Patients with advanced cancer and their spouses parenting minor children: The role of the relationship context in parenting concerns

OBJECTIVE

Patients with advanced cancer who parent minor children report parenting concerns and increased psychological distress. This cross-sectional study seeks to understand parenting-related issues in patients and spousal caregivers from a relationship perspective.

METHODS

Patients with a metastatic solid malignancy and their spouses independently completed cross-sectional assessments of psychological distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), parenting concerns (Parenting Concern Questionnaire) and efficacy (Cancer-Related Parenting Self-Efficacy Scale), and relationship measures (DAS-7, Couples' Illness Communication Scale, and Family Relationship Index).

RESULTS

Of the 51 patients (57% female, 49% NHW, mean age 42 years) and spouses (43% female, 43% NHW, mean age of 42 years), approximately 50% couples endorsed psychological distress and were at risk for family dysfunction. Spouses reported significantly higher levels of parenting-related concerns (t = -2.0, p < 0.05) and anxiety (t = -2.8, p < 0.001) than patients. Parenting concerns were significantly associated with illness communication (r = -0.56, p < 0.001) and family function (r = -0.38, p < 0.001). Although the expected interactions between parenting concerns and relationship variables (i.e., illness communication, dyadic adjustment, and family function) were significant for depressive symptoms at p < 0.05, the associations were not in the expected direction. Relationship function buffered against depressive symptoms for those with low rather than high parenting concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Not only patients but also spouses report cancer-related parenting concerns. The associations between parenting concerns and distress were stronger for spouses than patients. Dual caregiving appears to be a particularly stressful role. Because relationship function was associated with parenting concerns, we suggest that parent support programs that are couple-based and include both parenting-specific and relationship-specific content may be most effective in reducing distress for this vulnerable population.

Systemic Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline

PURPOSE

To guide clinicians and policymakers in three global resource-constrained settings on treating patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) when Maximal setting-guideline recommended treatment is unavailable.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary, multinational panel reviewed existing ASCO guidelines and conducted modified ADAPTE and formal consensus processes.

RESULTS

Four published resource-agnostic guidelines were adapted for resource-constrained settings; informing two rounds of formal consensus; recommendations received ≥75% agreement.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Clinicians should recommend treatment according to menopausal status, pathological and biomarker features when quality results are available. In first-line, for hormone receptor (HR)-positive MBC, when a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor and CDK 4/6 inhibitor combination is unavailable, use hormonal therapy alone. For life-threatening disease, use single-agent chemotherapy or surgery for local control. For premenopausal patients, use ovarian suppression or ablation plus hormone therapy in Basic settings. For human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive MBC, if trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and chemotherapy are unavailable, use trastuzumab and chemotherapy; if unavailable, use chemotherapy. For HER2-positive, HR-positive MBC, use standard first-line therapy, or endocrine therapy if contraindications. For triple-negative MBC with unknown PD-L1 status, or if PD-L1-positive and immunotherapy unavailable, use single-agent chemotherapy. For germline BRCA1/2 mutation-positive MBC, if poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor is unavailable, use hormonal therapy (HR-positive MBC) and chemotherapy (HR-negative MBC). In second-line, for HR-positive MBC, Enhanced setting recommendations depend on prior treatment; for Limited, use tamoxifen or chemotherapy. For HER2-positive MBC, if trastuzumab deruxtecan is unavailable, use trastuzumab emtansine; if unavailable, capecitabine and lapatinib; if unavailable, trastuzumab and/or chemotherapy (hormonal therapy alone for HR-positive MBC).Additional information is available at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines. It is ASCO's view that healthcare providers and system decision-makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guideline is intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.

Obstetric and Neonatal Outcomes 1 or More Years After a Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate obstetric and neonatal outcomes of the first live birth conceived 1 or more years after breast cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

We performed a population-based study to compare live births between women with a history of breast cancer (case group) and matched women with no cancer history (control group). Individuals in the case and control groups were identified using linked data from the California Cancer Registry and California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development data sets. Individuals in the case group were diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer at age 18-45 years between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2012, and conceived 12 or more months after breast cancer diagnosis. Individuals in the control group were covariate-matched women without a history of breast cancer who delivered during 2000-2012. The primary outcome was preterm birth at less than 37 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes were preterm birth at less than 32 weeks of gestation, small for gestational age (SGA), cesarean delivery, severe maternal morbidity, and neonatal morbidity. Subgroup analyses were used to assess the effect of time from initial treatment to fertilization and receipt of additional adjuvant therapy before pregnancy on outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Of 30,021 women aged 18-45 years diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer during 2000-2012, 553 met the study inclusion criteria. Those with a history of breast cancer and matched women in the control group had similar odds of preterm birth at less than 37 weeks of gestation (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI 0.95-1.74), preterm birth at less than 32 weeks of gestation (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.34-1.79), delivering an SGA neonate (less than the 5th percentile: OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.35-1.03; less than the 10th percentile: OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.68-1.30), and experiencing severe maternal morbidity (OR 1.61; 95% CI 0.74-3.50). Patients with a history of breast cancer had higher odds of undergoing cesarean delivery (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.03-1.53); however, their offspring did not have increased odds of neonatal morbidity compared with women in the control group (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.81-1.62).

CONCLUSION

Breast cancer 1 or more years before fertilization was not strongly associated with obstetric and neonatal complications.

Advice from one patient to another: A qualitative analysis of patients’ perspectives about chemotherapy initiation

255

Background: Although the association between delays in (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy initiation and adverse outcomes is well-documented, research into what those with breast cancer experience during their delay is sparse. This information can provide insight for newly diagnosed women on preparing for chemotherapy initiation and inform potential interventions to facilitate chemotherapy initiation. This study aimed to assess and identify the multilevel factors contributing to the barriers and facilitators of initiating chemotherapy. We present a qualitative exploration of patient shared experiences navigating the cancer care journey from breast cancer diagnosis to treatment activation. Methods: In this qualitative study, we included English or Spanish-speaking women diagnosed with primary invasive breast cancer who experienced chemotherapy initiation delay. We conducted semi-structured interviews exploring perceptions about individual, community, and system-level barriers and facilitators contributing to starting chemotherapy. We prompted participants to reflect on their personal experience navigating their cancer journeys from initial diagnosis to treatment initiation. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded using the Sort and Sift, Think and Shift qualitative approach to identify concepts and themes within and across transcripts. Results: Twenty-two participants completed semi-structured interviews and questionnaires (range 27-70 years); they identified as Latina (n = 8), Black (n = 5), and non-Latina White (n = 9). Our participants thought that engaging their medical teams and seeking support earlier was essential for their treatment journeys. They emphasized being proactive and thorough in all aspects of their journey, particularly in processing medical recommendations, communicating with medical personnel, and identifying areas of need. Although explicit insight into chemotherapy delay was rare, participants expressed the importance of beginning treatment promptly. They shared advice on acquiring support (e.g., financial, emotional, logistical, spiritual) and suggested connecting with breast cancer survivors to overcome the complex challenges of cancer care. Conclusions: Patients outlined the benefit of attaining support outside of their medical teams to overcome barriers and initiate treatment promptly. Family, friends, and connecting with breast cancer survivors were vital in achieving activation. Patient perspectives regarding barriers and treatment facilitators are an essential insight into cancer care journeys that can inform interventions to support patients and improve outcomes. We are using these results to develop a pilot study, to test the acceptability and feasibility of a culturally relevant patient navigation intervention to increase self-efficacy and avoid treatment delays.

Overall survival (OS) with first-line palbociclib plus letrozole (PAL+LET) versus placebo plus letrozole (PBO+LET) in women with estrogen receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer (ER+/HER2− ABC): Analyses from PALOMA-2

LBA1003

Background: PAL was the first cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor approved for ER+/HER2– ABC based on the randomized, phase 2 PALOMA-1 study. PALOMA-2 is a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial in first-line ER+/HER2– ABC that confirmed a clinically and statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with PAL+LET versus PBO+LET (median PFS, 27.6 vs 14.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.46–0.69]; P<0.0001). At the time of the final PFS analysis, OS data were not mature. Herein, we report OS results. Methods: 666 postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2– ABC who had not received prior systemic therapy for advanced disease were randomized 2:1 to receive PAL (125 mg/d orally, 3/1 week schedule) plus LET (2.5 mg/d orally, continuously) or PBO+LET. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS and a key secondary endpoint was OS. Per study design, 390 OS events are required to have 80% power to detect a hazard ratio <0.74 at a significance level of 0.025 (1-sided) using a stratified log-rank test. The planned final OS analysis was conducted when the number of events required for the analysis was observed. Results: At data cut-off (November 15, 2021), with a median follow-up of 90 months, 43 patients (pts; 10%) remained on PAL+LET and 5 pts (2%) on PBO+LET. With 405 deaths, median OS (95% CI) was 53.9 months (49.8–60.8) in the PAL+LET arm and 51.2 months (43.7 –58.9) in the PBO+LET arm (hazard ratio, 0.956 [95% CI, 0.777–1.177]; stratified 1-sided P=0.3378). In this OS analysis, a proportion of pts were not available for follow-up (withdrew consent or lost to follow-up) and were censored: 21% in the PBO+LET arm versus 13% in the PAL+LET arm. A posthoc sensitivity analysis excluding these pts resulted in a median OS (95% CI) of 51.6 months (46.9–57.1) with PAL+LET and 44.6 months (37.0–52.3) with PBO+LET (hazard ratio, 0.869 [95% CI, 0.706–1.069]). Of the pts who discontinued study treatment, 81% in the PAL+LET arm and 88% in the PBO+LET arm received post-study systemic therapy; 12% and 27% of pts who discontinued received CDK4/6 inhibitor, respectively. In pts with disease-free interval (DFI) >12 months, median OS (95% CI) was 66.3 months (52.1–79.7) in the PAL+LET arm (n=179) and 47.4 months (37.7–57.0) in the PBO+LET arm (n=93); hazard ratio, 0.728 (95% CI, 0.528-1.005). No new safety findings were observed. Conclusions: PALOMA-2 met its primary endpoint of improving PFS but not the secondary endpoint of OS. Pts receiving PAL+LET had numerically longer OS compared to PBO+LET, but the results were not statistically significant. Funding: Pfizer Inc (NCT01740427) Clinical trial information: NCT01740427.

Incidence and severity of neutropenia in patients treated with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDKi) for metastatic breast cancer

e13036

Background: Palbociclib (P), ribociclib (R), and abemaciclib (A) are FDA approved CDKi used in combination with endocrine therapy for first- and second-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Neutropenia is a commonly encountered adverse effect with these agents. This analysis aimed to identify the incidence and severity of neutropenia in patients receiving CDKis. Methods: This retrospective, observational study used administrative data from the Optum’s de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database (January 2016-June 2020) to identify patients treated with P, R, or A and who had at least two ICD-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis codes for breast cancer separated by >30 days. Using claims, neutropenia was defined as either one inpatient diagnosis code or 2 outpatient diagnosis codes from the time of the patient’s first CDKi prescription claim to the time of the last claim plus 42 days. For the subset of patients who had laboratory results during their period of treatment with CDKi, neutropenia was defined as an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) <1500 and severe neutropenia as ANC <500. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to characterize the population and to identify risk factors for development of neutropenia. Results: Of the total of 8,158 included patients, 82% were treated with P, 4.1% with R, 7.5% with A, and 6.4% with more than one CDKi. Patient age ranged from 28 to 91 years (median= 68 years). Median follow up from initiation of CDKi until the end was 194 days. 17.5% patients had ICD claims indicating neutropenia but only 1.6% were hospitalized with a diagnosis of neutropenia. Neutropenia codes were observed in 31.6% patients treated with P, 24.6% patients treated with R, and 15.6% patients treated with A. Among the 4766 patients who had laboratory results, 81% were treated with P, 4% with R, 7% with A, and 8% with more than one CDKi. 31.6% of patients had neutropenia defined by ANC < 1500. Severe neutropenia was seen in 10.8% of patients treated with P, 5.7% of those treated with R, and 5% of those treated with A. In a logistic regression model among the patients with lab results, patients treated with P had increased odds of neutropenia compared to those treated with A (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.40-2.43) but patients treated with R vs A did not (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.95-2.25). Asian and Hispanic patients had higher odds of neutropenia (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.4, OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.8-2.6, respectively) compared to Whites, but Black patients had lower risk than White patients (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-0.9). Conclusions: Neutropenia remains a common side effect of CDKis, although the frequency of severe neutropenia is low. Of the three CDKis, P was associated with the highest rate of neutropenia.

Racial/ethnic disparities in locoregional recurrence in hormone-receptor positive node-negative breast cancer patients enrolled in the TAILORx trial

515

Background: Whether racial/ethnic disparities in locoregional recurrence (LRR) exist in patients (pts) with similar access to care treated on clinical trials is uncertain. We examined racial/ethnic differences in LRR in hormone-receptor positive HER2-negative (HR+HER2-) node-negative pts enrolled in the TAILORx trial. Methods: 10,273 pts age 18-75 were enrolled in TAILORx, which assigned pts with an OncotypeDx Recurrence Score (RS) <11 to endocrine therapy (ET) alone, those with RS >25 to chemotherapy + ET (CET), and randomized pts with RS 11-25 to ET or CET. Pts with unknown race/ethnicity (n=323) or incomplete treatment adherence information (n=1,168) were excluded from this analysis. Race/ethnicity was self-reported. LRR was defined as ipsilateral invasive in-breast, chest wall, or regional nodal recurrence without distant recurrence. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate 8-year LRR. Cox proportional hazards analysis adjusted for clinical and treatment factors was used to determine factors associated with LRR. Results: 8,782 pts with T1-2N0 HR+HER2- breast cancer were included. Race/ethnicity was non-Hispanic White (NHW) in 6,932 (78.9%), non-Hispanic Black (NHB) in 629 (7.2%), Hispanic in 818 (9.3%), and Asian in 403 (4.6%). Treatment adherence was high across groups over time, with a 9.1% crossover in treatment arms. Average duration of ET was 63.8 +/- 0.3 months. Radiation therapy was planned in 96.0% of pts after breast conservation and 12.7% after mastectomy. At a median follow-up of 8 years, LRR rates were 1.9% in NHW, 4.2% in in NHB, 3.2% in Hispanic, and 3.9% in Asian pts (p<0.01). LRR rates broken down by RS are shown in the Table. On adjusted analyses, NHB and Asian (vs. NHW) pts were more likely to have LRR (HR 1.94 for NHB, HR 2.04 for Asian, p<0.05 for both). Additional statistically significant factors associated with LRR included age <50 (HR 1.85), T2 tumors (HR 1.43), higher grade (HR 2.30 for grade 3), and high RS (HR 3.13 for RS>25). Treatment receipt (chemotherapy, ET duration, and radiation) was not associated with LRR in this population. Conclusions: Racial/ethnic differences in LRR were seen in T1-2N0 HR+HER2- breast cancer pts enrolled in the TAILORx trial despite high rates of treatment adherence in this clinical trial population, with highest LRR rates in NHB and Asian pts. Further study in needed to understand racial/ethnic patterns in LRR by breast cancer subtype and if failure to rescue after LRR may contribute to differences in breast cancer mortality.[Table: see text]

Trends in Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsies in Patients With Inflammatory Breast Cancer in the US

IMPORTANCE

The standard of care for inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is neoadjuvant chemotherapy, total mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), and postmastectomy radiation therapy. Existing studies suggest that sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) may not be reliable in IBC. The use and frequency of SLNB in women with IBC is not well characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency and temporal trend of SLNB in patients with IBC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study used the National Cancer Database, a nationwide hospital-based cancer registry, and included women who were diagnosed with nonmetastatic IBC and underwent axillary surgery from 2012 to 2017. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to May 2021.

EXPOSURES

Any SLNB, including SLNB alone and SLNB followed by ALND, and ALND alone.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Scatterplot fit with a linear regression model were used to evaluate the yearly increase of any SLNB use. Multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate the association of study variables with the outcome of any SLNB.

RESULTS

This study included a total of 1096 women (mean [SD] age, 56.1 [12.9] years) who were 18 years or older with nonmetastatic IBC diagnosed between 2012 and 2017. Of the 186 of 1096 women (17%) who received any SLNB, 137 (73.7%) were White individuals; and of the 910 of 1096 women (83%) who received an ALND only, 676 (74.3%) were White individuals. Among women undergoing any SLNB, 119 of 186 (64%) did not undergo a completion ALND. There was a statistically significant increasing trend in the use of SLNB from 2012 to 2017 (22 of 205 patients [11%] vs 32 of 148 patients [22%]; P = .004). In multivariable analysis, the use of SLNB was associated with diagnosis year (2017 vs 2012; odds ratio [OR], 2.26; 95% CI, 1.26-4.20), clinical nodal status (cN3 vs 0; OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67), and receipt of reconstructive surgery (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.09-2.96).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this cohort study suggest that there is frequent and increasing use of SLNB in patients with IBC that is not evidence-based or supported by current treatment guidelines.

A qualitative study informing about barriers and facilitators associated to chemotherapy initiation among breast cancer patients: Next steps for an intervention

247

Background: (Neo)Adjuvant chemotherapy decreases the risk of recurrence and improves overall survival among breast cancer patients; however, delays in chemotherapy initiation are associated with adverse outcomes. The causes of delay are complex and include interrelated social, economic, cultural, environmental, and health system factors . Project Start was a qualitative study designed to assess and identify the multilevel factors contributing to the barriers and facilitators of chemotherapy initiation. Methods: English or Spanish-speaking women, ≥18 years, diagnosed with primary invasive breast cancer experiencing (neo)-adjuvant chemotherapy initiation delay ( ≥60 days) were included. Participants completed semi-structured interviews designed to explore perceptions about individual, community, and system-level barriers and facilitators contributing to chemotherapy initiation. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded using the Sort and Sift, Think and Shift qualitative approach to identify concepts and themes within and across transcripts. To supplement qualitative data, sociodemographic data and health literacy/numeracy, physician trust, and social support questionnaires were obtained. Results: Participants (n = 22) identified as: Latina (n = 8); Black (n = 5); and non-Latina White (n = 9). While the interview guide included questions addressing chemotherapy delays, explicit insight into chemotherapy delay was rare. Participants described barriers and facilitators at the patient, family, medical, and community levels. Barriers at the patient level included patient’s hesitancy to initiate chemo due to shock, fear, and denial. Within the family level, we learned of participant’s family roles (e.g., caregiving, income), treatment costs, and the need for emotional support (e.g., not shutting family members out). Participants sought out and relied heavily on support from their communities (e.g., churches, other patients, survivors). Patients described their reliance on the medical team for information, the trust needed to navigate their treatment process, and the challenge of managing information associated with their treatment. Participants described the importance of self-efficacy to take an active role in treatment. Conclusions: Project Start is informing the design of a pilot study aimed to test the acceptability and feasibility of a navigation intervention. Using facilitators and barriers identified from Project Start, we are developing a checklist that will serve as a tool to identify the support each patient needs. Once areas of need are identified, appropriate referrals will be made in a personalized and culturally sensitive way with the goal of increasing self-efficacy and activating patients to avoid treatment delays.

Management of the Axilla in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) and ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide recommendations on the best strategies for the management and on the best timing and treatment (surgical and radiotherapeutic) of the axilla for patients with early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS

Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) and ASCO convened a Working Group and Expert Panel to develop evidence-based recommendations informed by a systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

This guideline endorsed two recommendations of the ASCO 2017 guideline for the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with early-stage breast cancer and expanded on that guideline with recommendations for radiotherapy interventions, timing of staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and mapping modalities. Overall, the ASCO 2017 guideline, seven high-quality systematic reviews, 54 unique studies, and 65 corollary trials formed the evidentiary basis of this guideline.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations are issued for each of the objectives of this guideline: (1) To determine which patients with early-stage breast cancer require axillary staging, (2) to determine whether any further axillary treatment is indicated for women with early-stage breast cancer who did not receive NAC and are sentinel lymph node-negative at diagnosis, (3) to determine which axillary strategy is indicated for women with early-stage breast cancer who did not receive NAC and are pathologically sentinel lymph node-positive at diagnosis (after a clinically node-negative presentation), (4) to determine what axillary treatment is indicated and what the best timing of axillary treatment for women with early-stage breast cancer is when NAC is used, and (5) to determine which are the best methods for identifying sentinel nodes.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Pregnancy after breast cancer: A population-based study of survival and obstetric outcomes

e18783

Background: Studies have suggested that pregnancy after breast cancer is safe, but the women who are able to conceive after cancer may also have a better prognosis. We sought to evaluate survival and obstetric outcomes among breast cancer patients in a population-based cohort. Methods: We studied women aged 18-45 years with a history of stage I-III breast cancer reported to the California Cancer Registry (CCR, 2000-2012). CCR data were linked to the 2000-2012 California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) birth cohort to ascertain both oncologic characteristics and obstetric outcomes. We compared overall survival (OS) for breast cancer patients who did or did not conceive at least 1 year after diagnosis. Breast cancer patients who conceived were matched in a 1:5 ratio to breast cancer patients who did not conceive via optimal bipartite matching accounting for follow-up time such that controls were diagnosed within a 3-month window of the cases and were alive at the time the case delivered; the distributions of cases and controls were directly balanced on socioeconomic and clinical covariates including stage, hormone receptors, and receipt of chemotherapy and radiation. For the obstetric outcomes, propensity score matching in a 1:5 ratio was used to match the same breast cancer patients who conceived to population based controls without cancer who delivered during the study years. Wald statistics, conditional Cox proportional hazards model, and conditional logistic regressions were used to evaluate outcomes. Results: We matched 417 patients aged 18-45 years at time of breast cancer diagnosis who conceived at least one year following diagnosis with 2,085 breast cancer patients who did not conceive. All covariates were balanced within 0.1 mean standardized difference. The majority of the cohort was non-Hispanic White (51%), with stage II disease (53%). The 5-year overall survival for cases relative to controls was 97.6% and 95.7% respectively. There was no difference in overall survival between patients who conceived and those who did not conceive following treatment for breast cancer (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.3-1.1). Breast cancer patients did not have higher risks of preterm birth before 37 weeks (odds ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.39-2.14), small-for-gestational age birthweight ( < 10th percentile: OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67-1.29; < 5th percentile: OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39-1.14), cesarean delivery (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92-1.35), severe maternal morbidity (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.61-2.12), or neonatal morbidity (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77-1.53) relative to controls. Conclusions: In a population-based cohort, breast cancer patients who conceived at least 1 year after diagnosis did not have worse OS than matched breast cancer patients who did not conceive. Breast cancer patients who conceived during the study period did not have an increased risk of adverse obstetric outcomes compared to population-based controls without cancer.

acelERA Breast Cancer (BC): Phase II study evaluating efficacy and safety of giredestrant (GDC-9545) versus physician’s choice of endocrine monotherapy in patients (pts) with estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative (ER+/HER2-) locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (LA/mBC)

TPS1100

Background: The standard-of-care therapy for ER+ BC typically involves modulation of estrogen synthesis and/or ER activity. Despite disease progression with standard treatments, growth and survival of the majority of tumors are thought to remain dependent on ER signaling; therefore, pts with ER+ BC can still respond to second- or third-line endocrine treatment (ET) after progression on prior therapy (Di Leo 2010; Baselga 2012). ESR1 mutations may drive estrogen-independent transcription and proliferation leading to resistance. The highly potent, nonsteroidal oral selective ER degrader, giredestrant, achieves robust ER occupancy and is active regardless of ESR1 mutation status. Phase I data have shown that giredestrant is well tolerated and active both as a single agent and in combination with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i), palbociclib (Lim 2020). Single-agent giredestrant has also shown encouraging antitumor activity in pts previously treated with fulvestrant and/or a CDK4/6i. Methods: acelERA BC (NCT04576455) is a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase II study evaluating the efficacy and safety of giredestrant vs. physician’s choice of ET (fulvestrant or aromatase inhibitor) in males, or postmenopausal or pre/perimenopausal females with ER+/HER2– LA/mBC who have received 1–2 prior lines of systemic therapy in the LA or mBC settings, at least one of which must be ET. Randomization: 1:1 to receive giredestrant (30 mg PO QD on Days 1–28 of each 28-day cycle) or physician’s choice of ET per local guidelines. Men and pre-/perimenopausal women will receive a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist. Eligibility: ≥18 years, ECOG PS 0–1, histologically or cytologically confirmed diagnosis of LA (recurrent or progressed) or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the breast, measurable disease (per modified RECIST v1.1) or evaluable bone lesions, and ER+/HER2– tumors (locally assessed). Primary endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS; investigator-assessed per RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints: overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, clinical benefit rate, PFS in pts with baseline ESR1 mutations, and quality of life. Safety, pharmacokinetics, biomarkers, and health status utility will also be assessed. Stratification: site of disease (visceral vs. nonvisceral), prior treatment with CDK4/6i (yes vs. no), and prior treatment with fulvestrant (yes vs. no). PFS will be compared using a stratified log-rank test; median PFS, using Kaplan–Meier analyses. Recruitment for the global enrollment phase is ongoing, the first patient was enrolled November 27, 2020. Clinical trial information: NCT04576455 .

Impact of Medicaid expansion on two-year mortality among stage IV breast cancer (BC) patients according to race

6525

Background: Inadequate access to healthcare services is associated with worse outcomes. Disparities in access to cancer care are more frequently seen among racial/ethnic minorities, uninsured patients, and those with low socioeconomic status. A provision in the Affordable Care Act called for expansion of Medicaid eligibility in order to cover more low-income Americans. In this study, we evaluate the impact of Medicaid expansion in 2-year mortality among metastatic BC patients according to race. Methods: Women (aged 40-64) diagnosed with metastatic BC (stage IV de novo) between 01/01/2010 and 12/31/2015 and residing in states that underwent Medicaid expansion in 01/2014 were identified in the National Cancer Database. For comparison purposes, 2010-2013 was considered the pre-expansion period and 2014-2015 the post-expansion period. We calculated 2-year mortality difference-in-difference (DID) estimates between White and non-White patients using multivariable linear regression models. Results are presented as adjusted differences (in % points) between groups in the pre- and post-expansion periods and as adjusted DID with 95%CI. Covariates included age, comorbidity, BC subtype, insurance type, transfer of care, distance to hospital, region, residence area, education, income quartile, facility type and facility volume. In addition, overall survival (OS) was evaluated in pre- and post-expansion periods via Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models; results are presented as 2-year OS estimates, hazard ratios (HRs), and 95% CIs. Results: Among 7,675 patients included, 4,942 were diagnosed in the pre- and 2,733 in the post-expansion period. We observed a reduction in 2-year mortality rates in both groups according to Medicaid expansion. Among Whites 2-year mortality decreased from 42.5% to 38.7% and among non-Whites from 45.4% to 36.4%, resulting in an adjusted DID of -5.2% (95%CI -9.8 to -0.6, p = 0.027). A greater reduction in 2-year mortality was observed among non-Whites in a sub-analysis of patients who resided in the poorest quartile (n = 1372), with an adjusted DID of -14.6% (95%CI -24.8 to -4.4, p = 0.005). In the multivariable Cox model, during the pre-expansion period there was an increased risk of death for non-Whites compared to Whites (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.26, P = 0.04), however no differences were seen in the post-expansion period between the two groups (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07, P = 0.31). Conclusions: Medicaid expansion reduced racial disparities by decreasing the 2-year mortality of non-White patients with metastatic breast cancer and reducing the gap when compared to Whites. These results highlight the positive impact of policies aimed at improving equity and increasing access to health care.

Abstract PS1-17: Comparing survival differences between breast-conserving therapy and mastectomy in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing upfront surgery

Background: Over the last decade, patients with early-stage breast cancer have been undergoing total mastectomy (TM) with increasing frequency. Our center reported that local recurrence rates with breast conserving therapy (BCT) declined throughout the 27-year period: from 7.1% for patients treated during 1970–1984 to 1.3% for patients treated during 1994–1996. More recently, several groups have published slightly improved survival rates in patients undergoing BCT compared with TM. The aim of this study was to evaluate trends in TM rates and compare overall survival (OS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), local-regional recurrence (LRR) and disease-specific survival (DSS) between BCT and TM in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing upfront surgery. Methods: We identified women with clinical stage T1–2, N0–1, M0 breast cancer who underwent surgery as first treatment modality from 1/1/2000 to 12/31/2014 at our center. TM rates and survival outcomes were evaluated. Because the decision for surgery for those patients was not random, differences in patient, tumor and treatment characteristics with respect to surgery types were adjusted using inverse probability weighting (IPW) based on propensity scores. Variables in the model included age at diagnosis, clinical tumor T category, clinical nodal category, estrogen receptor (ER), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status and year of surgery, and a multinomial logit model was used for surgery treatment assignment and a Gamma model was used for the time to censor. IPW models were used to adjust for impact of surgery types on survival outcomes. Similar analysis was used in 6 subsets: Stage I & hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2-, Stage I & HER2+, Stage I &triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), Stage II & HR+/HER2-, Stage II & HER2+, Stage II & TNBC. Patients undergoing TM with RT were excluded from subset analysis due to small sample size.

Results: A total of 8,256 patients were included, of them, 4701 (56.9%) underwent BCT, 2862 (34.7%) underwent TM without RT and 693 (8.4%) underwent TM+RT. Patients who underwent TM were younger and were more likely to have larger tumors, positive lymph nodes, higher grade, and HER2-positive tumors. TM rates increased in patients &lt;=50 years old from 2006-2013. At a median follow-up time of 6.1 years, multivariable Cox model showed that patients who underwent BCT had improved OS (HR: 0.8,95%CI: 0.7-0.99, P=0.02) and had a similar DSS, DMFS, and LRR compared to patients who underwent TM without RT. After IPW adjusting, patients undergoing BCT had a slightly worse DSS (RR: 1.2, 95%CI: 1.02-1.4, P=0.03) and similar OS, DMFS and LRR compared to patients underwent TM without RT in the whole cohort. In subset analyses, after IPW adjusting, there were no survival differences in OS, DSS, and DMFS between TM without RT and BCT. Patients with TNBC undergoing BCT had a lower LRR compared to TM (RR: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.3-0.6, P&lt;0.001) regardless of clinical stage. Conclusions: In whole cohort, after IPW adjusting, patients undergoing BCT had a slightly worse DSS compared to patients underwent TM without RT, and those differences in DSS have disappeared in the subset analysis. LRR was lower in patients with TNBC breast cancer undergoing BCT although there as a similar OS, DSS and DMFS compared with TM in subset analysis. These contemporary data may help physicians in surgical decision making for patients who are candidates for either TM or BCT.

Table 1. Results from multivariable Cox models for factors associated with survival outcomes and IPW adjusted models for factors associated with survival outcomesCox ModelIPW adjusting modelsFactorsHRP95%CIRRP95% CIOSSurgery typeTM without RTBCT0.80.020.70.991.01.00.9-1.1TM with RT1.00.960.81.31.10.60.9-1.3DSSSurgery typeTM without RTRefBCT1.10.40.81.51.20.031.02-1.4TM with RT1.70.0051.22.61.30.021.04-1.6DMFSSurgery typeTM without RTRefBCT1.10.40.91.41.00.50.9-1.2TM with RT1.70.0021.22.40.90.70.7-1.2 LRRSurgery typeTM without RTRefBCT1.30.11.01.71.00.70.7-1.2TM with RT0.40.020.20.90.80.10.6-1.1Subsets IPW adjusted models for factors associated with LRRBCT vs. TM without RTStage I & HR+/HER2-No. of patientsTM without RT/BCTRRP95% CIStage I & HER2+1469/29451.00.90.8-1.3Stage I & TNBC199/2850.70.30.3-1.5Stage II & HR+/HER2-128/3170.4&lt;0.0010.3-0.6Stage II & HER2+690/7451.10.70.7-1.8Stage II & TNBC102/1080.90.50.5-1.4Stage I & HR+/HER2-110/1570.50.0480.3-0.99HER2 – human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; HR – hormone receptor; TNBC – triple negative breast cancer

Citation Format: Min Yi, Mariana Chavez Mac Gregor, Benjamin Smith, Abigail S Caudle, Sarah M DeSnyder, Henry M Kuerer, Kelly K Hunt. Comparing survival differences between breast-conserving therapy and mastectomy in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing upfront surgery [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS1-17.

Abstract LB-165: Personalized prognostic prediction models for breast cancer recurrence and survival incorporating multidimensional data

Background: In this study, we developed integrative, personalized prognostic models for breast cancer recurrence and overall survival (OS) that consider receptor subtypes, epidemiological data, quality of life (QoL), and treatment.

Methods: 15,314 women with stage I to III invasive primary breast cancer treated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between 1997 and 2012 was used to generate prognostic models by Cox regression analysis including 10,809 women as discovery population (median follow-up: 6.09 years, 1,144 recurrence and 1,627 deaths) and 4,505 women as validation population (median follow-up: 7.95 years, 684 recurrence and 1,095 deaths). Model performance was assessed by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) and calibration analysis and compared with Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) and PREDICT.

Results: In addition to the known clinical/pathological variables, the model for recurrence included alcohol consumption while the model for OS included smoking status and physical component summary score. The AUCs for recurrence and OS were 0.813 and 0.810 in the discovery and 0.807 and 0.803 in the validation, respectively, compared to AUC of 0.761 and 0.753 in discovery and 0.777 and 0.751 in validation for NPI. Our model further showed better calibration compared to PREDICT. We also developed race-specific and receptor subtype-specific models with comparable AUC. Racial disparity was evident in the distributions of many risk factors and clinical presentation of the disease.

Conclusions: Our integrative prognostic models for breast cancer exhibit high discriminatory accuracy and excellent calibration and are the first to incorporate receptor subtype, epidemiological and QoL data.

Citation Format: Xifeng Wu, Yuanqing Ye, Carlos H. Barcenas, Wong-Ho Chow, Qing H. Meng, Mariana Chavez Mac Gregor, Michelle Hildebrandt, Hua Zhao, Xiangjun Gu, Yang Deng, Elizabeth A. Wagar, Francisco J. Esteva, Debu Tripathy, Gabriel N. Hortobagyi. Personalized prognostic prediction models for breast cancer recurrence and survival incorporating multidimensional data [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-165. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-LB-165