Comparing an operation to monitoring, with or without endocrine therapy (COMET), for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)

TPS616

Background: Approximately 50,000 women in the U.S. are diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) each year. Without treatment, it is estimated that only 20-30% of DCIS will lead to invasive breast cancer (IBC). However, over 97% of women are currently treated with surgery +/- radiation. An alternative to surgery is active monitoring (AM), a management approach in which mammograms/physical exams are used to monitor breast changes and determine when, or if, surgery is needed. The COMET Study will compare risks and benefits of AM versus surgery for low-risk DCIS in the setting of a Phase III multicenter prospective randomized trial. The study is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The COMET trial opened in the U.S. in June 2017 (Clinicaltrials.gov reference: NCT02926911). In November 2021, the Data Safety Monitoring Board reviewed the trial and suggested that it continue as planned. Patient accrual will continue until 12/31/2022. Methods: The primary objective is to assess whether the 2-year ipsilateral IBC rate for AM is non-inferior to that for surgery. Secondary objectives include determining whether AM is non-inferior to surgery for 2-year mastectomy rate; breast conservation rate; contralateral breast cancer rate; overall and breast cancer-specific survival. Patient reported outcomes will enable comparison of health-related quality of life and psychosocial outcomes between surgery and AM groups at baseline, 6-months, and years 1-5. Eligibility criteria include: age > 40 at diagnosis; pathologic confirmation of grade I/II DCIS or atypia verging on DCIS without invasion by two pathologists; ER and/or PR ≥ 10%; no mass on physical exam or imaging. The accrual goal is 1200 randomized patients across 100 Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology sites. Sample size is estimated using a 2-group test of non-inferiority of proportions, with the 2-year IBC rate in the surgery group assumed to be 0.10 based on published studies and non-inferiority margin of 0.05. Based on a 1-sided un-pooled z-test, with alpha = 0.05, a sample size of n = 446 per group will have 80% power to detect the specified non-inferiority margin. Final analysis plan will include a per protocol component as well as a pragmatic component for patients who are randomized and decline participation in their assigned arm. Primary analyses will adjust for dropout, non-compliance and contamination by utilizing instrumental variable methods. Clinical trial information: NCT02926911.

Biomarkers for Adjuvant Endocrine and Chemotherapy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update recommendations on appropriate use of breast cancer biomarker assay results to guide adjuvant endocrine and chemotherapy decisions in early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS

An updated literature search identified randomized clinical trials and prospective-retrospective studies published from January 2016 to October 2021. Outcomes of interest included overall survival and disease-free or recurrence-free survival. Expert Panel members used informal consensus to develop evidence-based recommendations.

RESULTS

The search identified 24 studies informing the evidence base.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Clinicians may use Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, Breast Cancer Index (BCI), and EndoPredict to guide adjuvant endocrine and chemotherapy in patients who are postmenopausal or age > 50 years with early-stage estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (ER+ and HER2-) breast cancer that is node-negative or with 1-3 positive nodes. Prosigna and BCI may be used in postmenopausal patients with node-negative ER+ and HER2- breast cancer. In premenopausal patients, clinicians may use Oncotype in patients with node-negative ER+ and HER2- breast cancer. Current data suggest that premenopausal patients with 1-3 positive nodes benefit from chemotherapy regardless of genomic assay result. There are no data on use of genomic tests to guide adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with ≥ 4 positive nodes. Ki67 combined with other parameters or immunohistochemistry 4 score may be used in postmenopausal patients without access to genomic tests to guide adjuvant therapy decisions. BCI may be offered to patients with 0-3 positive nodes who received 5 years of endocrine therapy without evidence of recurrence to guide decisions about extended endocrine therapy. None of the assays are recommended for treatment guidance in individuals with HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer. Treatment decisions should also consider disease stage, comorbidities, and patient preferences.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

"Is it cancer or not?" A qualitative exploration of survivor concerns surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ

BACKGROUND

Of the nearly 50,000 women in the United States who undergo treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) annually, many may not benefit from treatment. To better understand the impact of a DCIS diagnosis, patients self-identified as having had DCIS were engaged regarding their experience.

METHODS

In July 2014, a web-based survey was administered through the Susan Love Army of Women breast cancer listserv. The survey included open-ended questions designed to assess patients' perspectives about DCIS diagnosis and treatment. Deductive and inductive codes were applied to the responses; common themes were summarized.

RESULTS

Among the 1832 women included in the analytic sample, the median age at diagnosis was 60 years. Four primary themes were identified: 1) uncertainty surrounding a DCIS diagnosis, 2) uncertainty about DCIS treatment, 3) concern about treatment side effects, and 4) concern about recurrence and/or developing invasive breast cancer. When diagnosed, participants were often uncertain about whether they had cancer or not and whether they should be considered a "survivor." Uncertainty about treatment manifested as questioning the appropriateness of the amount of treatment received. Participants expressed concern about the "cancer spreading" or becoming invasive and that they were not necessarily "doing enough" to prevent recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large, national sample, participants with a history of DCIS reported confusion and concern about the diagnosis and treatment, which caused worry and significant uncertainty. Developing strategies to improve patient and provider communications regarding the nature of DCIS and acknowledging gaps in the current knowledge of management options should be a priority.

Do you mind if I record?: Perceptions and practice regarding patient requests to record clinic visits in oncology

BACKGROUND

Audio recordings of oncology clinic discussions can help patients retain and understand information about their disease and treatment decisions. Access to this tool relies on acceptance of recordings by oncologists. This is the first study to evaluate experience and attitudes of oncologists toward patients recording clinic visits.

METHODS

Medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists from 5 US cancer centers and community affiliates were surveyed to evaluate clinicians' experience, beliefs, and practices regarding patient-initiated recordings.

RESULTS

Among 360 oncologists (69% response rate), virtually all (93%) have experienced patients seeking to record visits. Although 75% are comfortable with recording, 25% are uncomfortable and 56% report concerns ranging from less thorough discussions to legal liability. Most (85%) always agree when patients ask to record, but 15% never or selectively allow recording. Although 51% believe recording is positive for the patient-physician relationship, a sizable minority report that it can lead to less detailed conversations (28%) or avoidance of difficult topics, including prognosis (33%). Views did not vary based on subspecialty, practice setting, or geographic region, but older age and years in practice were associated with more positive views of recording. The majority of clinicians (72%) desire institutional policies to govern guidelines about recordings.

CONCLUSIONS

Most oncologists are comfortable with patient requests to record visits, but a sizable minority remain uncomfortable, and access to recording varies solely on physician preference. This difference in care delivery may benefit from institutional policies that promote access while addressing legitimate physician concerns over privacy and appropriate use of recordings.

Oncologist experiences regarding patient-recorded clinical encounters: Implications for the patient-doctor relationship

290

Background: The high prevalence of smartphone use means that most patients can easily audio record medical consultations. Oncologists’ attitudes towards recording visits are unknown yet may impact patient care. Methods: A mail survey of oncologists practicing at 5 U.S. Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology sites collected information on clinicians’ beliefs, preferences, and practices regarding patient-initiated recordings, along with sociodemographic and practice characteristics. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were calculated. Results: Of 523 eligible oncologists, 352 (67%) completed the survey. Median age was 47 years, 33% were female, and 86% worked in an academic setting. 53% were medical oncologists, 30% surgical oncologists, and 17% radiation oncologists. Virtually all (93%) reported experience with patients recording visits, 79% at least weekly. The majority (74%) perceived that patients record visits in order to help understand treatment choices. While 79% reported that they “always” agree to recordings, 26% reported discomfort. Nearly one-third (29%) reported concerns about liability, 26% felt recording made discussion less natural, and 18% felt recording changed the way they conveyed information. Although 86% agreed that patients have the right to record visits, nearly all felt physician permission was required and 53% reported having been previously recorded without permission. Only 51% believed recording had a positive impact on the patient-doctor relationship. One-quarter (28%) felt that recording led to a less detailed conversation and 33% felt it contributed to avoidance of difficult topics, such as prognosis. Most preferred the patient/family taking notes or having access to a written summary. Views did not vary significantly based on practice setting, specialty, or region of the country. Older age and greater years in practice were associated with both greater comfort with recording and the perception that recording has a positive impact on the patient-doctor relationship (p < 0.001). Conclusions: While most oncologists report comfort with audio recording and recognize benefits for patients, a substantial minority have reservations about its impact on clinical discussions and their liability exposure. Adopting clear institutional policies about recording could help address some concerns, such as surreptitious recording, while ensuring that patients’ interests are served.

Abstract P1-21-07: The Patient-reported Outcomes after Routine Treatment of Atypical Lesions (PORTAL) study: Pain, psychosocial wellbeing, and quality of life among women undergoing guideline concordant care for DCIS vs. active surveillance for in situ and atypical lesions

Background: Guideline-concordant care (GCC) for DCIS includes surgery, radiation, and endocrine treatment. Active surveillance (AS) is a strategy under study for management of low risk DCIS. The PORTAL Study was designed to evaluate patient reported outcomes (PROs) after GCC for DCIS compared to women who received AS for DCIS combined with women with a history of other atypical lesions (atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), or atypical lobular hyperplasia/lobular carcinoma in situ (LN), as proxies for AS-managed DCIS. Methods: The PORTAL Study invited women age≥ 18, diagnosed with DCIS, ADH, or LN between 2012-2017 from 4 academic centers to complete a one-time, cross-sectional survey. Clinical, pathological, and treatment information was obtained from medical record review. The primary outcome was breast/chest wall pain assessed with the Breast Cancer Pain Questionnaire (BCPQ) including severity (10-point scale, ≥3=clinically relevant), a Pain Burden Index (PBI), which is a composite of severity, frequency, and location (breast, arm, side, axilla) and assessments of sensory disturbances, and impact of pain on emotional and physical functioning. Additional PROs included measures of generalized pain (Brief Pain Inventory), anxiety (STAI-Short Form), depression (CES-D), and QOL (Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors). Pain, psychosocial, and QOL outcomes were compared between the GCC vs. AS groups using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Chi-Square tests. Results: Of 1565 patients invited and sent a survey, 927 (59%) responded to the survey with evaluable pain outcome data. Median time from diagnosis was 3.8 years. Median age at survey completion was 58 (range: 26-94) years; 13% identified as non-White; 4% Hispanic. Among those with DCIS (n=554), 97% had GCC (62%, lumpectomy, 38%, mastectomy; 48%, radiation), representing 58% of participants vs 42% representing AS. The prevalence of clinically relevant pain was higher in the GCC vs. AS group (16.5% vs 9%, p=.0009). Median BCPQ-PBI, sensory disturbance, physical, and emotional impact scores were all higher (p&lt;.0001) in the GCC vs. AS group (Table); BPI scores for pain severity and interference were similar between groups. QOL, anxiety and depressive symptoms were similar among women who had GCC compared to the AS group. Conclusion: Women with DCIS who have undergone GCC experience more breast/chest wall pain and report greater impact of pain on physical and emotional functioning in long term follow-up, compared to women who have undergone AS for DCIS or are managed for other atypical lesions. Given that many women with low risk DCIS may be unlikely to develop invasive cancer, improved understanding of the potential trade-offs of GCC vs AS can help support informed decision making in women with DCIS who are considering their treatment options. Ongoing prospective trials will provide further information regarding risks and benefits of AS vs GCC for women with low risk DCIS.

BCPQ Scores, GCC vs. ASGCCASMean (range)Median (IQR)Mean (range)Median (IQR)p*PBI6.4 (0-80)0 (0-9)2.9 (0-64)0 (0-0)&lt;.0001Sensory disturbance1.4 (0-9)0 (0-2)0.6 (0-9)0 (0-0)&lt;.0001Physical impact9.6 (0-67)0 (0-19)4.4 (0-56)0 (0-0)&lt;.0001Emotional impact1.4 (0-33)0 (0-1)0.6 (0-38)0 (0-0)&lt;.0001*Wilcoxon rank sum test comparing median scores

Citation Format: Shoshana M Rosenberg, Laura H Hendrix, Kristin L Schreiber, Alastair M Thompson, Isabelle Bedrosian, Kevin S Hughes, Thomas Lynch, Desiree Basila, Deborah E Collyar, Elizabeth S Frank, Sonja Darai, Conor Lanahan, Jeffrey R Marks, Jennifer K Plichta, Terry Hyslop, Ann H Partridge, E. Shelley Hwang. The Patient-reported Outcomes after Routine Treatment of Atypical Lesions (PORTAL) study: Pain, psychosocial wellbeing, and quality of life among women undergoing guideline concordant care for DCIS vs. active surveillance for in situ and atypical lesions [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-21-07.

Use of Biomarkers to Guide Decisions on Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Women With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update—Integration of Results From TAILORx

PURPOSE

This focused update addresses the use of Onco type DX in guiding decisions on the use of adjuvant systemic therapy.

METHODS

ASCO uses a signals approach to facilitate guideline updating. For this focused update, the publication of the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx) evaluating noninferiority of endocrine therapy alone versus chemoendocrine therapy for invasive disease–free survival in women with Onco type DX scores provided a signal. An expert panel reviewed the results of TAILORx along with other published literature on the Onco type DX assay to assess for evidence of clinical utility.

UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS

For patients with hormone receptor–positive, axillary node–negative breast cancer whose tumors have Onco type DX recurrence scores of less than 26, there is little to no benefit from chemotherapy, especially for patients older than age 50 years. Clinicians may recommend endocrine therapy alone for women older than age 50 years. For patients 50 years of age or younger with recurrence scores of 16 to 25, clinicians may offer chemoendocrine therapy. Patients with recurrence scores greater than 30 should be considered candidates for chemoendocrine therapy. Based on informal consensus, the panel recommends that oncologists may offer chemoendocrine therapy to these patients with recurrence scores of 26 to 30. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

CALGB (Alliance) 40603: Long-term outcomes (LTOs) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) +/- carboplatin (Cb) and bevacizumab (Bev) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC)

591

Background: Both Cb and Bev demonstrate activity when combined with standard chemotherapy in TNBC. CALGB 40603 is a 2x2 randomized trial that previously demonstrated that adding Cb to NACT significantly increased pathologic complete responses in the breast/axilla (pCR), while adding Bev did not (Sikov, JCO 2015). Here we report 5-year LTOs and assess factors that influenced them. Methods: 443 patients with clinical stage II-III previously untreated TNBC received 12 weeks of paclitaxel (wP) +/- Cb then dose-dense AC, +/- Bev before surgery. The primary endpoint was pCR. Analyses of LTOs (event-free survival (EFS), distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) and overall survival (OS)), impact of residual cancer burden and other variables were secondary. Results: Median follow-up was 5.7 years (y); 5y EFS was 70.9% (95% CI; 66.7%-75.4%), DRFI 76.3% (72.3%-80.5%) and OS 76.9% (72.9%-81.2%). Pretreatment clinical stage and achieving pCR correlated with LTOs, while age, race, subtype (basal-like vs. not) and tumor grade did not. Among pCR 5y EFS was 86.4% vs. 57.5% for non-pCR (HR 0.28, 0.19-0.43), OS was 88.7% vs 66.5% (HR = 0.28, 0.17-0.44). This relationship was similar in all trial arms. Any residual disease conferred poorer outcome; compared with pCR/Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) 0, EFS HRs were 2.29 (1.32-3.97), 3.01 (1.90-4.74), and 9.67 (5.66-16.51) for RCBI, II and III, respectively. There were no improvements in LTOs with Cb (EFS HR 0.99, 0.70-1.40) or Bev (EFS HR 0.91, 0.64-1.29). In an exploratory analysis, receipt of ≥11 doses of wP was associated with better EFS (HR 1.92, 1.33-2.77); this was particularly notable in Cb-treated arms. Conclusions: As expected, regardless of treatment arm pCR was associated with markedly better LTOs, and pts with any residual disease had significantly worse outcomes. The addition of Cb or Bev to standard NACT for TNBC did not improve LTOs in this trial, although it should be noted that the trial was not powered for this endpoint. Omission of chemotherapy doses may result in poorer outcomes, especially among Cb-treated pts, which may warrant further evaluation. Support: U10CA180821; U10CA180882; Genentech; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ; NCT00861705 Clinical trial information: NCT00861705.

Gene Expression Assays for Early-Stage Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: Understanding the Differences

Biomarkers are frequently used to guide decisions for treatment of early-stage estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR) receptor–positive (ER/PR+) invasive breast cancers and have been incorporated into guidelines. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2016 guideline and a 2017 update were recently published to help clinicians use the tests available. ASCO currently recommends five tests that show evidence of clinical utility based on the parameters defined in the guideline. These include the 21-gene assay (Oncotype DX), Prediction of Analysis of Microarray-50 (PAM50), 12-gene risk score (Endopredict), Breast Cancer Index (BCI), and, most recently, the 70-gene assay (Mammaprint). However, discordance is often seen when the results of these gene assays are compared in a particular patient, for a number of reasons: the assays were initially developed to answer different questions, and the molecular makeup of each signature reflects this; the patient populations that were studied also differed and may not reflect the patient being tested; furthermore, the study design and statistical analysis varied between each test, leading to different scoring scales that may not be comparable. In this review, the background on the development and validation of these assays is discussed, and studies comparing them are reviewed. To provide guidance on which test to choose, the studies that support the level of evidence for clinical utility are presented. However, the choice of a particular test will also be influenced by socioeconomic factors, clinical factors, and patient preferences. We hope that a better understanding of the scientific and clinical rationale for each test will allow patients and providers to make optimal decisions for treatment of early-stage ER/PR+ breast cancer.

Use of Biomarkers to Guide Decisions on Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Women With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update

Purpose This focused update addresses the use of MammaPrint (Agendia, Irvine, CA) to guide decisions on the use of adjuvant systemic therapy. Methods ASCO uses a signals approach to facilitate guideline updates. For this focused update, the publication of the phase III randomized MINDACT (Microarray in Node-Negative and 1 to 3 Positive Lymph Node Disease May Avoid Chemotherapy) study to evaluate the MammaPrint assay in 6,693 women with early-stage breast cancer provided a signal. An expert panel reviewed the results of the MINDACT study along with other published literature on the MammaPrint assay to assess for evidence of clinical utility. Recommendations If a patient has hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, node-negative breast cancer, the MammaPrint assay may be used in those with high clinical risk to inform decisions on withholding adjuvant systemic chemotherapy due to its ability to identify a good-prognosis population with potentially limited chemotherapy benefit. Women in the low clinical risk category did not benefit from chemotherapy regardless of genomic MammaPrint risk group. Therefore, the MammaPrint assay does not have clinical utility in such patients. If a patient has hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive breast cancer, the MammaPrint assay may be used in patients with one to three positive nodes and a high clinical risk to inform decisions on withholding adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. However, such patients should be informed that a benefit from chemotherapy cannot be excluded, particularly in patients with greater than one involved lymph node. The clinician should not use the MammaPrint assay to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive breast cancer at low clinical risk, nor any patient with HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer, because of the lack of definitive data in these populations. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Use of Biomarkers to Guide Decisions on Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Women With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide recommendations on appropriate use of breast tumor biomarker assay results to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer.

METHODS

A literature search and prospectively defined study selection sought systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, prospective-retrospective studies, and prospective comparative observational studies published from 2006 through 2014. Outcomes of interest included overall survival and disease-free or recurrence-free survival. Expert panel members used informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 50 relevant studies. One randomized clinical trial and 18 prospective-retrospective studies were found to have evaluated the clinical utility, as defined by the guideline, of specific biomarkers for guiding decisions on the need for adjuvant systemic therapy. No studies that met guideline criteria for clinical utility were found to guide choice of specific treatments or regimens.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In addition to estrogen and progesterone receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, the panel found sufficient evidence of clinical utility for the biomarker assays Oncotype DX, EndoPredict, PAM50, Breast Cancer Index, and urokinase plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 in specific subgroups of breast cancer. No biomarker except for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 was found to guide choices of specific treatment regimens. Treatment decisions should also consider disease stage, comorbidities, and patient preferences.

Community needs, concerns, and perceptions about health research: findings from the clinical and translational science award sentinel network

OBJECTIVES

We used results generated from the first study of the National Institutes of Health Sentinel Network to understand health concerns and perceptions of research among underrepresented groups such as women, the elderly, racial/ethnic groups, and rural populations.

METHODS

Investigators at 5 Sentinel Network sites and 2 community-focused national organizations developed a common assessment tool used by community health workers to assess research perceptions, health concerns, and conditions.

RESULTS

Among 5979 individuals assessed, the top 5 health concerns were hypertension, diabetes, cancer, weight, and heart problems; hypertension was the most common self-reported condition. Levels of interest in research participation ranged from 70.1% among those in the "other" racial/ethnic category to 91.0% among African Americans. Overall, African Americans were more likely than members of other racial/ethnic groups to be interested in studies requiring blood samples (82.6%), genetic samples (76.9%), or medical records (77.2%); staying overnight in a hospital (70.5%); and use of medical equipment (75.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Top health concerns were consistent across geographic areas. African Americans reported more willingness to participate in research even if it required blood samples or genetic testing.

Patient advocates' role in clinical trials: perspectives from Cancer and Leukemia Group B investigators and advocates

BACKGROUND

Patient advocates are increasingly involved in cooperative group trials, single-institution cancer programs, and peer-review of research applications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role and value of patient advocates from the perspective of Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) advocates and investigators.

METHODS

An online survey was sent to current and past (within 5 years) patient advocates and investigators. RESULTS.: Response rates were 72.7% (16 of 22) for advocates and 56.4% (102 of 181) for investigators. Patient advocates were more likely than investigators to report the following: the clinical trial process benefited from advocate involvement on committees (100% of advocates vs 72.1% of investigators; P < .05), advocates contribute to protocol development (92.8% vs 33.8%, respectively; P < .001), the cultural appropriateness of protocols (21.4% vs 10.4%, respectively; P < .05), advocates assist with patient accrual (78.6% vs 23.4%, respectively; P < .001), and advocates add value to concept development and protocol review (100% vs 63.2%, respectively; P < .001). Over half of advocates and investigators reported gaps in patient advocate knowledge and suggested that additional clinical trials training was needed. To improve clinical trials, advocates suggested their earlier involvement in protocol development and increased support from investigators. CALGB investigators recommended improving patient advocate selection and communication skills training:

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patient advocates and investigators perceived benefits from advocate involvement in the clinical trials process; patient advocates placed more value on their role than investigators. The current results indicated that strategies to improve advocacy training and advocate-investigator communication may further enhance the role of patient advocates, and future studies that clarify the role of advocates in the prioritization and development of protocol, consent, and education materials, and on patient accrual, are warranted.

Biospecimens and people: a fundamental connection

This commentary includes the public- and patient-oriented perspective on research biospecimens and the National Cancer Institute's cancer HUman Biobank (caHUB) project. Definitions of biospecimens and the importance to the research community and the public are included, as are conditions that caused the impetus of the caHUB.

American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition

OBJECTIVE

To update an evidence-based technology assessment of chemoprevention strategies for breast cancer risk reduction. POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS: Tamoxifen, raloxifene, aromatase inhibition, and fenretinide.

OUTCOMES

Outcomes of interest include breast cancer incidence, breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and net health benefit.

EVIDENCE

A comprehensive, formal literature review was conducted for relevant topics. Testimony was collected from invited experts and interested parties. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) prescribed technology assessment procedure was followed.

VALUES

More weight was given to published randomized trials. BENEFITS/HARMS: A woman's decision regarding breast cancer risk reduction strategies is complex and will depend on the importance and weight attributed to information regarding both cancer- and noncancer-related risks and benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

For women with a defined 5-year projected breast cancer risk of > or= 1.66%, tamoxifen (at 20 mg/d for 5 years) may be offered to reduce their risk. Risk/benefit models suggest that greatest clinical benefit with least side effects is derived from use of tamoxifen in younger (premenopausal) women (who are less likely to have thromboembolic sequelae and uterine cancer), women without a uterus, and women at higher breast cancer risk. Data do not as yet suggest that tamoxifen provides an overall health benefit or increases survival. In all circumstances, tamoxifen use should be discussed as part of an informed decision-making process with careful consideration of individually calculated risks and benefits. Use of tamoxifen combined with hormone replacement therapy or use of raloxifene, any aromatase inhibitor or inactivator, or fenretinide to lower the risk of developing breast cancer is not recommended outside of a clinical trial setting. This technology assessment represents an ongoing process and recommendations will be updated in a timely matter.

VALIDATION

The conclusions were endorsed by the ASCO Health Services Research Committee and the ASCO Board of Directors.

Breast cancer: a global perspective

The 2001 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) International Symposium, Breast Cancer: A Global Perspective, was conducted by members of the ASCO International Committee and additional speakers from around the world. An interactive format was chosen to: (1) learn how patterns of incidence, epidemiology, and causal biology relate to breast cancer around the world; (2) discuss the challenges in screening, diagnosis, and treatment of breast cancer, as well as its socioeconomic impact in various regions; (3) describe international differences in approach to and management of advanced breast cancer; and (4) discuss treatment in terms of hormone response, clinical research, and drug metabolism. After a brief introduction, each speaker gave an overview of breast cancer challenges and issues in their country, and discussed how the following case might be diagnosed and treated: A 44-year-old mother who presents with a finding of a painless breast lump and no prior history of breast masses, trauma, or surgery. Comments from a patient perspective were then presented, followed by a panel discussion and closing remarks. Co-chairs of this Symposium included Deborah Collyar (President, PAIR-Patient Advocates in Research) and Elizabeth Eisenhauer, MD (Director, Investigational New Drug Program, National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group). Speakers included Gilberto Schwartsmann, MD (South America), Monica Morrow, MD (North America), Daniel Vorobiof, MD (South Africa), Rakesh Chopra, MD (India), Klaus Hoeffken, MD (Eastern Europe), Russell Basser, MD (Australia), Susan Matsuko Shinigawa (patient perspective), and Larry Norton, MD (closing remarks).

The Value of Clinical Trials from a Patient Perspective

Clinical trials are essential in developing new treatments, care, and prevention for people with cancer. Unfortunately U.S. accrual rates for adult cancers are approximately 2-3%, partly due to the way the clinical trial system operates. Breast cancer patient advocates know enrollment has to accelerate to translate the many new scientific discoveries into effective use. Most newly diagnosed women, however, know nothing about clinical trials or why to consider them. The way a woman is approached about clinical trials can create fear and misunderstanding during a time when her body puts her into a physiological state of shock. These misunderstandings exacerbate the situation, and can lead to mistrust that will taint future medical interactions if they are not assuaged immediately. Many women, family members, and friends want to investigate clinical trials, but have no guide to help them through this daunting process. They have to contact many sources, decipher medical jargon, find a "clinical trial doctor," and fight for insurance coverage. It is time for new approaches that make sense to patients. Clear information that helps people understand the value of research studies must also be presented in caring ways that reinforce the support people seek during crisis. Working together, cancer patient advocates and cancer researchers can provide this kind of useful information. The Clinical Trials Information Project (CTIP), a nonprofit organization established by patients and family members, has introduced a new approach through the CTIP Breast Cancer Kit

American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment on breast cancer risk reduction strategies: tamoxifen and raloxifene

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an evidence-based technology assessment to determine whether tamoxifen and raloxifene as breast cancer risk-reduction strategies are appropriate for broad-based conventional use in clinical practice.

POTENTIAL INTERVENTION

Tamoxifen and raloxifene.

OUTCOME

Outcomes of interest include breast cancer incidence, breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and net health benefits.

EVIDENCE

A comprehensive, formal literature review was conducted for tamoxifen and raloxifene on the following topics: breast cancer risk reduction; tamoxifen side effects and toxicity, including endometrial cancer risk; tamoxifen influences on nonmalignant diseases, including coronary heart disease and osteoporosis; and decision making by women at risk for breast cancer. Testimony was collected from invited experts and interested parties.

VALUES

More weight was given to publications that described randomized trials. BENEFITS/HARMS/COSTS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Working Group acknowledges that a woman's decision regarding breast cancer risk-reduction strategies will depend on the importance and weight attributed to the information provided regarding both cancer and non-cancer-related risks.

CONCLUSIONS

For women with a defined 5-year projected risk of breast cancer of >/= 1.66%, tamoxifen (at 20 mg/d for up to 5 years) may be offered to reduce their risk. It is premature to recommend raloxifene use to lower the risk of developing breast cancer outside of a clinical trial setting. On the basis of available information, use of raloxifene should currently be reserved for its approved indication to prevent bone loss in postmenopausal women. Conclusions are based on single-agent use of the drugs. At the present time, the effect of using tamoxifen or raloxifene with other medications (such as hormone replacement therapy), or using tamoxifen and raloxifene in combination or sequentially, has not been studied adequately. The continuing use of placebo-controlled trials in other risk-reduction trials highlights the current unanswered issues concerning the use of such interventions, especially when the influence on net health benefit remains to be determined. Breast cancer risk reduction is a rapidly evolving area. This technology assessment represents an ongoing process with existing plans to monitor and review data and to update recommendations in a timely matter. (See

VALIDATION

The conclusions of the Working Group were evaluated by the ASCO Health Services Research Committee and by the ASCO Board of Directors.

SPONSOR

American Society of Clinical Oncology.