Search

Background: About 30% of patients (pts) with hormone receptor (HR)-positive early breast cancer (EBC) on adjuvant aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy discontinue due to toxicity with 22% of pts discontinuing during the first year (Henry et al. JCO 2012). For these patients who struggle with adjuvant AIs, there are limited alternatives including switch to a different AI which may have similar side effects, tamoxifen, or observation. This paucity of effective and tolerable options may contribute to poor adherence and/or early discontinuation of adjuvant endocrine therapy, which is associated with worse outcomes. Amcenestrant (SAR439859) is an optimized oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) with potent dual activity which antagonizes and degrades the estrogen receptor (ER), resulting in inhibition of the ER signaling pathway. In the phase 1/2 AMEERA-1 first-in-human trial (SABCS 2020 PD8-08), amcenestrant showed strong antitumor activity and favorable safety profile in the treatment of HR+ metastatic breast cancer. The phase 2 window-of-opportunity study AMEERA-4 evaluating two doses of amcenestrant demonstrated robust Ki67 reductions, strong engagement of the ER target, and continued to show a favorable safety profile in an early breast cancer population. Based on pharmacodynamic activity, safety, and emerging results from other ongoing amcenestrant trials, the 200 mg daily dose of amcenestrant was selected for the AMEERA-6 study. Trial Design: This is a prospective, randomized, international, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3 superiority study of amcenestrant versus tamoxifen. Eligible pts are men and women with any menopausal status with HR+ stage IIB/III breast cancer, irrespective of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status. If neoadjuvant systemic therapy was administered, pts must have residual nodal disease after definitive breast surgery (ypN1-3). Pts will be centrally assessed to have ER-positive and/or progesterone receptor-positive (≥10% positive stained cells) status by immunohistochemistry assay. Pts must have received at least 6 months of adjuvant AIs (≥3 months in the adjuvant setting if they received prior neoadjuvant AI) and discontinued within 30 months of initiation due to AI-related toxicity. Pts may have been treated with more than one AI. All adjuvant therapies including chemotherapy, anti-HER2 treatment, cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor, and/or poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors must be completed or stopped prior to randomization. 3738 pts will be randomized 1:1 to receive either amcenestrant 200 mg daily or tamoxifen 20 mg daily for 5 years and will be followed for 10 years from randomization. Men and pre/peri-menopausal women will also receive a GnRH analog. Extended adjuvant endocrine therapy upon completion of study treatment is allowed per investigator discretion. Stratification factors include duration of prior AI therapy, HER2 status and prior chemotherapy, prior CDK4/6 inhibitors, geographic region, and menopausal status. The primary endpoint is invasive breast cancer-free survival (IBCFS) based on STEEP criteria version 2.0 defined as occurrence of first recurrence of the disease: ipsilateral or regional invasive, distant recurrence, contralateral invasive breast cancer and death. Key secondary endpoint is invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and other secondary endpoints include overall survival, safety, patient reported outcomes, and pharmacokinetics of amcenestrant. Adherence to treatment and biomarkers are exploratory endpoints. AMEERA-6 recruited the first patient in March 2022 and is being conducted in partnership with AFT, BIG, EORTC, and Sanofi. Clinical trial information: NCT05128773 Citation Format: Otto Metzger, Christina Herold, Coralie Poncet, Heidi De Swert, Jose Casas-Martin, Ann Partridge, Samia Guita, Lisa Carey, Eva Schumacher, Theodora Goulioti, Thomas Meyskens, Joseph Gannon, Khadija Benlhassan, Giovanna Rossi, Eleni Xenophontos, Amal Arahmani, Amylou C. Dueck, Gautier Paux, Etienne Brain, David A. Cameron. AMEERA-6: Phase 3 Study of Adjuvant Amcenestrant Versus Tamoxifen for Patients With Hormone Receptor-Positive Early Breast Cancer, Who Have Discontinued Adjuvant Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy Due to Treatment-related Toxicity [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-04-01.

The use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in oncology allows for the customisation of PRO assessment to measure key health-related quality of life concepts of relevance to the target population and intervention. However, no high-level recommendations exist to guide users on the design and implementation of these customised PRO measures (item lists) across different PRO measurement systems. To address this issue, a working group was set up, including international stakeholders (academic, independent, industry, health technology assessment, regulatory, and patient advocacy), with the goal of creating recommendations for the use of item libraries in oncology trials. A scoping review was carried out to identify relevant publications and highlight any gaps. Stakeholders commented on the available guidance for each research question, proposed recommendations on how to address gaps in the literature, and came to an agreement using discussion-based methods. Nine primary research questions were identified that formed the scope and structure of the recommendations on how to select items and implement item lists created from item libraries. These recommendations address methods to drive item selection, plan the structure and analysis of item lists, and facilitate their use in conjunction with other measures. The findings resulted in high-level, instrument-agnostic recommendations on the use of item-library-derived item lists in oncology trials.

Background This study compares classical test theory and item response theory frameworks to determine reliable change. Reliable change followed by anchoring to the change in categorically distinct responses on a criterion measure is a useful method to detect meaningful change on a target measure. Methods Adult cancer patients were recruited from five cancer centers. Baseline and follow-up assessments at 6 weeks were administered. We investigated short forms derived from PROMIS® item banks on anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain intensity, pain interference, and sleep disturbance. We detected reliable change using reliable change index (RCI). We derived the T-scores corresponding to the RCI calculated under IRT and CTT frameworks using PROMIS® short forms. For changes that were reliable, meaningful change was identified using patient-reported change in PRO-CTCAE by at least one level. For both CTT and IRT approaches, we applied one-sided tests to detect reliable improvement or worsening using RCI. We compared the percentages of patients with reliable change and reliable/meaningful change. Results The amount of change in T score corresponding to RCICTT of 1.65 ranged from 5.1 to 9.2 depending on domains. The amount of change corresponding to RCIIRT of 1.65 varied across the score range, and the minimum change ranged from 3.0 to 8.2 depending on domains. Across domains, the RCICTT and RCIIRT classified 80% to 98% of the patients consistently. When there was disagreement, the RCIIRT tended to identify more patients as having reliably changed compared to RCICTT if scores at both timepoints were in the range of 43 to 78 in anxiety, 45 to 70 in depression, 38 to 80 in fatigue, 35 to 78 in sleep disturbance, and 48 to 74 in pain interference, due to smaller standard errors in these ranges using the IRT method. The CTT method found more changes compared to IRT for the pain intensity domain that was shorter in length. Using RCICTT, 22% to 66% had reliable change in either direction depending on domains, and among these patients, 62% to 83% had meaningful change. Using RCIIRT, 37% to 68% had reliable change in either direction, and among these patients, 62% to 81% had meaningful change. Conclusion Applying the two-step criteria demonstrated in this study, we determined how much change is needed to declare reliable change at different levels of baseline scores. We offer reference values for percentage of patients who meaningfully change for investigators using the PROMIS instruments in oncology.

PURPOSE Polycythemia vera (PV) is characterized by JAK/STAT activation, thrombotic/hemorrhagic events, systemic symptoms, and disease transformation. In high-risk PV, ruxolitinib controls blood counts and improves symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS MAJIC-PV is a randomized phase II trial of ruxolitinib versus best available therapy (BAT) in patients resistant/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC-INT/RES). Primary outcome was complete response (CR) within 1 year. Secondary outcomes included duration of response, event-free survival (EFS), symptom, and molecular response. RESULTS One hundred eighty patients were randomly assigned. CR was achieved in 40 (43%) patients on ruxolitinib versus 23 (26%) on BAT (odds ratio, 2.12; 90% CI, 1.25 to 3.60; P = .02). Duration of CR was superior for ruxolitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.61; P < .001). Symptom responses were better with ruxolitinib and durable. EFS (major thrombosis, hemorrhage, transformation, and death) was superior for patients attaining CR within 1 year (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.78; P = .01); and those on ruxolitinib (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94; P = .03). Serial analysis of JAK2V617F variant allele fraction revealed molecular response was more frequent with ruxolitinib and was associated with improved outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS] P = .001, EFS P = .001, overall survival P = .01) and clearance of JAK2V617F stem/progenitor cells. ASXL1 mutations predicted for adverse EFS (HR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.47 to 6.17; P = .003). The safety profile of ruxolitinib was as previously reported. CONCLUSION The MAJIC-PV study demonstrates ruxolitinib treatment benefits HC-INT/RES PV patients with superior CR, and EFS as well as molecular response; importantly also demonstrating for the first time, to our knowledge, that molecular response is linked to EFS, PFS, and OS.

Remarkable improvements in outcomes for many haematological malignancies have been driven primarily by a proliferation of novel therapeutics over the past two decades. Targeted agents, immune and cellular therapies, and combination regimens have adverse event profiles distinct from conventional finite cytotoxic chemotherapies. In 2018, a Commission comprising patient advocates, clinicians, clinical investigators, regulators, biostatisticians, and pharmacists representing a broad range of academic and clinical cancer expertise examined issues of adverse event evaluation in the context of both newer and existing therapies for haematological cancers. The Commission proposed immediate actions and long-term solutions in the current processes in adverse event assessment, patient-reported outcomes in haematological malignancies, toxicities in cellular therapies, long-term toxicity and survivorship in haematological malignancies, issues in regulatory approval from an international perspective, and toxicity reporting in haematological malignancies and the real-world setting. In this follow-up report, the Commission describes progress that has been made in these areas since the initial report.

Background In clinical trials and clinical practice, patient-reported outcomes are almost always assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures at the same time. This raises concerns about whether patient responses are affected by the order in which the patient-reported outcome measures are administered. Methods This questionnaire-based study of order effects included adult cancer patients from five cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to complete questionnaires via paper booklets, interactive voice response system, or tablet web survey. Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessment tools were each used to measure general health, physical function, social function, emotional distress/anxiety, emotional distress/depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain. The order in which the three tools, and domains within tools, were presented to patients was randomized. Rates of missing data, scale scores, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were compared by the order in which they were assessed. Analyses included Cochran–Armitage trend tests and mixed models adjusted for performance score, age, sex, cancer type, and curative intent. Results A total of 1830 patients provided baseline patient-reported outcome assessments. There were no significant trends in rates of missing values by whether a scale was assessed earlier or later. The largest order effect for scale scores was due to a large mean score at one assessment time point. The largest difference in Cronbach’s alpha between the versions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales was 0.106. Conclusion The well-being of a cancer patient has many different aspects such as pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. These are assessed using a variety of surveys often collected at the same time. This study shows that the order in which the different aspects are collected from the patient is not important.

PURPOSE Palbociclib is a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor approved for advanced breast cancer. In the adjuvant setting, the potential value of adding palbociclib to endocrine therapy for hormone receptor–positive breast cancer has not been confirmed. PATIENTS AND METHODS In the prospective, randomized, phase III PALLAS trial, patients with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative early breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive 2 years of palbociclib (125 mg orally once daily, days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) with adjuvant endocrine therapy or adjuvant endocrine therapy alone (for at least 5 years). The primary end point of the study was invasive disease-free survival (iDFS); secondary end points were invasive breast cancer–free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, locoregional cancer-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS Among 5,796 patients enrolled at 406 centers in 21 countries worldwide over 3 years, 5,761 were included in the intention-to-treat population. At the final protocol-defined analysis, at a median follow-up of 31 months, iDFS events occurred in 253 of 2,884 (8.8%) patients who received palbociclib plus endocrine therapy and in 263 of 2,877 (9.1%) patients who received endocrine therapy alone, with similar results between the two treatment groups (iDFS at 4 years: 84.2% v 84.5%; hazard ratio, 0.96; CI, 0.81 to 1.14; P = .65). No significant differences were observed for secondary time-to-event end points, and subgroup analyses did not show any differences by subgroup. There were no new safety signals for palbociclib in this trial. CONCLUSION At this final analysis of the PALLAS trial, the addition of adjuvant palbociclib to standard endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes over endocrine therapy alone in patients with early hormone receptor–positive breast cancer.

Supplementary Figure 2 - PDF file 9846K, Patient Flow Diagram for N9831 MYC IHC Analysis

PDF file - 180KB

Purpose: This study investigated the association between tumor MYC protein expression and disease-free survival (DFS) of patients randomized to receive chemotherapy alone (Arm A) or chemotherapy with sequential (Arm B) or concurrent trastuzumab (Arm C) in the N9831 (Alliance) adjuvant HER2+ trastuzumab breast cancer trial.Experimental Design: This analysis included 1,736 patients randomized to Arms A, B, and C on N9831. Nuclear MYC protein expression was determined in tissue microarray sections containing three biopsies per patient or whole tissue sections using standard immunohistochemistry (clone 9E10). A tumor was considered positive for MYC protein overexpression (MYC+) if the nuclear 3+ staining percentage was more than 30%.Results: Five hundred and seventy-four (33%) tumors were MYC+. MYC+ was associated with hormone receptor positivity (χ2, P = 0.006), tumors 2 cm or more (χ2, P = 0.02), and a higher rate of nodal positivity (χ2, P < 0.001). HRs for DFS (median follow-up: 6.1 years) for Arm C versus A were 0.52 (P = 0.006) and 0.65 (P = 0.006) for patients with MYC+ and MYC− tumors, respectively (Pinteraction = 0.40). For Arm B versus A, HRs for patients with MYC+ and MYC− tumors were 0.79 (P = 0.21) and 0.74 (P = 0.04), respectively (Pinteraction = 0.71). For Arm C versus B, HRs for patients with MYC+ and MYC− tumors were 0.56 (P = 0.02) and 0.89 (P = 0.49), respectively (Pinteraction = 0.17).Conclusions: Our data do not support an impact of tumor MYC protein expression on differential benefit from adjuvant trastuzumab. Clin Cancer Res; 19(20); 5798–807. ©2013 AACR.

Background: Preclinical evidence indicates that increased insulin-like growth factor receptor-1 (IGF1R) signaling interferes with the action of trastuzumab suggesting a possible mechanism of trastuzumab resistance. Thus, we evaluated IGF1R prevalence, relationship with demographic data, and association with disease-free survival (DFS) of patients randomized to chemotherapy alone (Arm A) or chemotherapy with sequential (Arm B) or concurrent trastuzumab (Arm C) in the prospective phase III HER2+ adjuvant N9831 trial.Experimental Design: IGF1R protein expression was determined in tissue microarray sections (three cores per block; N = 1,197) or in whole tissue sections (WS; N = 537) using IHC (rabbit polyclonal antibody against IGF1R β-subunit). A tumor was considered positive (IGF1R+) if any core or WS had ≥1+ membrane staining in >0% invasive cells. Median follow-up was 8.5 years.Results: Of 1,734 patients, 708 (41%) had IGF1R+ breast tumors. IGF1R+ was associated with younger age (median 48 vs. 51, P = 0.007), estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor positivity (78% vs. 35%, P < 0.001), nodal positivity (89% vs. 83%, P < 0.001), well/intermediate grade (34% vs. 24%, P < 0.001), tumors ≥2 cm (72% vs. 67%, P = 0.02) but not associated with race or tumor histology. IGF1R did not affect DFS within arms. Between Arms A and C, patients with IGF1R+ and IGF1R− tumors had DFS HRs of 0.48 (P ≤ 0.001) and 0.68 (P = 0.009), respectively (Pinteraction = 0.17). Between Arms A and B, patients with IGF1R+ and IGF1R− tumors had DFS HRs of 0.83 (P = 0.25) and 0.69 (P = 0.01), respectively (Pinteraction = 0.42).Conclusions: In contrast to preclinical studies that suggest a decrease in trastuzumab sensitivity in IGF1R+ tumors, our adjuvant data show benefit of adding trastuzumab for patients with either IGF1R+ and IGF1R− breast tumors. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4203–11. ©2016 AACR.

Supplemental Table 1. Heterogeneity of Cores in Patients with Multiple Cores (N=961) Supplemental Table 2. Clinicopathological Characteristics of Cohort and Non-Cohort Patients. Supplemental Table 3. Patient/Disease Characteristics by {greater than or equal to}2+ IGF1R protein staining >0% (N=1734). Supplemental Table 4. DFS for Patients with Hormone Receptor Positive Patients Breast Tumors by IGF1R Membrane Staining (0,1+ vs 2,3+ ) N=909 (Stratified by nodal status) Supplemental Table 5. DFS for Patients with Hormone Receptor-Negative Breast Tumors by IGF1R Membrane Staining (0,1+ vs 2,3+ ) N=825 (Stratified by nodal status) Supplemental Figure 1. NCCTG N9831 Trial Incorporating Trastuzumab in Adjuvant Therapy Supplemental Figure 2. Patient Flow Diagram. Supplemental Figure 3. Disease-Free Survival by IGF1R Protein Expression in Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Tumors. Supplemental Figure 4. Disease-Free Survival by IGF1R Protein Expression in Patients with Hormone Receptor-Negative Breast Tumors.

Supplementary Tables 1-5 - PDF file 91K, Supplementary Table 1. Patient Characteristics by IHC cMYC Cohort vs Non-Cohort; Supplementary Table 2. Correlation of MYC Nuclear Staining with HER2 FISH - Overall; Supplementary Table 3. Correlation of MYC Nuclear Staining with HER2 FISH - Arm A; Supplementary Data Table 4. Correlation of MYC Nuclear Staining with HER2 FISH - Arm B; Supplementary Table 5. Correlation of MYC Nuclear Staining with HER2 FISH - Arm C

Supplementary Figure 1 - PDF file 5863K, NCCTG N9831 Trial Incorporating Trastuzumab in Adjuvant Therapy

Purpose: To investigate the associations between baseline and posttreatment circulating tumor cell (CTC) gene expression and outcome of patients enrolled in four North Central Cancer Treatment Group metastatic breast cancer (MBC) trials in which specimens were shipped (at 4°C) from community-based sites to a reference laboratory (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN).Experimental Design: Blood was collected at treating sites from MBC patients before (baseline), during, and at the end of treatment with erlotinib + gemcitabine (N0234), sorafenib (N0336), irinotecan + cetuximab (N0436), or paclitaxel-poliglumex + capecitabine (N0437). CTCs from 10 mL of EDTA blood were enriched with CD45 depletion, 24 to 30 hours postblood collection. Reverse transcription/quantitative PCR was used to determine cytokeratin-19 (CK19) and mammaglobin (MGB1) mRNA levels in CTCs from up to 13 (N0234), 16 (N0336), 18 (N0436), and 39 (N0437) patients. The gene expressions were normalized to β2-microglobulin and calibrated to healthy blood using the 2–ΔΔCq algorithm; positivity was defined as 2 or more.Results:CK19+mRNA cells were detected in 56% to 75% and MGB1+mRNA cells in 23% to 38% of 86 patients at baseline. CK19+mRNA cells were detected in 30% to 67% and MGB1+mRNA cells in 14% to 64% of 110 postbaseline serial samples. The presence of baseline CK19+mRNA cells (P = 0.01) but not MGB1+mRNA cells (P = 0.14) was significantly associated with shorter overall survival. A decrease in MGB1+mRNA levels (baseline-week 8) seemed to be associated with clinical response (P = 0.05).Conclusions: CTC gene expression analysis conducted by a reference laboratory is feasible when blood is collected from treating sites and processed 24 to 30 hours postcollection. The presence of baseline CK19+mRNA CTCs was associated with poor prognosis; a decrease in MGB1+mRNA CTCs may help predict response to therapy of MBC patients. Clin Cancer Res; 17(22); 7183–93. ©2011 AACR.

Highlights • Acute patient-reported outcomes were compared with investigator-reported outcomes. • We identified low agreement between IR-CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE for prostate cancer. • Physicians underestimated the frequency and severity of GU symptoms and diarrhea. • The end of treatment was a key timepoint showing high levels of discordance., Purpose We report acute patient-reported outcomes using CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) of proton beam radiotherapy for high-risk or unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer in a prospective clinical trial. PRO-CTCAE were correlated with investigator reported-CTCAE (IR-CTCAE) to assess the degree of concordance. Methods and materials 11 PRO-CTCAE questions assessed gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary (GU), or erectile function side effects. The correlation scheme between PRO-CTCAE and IR-CTCAE was independently developed by two physicians. Analyses of PRO-CTCAE and IR-CTCAE were conducted using both descriptive terms and the converted grade scores. The Kappa statistic described the degree of concordance. Results 55 patients were included. IR-CTCAE underestimated diarrhea compared to PRO-CTCAE at the end of treatment (EOT), with a 28% rate of underestimation (11% by ≥ 2 toxicity grades). Similarly, urinary tract pain was underestimated in 45% of cases (17% by ≥ 2 grades) at EOT. Differences were less pronounced at baseline or 3 months after radiotherapy. The incidence of urinary urgency and frequency tended to be overestimated prior to treatment (36% and 24%, respectively) but underestimated at EOT (35% and 31%, respectively). The degree of interference with daily activities was consistently overestimated by investigators (45%-85%). Finally, erectile dysfunction showed a 36–56% rate of discordance by ≥ 2 toxicity grades. Conclusions Our study shows a low agreement between IR-CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE in the setting of proton therapy for prostate cancer. Compared to patient-reported outcomes, physicians underestimated the frequency and severity of urinary symptoms and diarrhea at the end of treatment. Continued use of PROs should be strongly encouraged.

Background: Patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) suffer from chronic and progressive symptom burden. MPN trials capturing patient-reported symptoms routinely administer the MPN Symptom Assessment Form (SAF). The MPN-10 assesses 10 of the most clinically relevant symptoms, including fatigue and generates a Total Symptom Score (TSS). The original MPN-10 included a fatigue item from the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI). The myelofibrosis-specific symptom assessment tool called the MFSAF v4 utilizes a fatigue item developed to be consistent with other items within the SAF. This study sought to validate a modified version of the MPN-10 TSS using the SAF fatigue item for harmonization with MFSAF v4. Methods: Survey data from two cohorts of patients with essential thrombocythemia, polycythemia vera, or myelofibrosis assessing MPN characteristics and symptom burden were used. Results and conclusion: BFI and SAF fatigue items were highly correlated in raw score (Pearson r = 0.88), comparable in their severity categorizations (89% agreement for severe versus non-severe) and respective contributions to the TSS (both Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89). Reliability of SAF fatigue was acceptable and independently associated with known disease-related characteristics (splenomegaly, low quality-of-life, and distress). Fatigue in patients with MPNs is measured with high similarity using the SAF fatigue item within the MPN-10 in harmonization with the MFSAF v4. J Hematol. 2021;10(5):207-211 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jh914

Purpose Missing scores complicate analysis of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) because patients with and without missing scores may systematically differ. We focus on optimal analysis methods for incomplete PRO-CTCAE items, with application to two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trials. Methods In Alliance A091105 and COMET-2, patients completed PRO-CTCAE items before randomization and several times post-randomization (N = 64 and 107, respectively). For each trial, we conducted between-arm comparisons on the PRO-CTCAE via complete-case two-sample t-tests, mixed modeling with contrast, and multiple imputation followed by two-sample t-tests. Because interest lies in whether CTCAE grades can inform missing PRO-CTCAE scores, we performed multiple imputation with and without CTCAE grades as auxiliary variables to assess the added benefit of including them in the imputation model relative to only including PRO-CTCAE scores across all cycles. Results PRO-CTCAE completion rates ranged from 100.0 to 71.4% and 100.0 to 77.1% across time in A091105 and COMET-2, respectively. In both trials, mixed modeling and multiple imputation provided the most similar estimates of the average treatment effects. Including CTCAE grades in the imputation model did not consistently narrow confidence intervals of the average treatment effects because correlations for the same PRO-CTCAE item between different cycles were generally stronger than correlations between each PRO-CTCAE item and its corresponding CTCAE grade at the same cycle. Conclusion For between-arm comparisons, mixed modeling and multiple imputation are informative techniques for handling missing PRO-CTCAE scores. CTCAE grades do not provide added benefit for informing missing PRO-CTCAE scores. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02066181 (Alliance A091105); NCT01522443 (COMET-2).

Inflammatory cytokines perturb hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) homeostasis and modulate the fitness of neoplastic HSC clones in mouse models. However, the study of cytokines in human hematopoiesis is challenging due to the concerted activities of multiple cytokines across physiologic and pathologic processes. To overcome this limitation, we leveraged serial bone marrow samples from patients with CALR-mutated myeloproliferative neoplasms who were treated with recombinant interferon-alpha (IFNa). We interrogated baseline and IFNa-treated CD34+ stem and progenitor cells using single-cell multi-omics platforms that directly link, within the same cell, the mutation status, whole transcriptomes and immunophenotyping or chromatin accessibility. We identified a novel IFNa-induced inflammatory granulocytic progenitor defined by expression and activities of RFX2/3 and AP-1 transcription factors, with evidence supporting a direct differentiation from HSCs. On the other hand, IFNa also induced a significant B-lymphoid progenitor expansion and proliferation, associated with enhanced activities of PU.1 and its co- regulator TCF3, as well as decreased accessibility of megakaryocytic-erythroid transcription factor GATA1 binding sites in HSCs. In the neoplastic hematopoiesis, the lymphoid expansion was constrained by a preferential myeloid skewing of the mutated cells, linked with increased myeloid proliferation and enhanced CEBPA and GATA1 activities compared to wildtype cells. Further, IFNa caused a downregulation of the TNFa signaling pathway, with downregulation of NFKB and AP-1 transcription factors. Thus, IFNa simultaneously initiated both – pro-inflammatory and anti- inflammatory – cell states within the same hematopoiesis, and its phenotypic impact varied as a function of the underlying HSC state and mutation status.

Introduction: Testing healthcare delivery interventions in rigorous clinical trials is a critical step in improving patient care, but conducting multisite randomized clinical trials to test the effect of care delivery interventions has unique challenges and requires foresight and planning. Methods: We conducted the first care delivery trial (A191402CD) in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, a National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program research base, which tested the effectiveness of two different decision aids for supporting shared decision-making about prostate cancer treatment. Our experience illustrates the kind of challenges that confront care delivery researchers as they seek to test interventions to improve the experiences of patients. Results: Lessons learned include the following: cluster-randomized designs introduce complexity; workflow disruption can discourage site participation; evidence-based methods may not always be sufficient. Conclusion: We conclude with the following recommendations: assessing feasibility requires special rigor; relationships and interpersonal dynamics must be leveraged. Our experiences may inform future care delivery research.

Summary Background Palbociclib added to endocrine therapy improves progression-free survival in hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer. The PALLAS trial aimed to investigate whether the addition of 2 years of palbociclib to adjuvant endocrine therapy improves invasive disease-free survival over endocrine therapy alone in patients with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, early-stage breast cancer. Methods PALLAS is an ongoing multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study that enrolled patients at 406 cancer centres in 21 countries worldwide with stage II–III histologically confirmed hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, within 12 months of initial diagnosis. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) in permuted blocks of random size (4 or 6), stratified by anatomic stage, previous chemotherapy, age, and geographical region, by use of central telephone-based and web-based interactive response technology, to receive either 2 years of palbociclib (125 mg orally once daily on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle) with ongoing standard provider or patient-choice adjuvant endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor, with or without concurrent luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonist), or endocrine therapy alone, without masking. The primary endpoint of the study was invasive disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who started palbociclib or endocrine therapy. This report presents results from the second pre-planned interim analysis triggered on Jan 9, 2020, when 67% of the total number of expected invasive disease-free survival events had been observed. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02513394) and EudraCT (2014-005181-30). Findings Between Sept 1, 2015, and Nov 30, 2018, 5760 patients were randomly assigned to receive palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (n=2883) or endocrine therapy alone (n=2877). At the time of the planned second interim analysis, at a median follow-up of 23·7 months (IQR 16·9–29·2), 170 of 2883 patients assigned to palbociclib plus endocrine therapy and 181 of 2877 assigned to endocrine therapy alone had invasive disease-free survival events. 3-year invasive disease-free survival was 88·2% (95% CI 85·2–90·6) for palbociclib plus endocrine therapy and 88·5% (85·8–90·7) for endocrine therapy alone (hazard ratio 0·93 [95% CI 0·76–1·15]; log-rank p=0·51). As the test statistic comparing invasive disease-free survival between groups crossed the prespecified futility boundary, the independent data monitoring committee recommended discontinuation of palbociclib in patients still receiving palbociclib and endocrine therapy. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (1742 [61·3%] of 2840 patients on palbociclib and endocrine therapy vs 11 [0·3%] of 2903 on endocrine therapy alone), leucopenia (857 [30·2%] vs three [0·1%]), and fatigue (60 [2·1%] vs ten [0·3%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 351 (12·4%) of 2840 patients on palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus 220 (7·6%) of 2903 patients on endocrine therapy alone. There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation At the planned second interim analysis, addition of 2 years of adjuvant palbociclib to adjuvant endocrine therapy did not improve invasive disease-free survival compared with adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. On the basis of these findings, this regimen cannot be recommended in the adjuvant setting. Long-term follow-up of the PALLAS population and correlative studies are ongoing. Funding Pfizer.

Background: The association between obesity and prognosis in HER2-positive early breast cancer remains unclear, with limited data available. This study aimed to determine the impact of body mass index (BMI) at baseline and weight change after 2 years on outcomes of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. Methods: ALTTO was a randomized phase III trial in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. BMI was collected at randomization and 2 years after. WHO BMI categories were used: underweight, 2; normal weight, 18.5 to 2; overweight, ≥25 to 2; and obese ≥30 kg/m2. A weight change from baseline of ≥5.0% and ≤5.0% was categorized as weight gain and weight loss. The impact of BMI at randomization and of weight change on disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and overall survival (OS) were investigated with multivariate analyses, adjusting for baseline patients and tumor characteristics. Results: A total of 8,381 patients were included: 187 (2.2%), 3,797 (45.3%), 2,690 (32.1%), and 1,707 (20.4%) were underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese at baseline, respectively. Compared with normal weight, being obese at randomization was associated with a significantly worse DDFS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04–1.50) and OS (aHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01–1.60), but no significant difference in DFS (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.97–1.32). Weight loss ≥5.0% at 2 years after randomization was associated with significantly poorer DFS (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.05–1.71), DDFS (aHR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.07–1.98), and OS (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.18–2.84). Hormone receptor and menopausal status but not anti-HER2 treatment type influenced outcomes. Toxicities were more frequent in obese patients. Conclusions: In patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer, obesity at baseline is a poor prognostic factor. Weight loss during treatment and follow-up negatively impacts clinical outcomes. Dietary counseling should be part of survivorship care programs.

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