statins in heterozygous FH was estimated to prevent 316,300 MACE at a cost of $503,000 per QALY gained compared with adding ezetimibe to statins (80% uncertainty interval [UI], $493,000-$1,737,000). In ASCVD, adding PCSK9 inhibitors to statins was estimated to prevent 4.3 million MACE compared with adding ezetimibe at $414,000 per QALY (80% UI, $277,000-$1,539,000). Reducing annual drug costs to $4536 per patient or less would be needed for PCSK9 inhibitors to be cost-effective at less than $100,000 per QALY. At 2015 prices, PCSK9 inhibitor use in all eligible patients was estimated to reduce cardiovascular care costs by $29 billion over 5 years, but drug costs increased by an estimated $592 billion (a 38% increase over 2015 prescription drug expenditures). In contrast, initiating statins in these high-risk populations in all statin-tolerant individuals who are not currently using statins was estimated to save $12 billion.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Assuming 2015 prices, PCSK9 inhibitor use in patients with heterozygous FH or ASCVD did not meet generally acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness thresholds and was estimated to increase US health care costs substantially. Reducing annual drug prices from more than $14,000 to $4536 would be necessary to meet a $100,000 per QALY threshold.