Explore the vast range of titles available.

To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline. A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature. The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

Purpose.—To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of immunohistochemical (IHC) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer and the utility of these receptors as predictive markers. Methods.—The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature in partnership with Cancer Care Ontario and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance. Results.—Up to 20% of current IHC determinations of ER and PgR testing worldwide may be inaccurate (false negative or false positive). Most of the issues with testing have occurred because of variation in pre-analytic variables, thresholds for positivity, and interpretation criteria. Recommendations.—The Panel recommends that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation are specified. It is recommended that ER and PgR assays be considered positive if there are at least 1% positive tumor nuclei in the sample on testing in the presence of expected reactivity of internal (normal epithelial elements) and external controls. The absence of benefit from endocrine therapy for women with ER-negative invasive breast cancers has been confirmed in large overviews of randomized clinical trials.

Clinical trials of cancer immunotherapy (IO) were historically based on a drug development paradigm built for chemotherapies. The remarkable clinical activity of programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 blockade, chimeric antigen receptor-T cells, and T cell engagers yielded new insights into how the mechanistic underpinnings of IO are reflected in the clinic. These insights and the sheer number of novel immunotherapies currently in the pipeline have made it clear that our strategies and tools for IO drug development must adapt. Recent innovations like engineered T cells and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes demonstrate that immune-based treatments may rely on real-time manufacturing programs rather than off-the-shelf drugs. We now recognize adoptively transferred cells as living drugs. Progression criteria have been redefined due to the unique response patterns of IO. Harnessing the power of both biomarkers and the neoadjuvant setting earlier in drug development is of broad interest. The US Food and Drug Association is increasingly impacting the design of trials with respect to dose optimization and clinical endpoints. The use of novel endpoints such as pathologic complete/major response, treatment-free survival, and minimal residual disease is becoming more common. There is growing acceptance of using patient-reported outcomes as trial endpoints to better measure the true clinical benefit and impact of novel IO agents on quality of life. New opportunities created by modern data science and artificial intelligence to inform and accelerate drug development continue to emerge. The importance of streamlining the clinical research ecosystem and enhancing clinical trial access to facilitate the enrollment of diverse patient populations is broadly recognized. Patient advocacy is critical both to drive the science of IO, and to promote patient satisfaction. To capitalize on these opportunities, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) has established a goal of at least 100 new, unique IO approvals over the next 10 years. Accordingly, SITC has developed initiatives designed to integrate the viewpoints of diverse stakeholders and galvanize the field in further adapting clinical trials to the unique features of IO, moving us closer to our ultimate goal of using IO to cure and prevent cancer.

Research institutions differ in their willingness to defer to a single, central institutional review board (IRB) for multicenter clinical trials, despite statements from the FDA, OHRP, and NIH in support of using central IRBs to improve the efficiency of conducting trials. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) supported this project to solicit current perceptions of barriers to the use of central IRBs and to formulate potential solutions. We held discussions with IRB experts, interviewed representatives of research institutions, and held an expert meeting with diverse stakeholder groups and thought leaders. We found that many perceived barriers relate to conflating responsibilities of the institution with the ethical review responsibilities of the IRB. We identified the need for concrete tools to help research institutions separate institutional responsibilities from ethical responsibilities required of the IRB. One such tool is a document we created that delineates these responsibilities and how they might be assigned to each entity, or, in some cases, both entities. This tool and project recommendations will be broadly disseminated to facilitate the use of central IRBs in multicenter trials. The ultimate goal is to increase the nation's capacity to efficiently conduct the large number of high-quality trials.

BackgroundAlthough not guideline recommended, studies suggest 50% of locoregional breast cancer patients undergo systemic imaging during follow-up, prompting its inclusion as a Choosing Wisely measure of potential overuse. Most studies rely on administrative data that cannot delineate scan intent (prompted by signs/symptoms vs. asymptomatic surveillance). This is a critical gap as intent is the only way to distinguish overuse from appropriate care.ObjectiveOur aim was to assess surveillance systemic imaging post-breast cancer treatment in a national sample accounting for scan intent.MethodsA stage-stratified random sample of 10 women with stage II–III breast cancer in 2006–2007 was selected from each of 1217 Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities, for a total of 10,838 patients. Registrars abstracted scan type (computed tomography [CT], non-breast magnetic resonance imaging, bone scan, positron emission tomography/CT) and intent (cancer-related vs. not, asymptomatic surveillance vs. not) from medical records for 5 years post-diagnosis. Data were merged with each patient’s corresponding National Cancer Database record, containing sociodemographic and tumor/treatment information.ResultsOf 10,838 women, 30% had one or more, and 12% had two or more, systemic surveillance scans during a 4-year follow-up period. Patients were more likely to receive surveillance imaging in the first follow-up year (lower proportions during subsequent years) and if they had estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor-negative tumors.ConclusionsLocoregional breast cancer patients undergo asymptomatic systemic imaging during follow-up despite guidelines recommending against it, but at lower rates than previously reported. Providers appear to use factors that confer increased recurrence risk to tailor decisions about systemic surveillance imaging, perhaps reflecting limitations of data on which current guidelines are based.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02171078.

Researchers, clinicians, policymakers and patients are increasingly interested in questions about therapeutic interventions that are difficult or costly to answer with traditional, free-standing, parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Examples include scenarios in which there is a desire to compare multiple interventions, to generate separate effect estimates across subgroups of patients with distinct but related conditions or clinical features, or to minimize downtime between trials. In response, researchers have proposed new RCT designs such as adaptive platform trials (APTs), which are able to study multiple interventions in a disease or condition in a perpetual manner, with interventions entering and leaving the platform on the basis of a predefined decision algorithm. APTs offer innovations that could reshape clinical trials, and several APTs are now funded in various disease areas. With the aim of facilitating the use of APTs, here we review common features and issues that arise with such trials, and offer recommendations to promote best practices in their design, conduct, oversight and reporting.

Sequential adaptive trial designs can help accomplish the goals of personalized medicine, optimizing outcomes and avoiding unnecessary toxicity. Here we describe the results of incorporating a promising antibody–drug conjugate, datopotamab–deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) in combination with programmed cell death-ligand 1 inhibitor, durvalumab, as the first sequence of therapy in the I-SPY2.2 phase 2 neoadjuvant sequential multiple assignment randomization trial for high-risk stage 2/3 breast cancer. The trial includes three blocks of treatment, with initial randomization to different experimental agent(s) (block A), followed by a taxane-based regimen tailored to tumor subtype (block B), followed by doxorubicin–cyclophosphamide (block C). Subtype-specific algorithms based on magnetic resonance imaging volume change and core biopsy guide treatment redirection after each block, including the option of early surgical resection in patients predicted to have a high likelihood of pathologic complete response, which is the primary endpoint assessed when resection occurs. There are two primary efficacy analyses: after block A and across all blocks for six prespecified HER2-negative subtypes (defined by hormone receptor status and/or response-predictive subtypes). In total, 106 patients were treated with Dato-DXd/durvalumab in block A. In the immune-positive subtype, Dato-DXd/durvalumab exceeded the prespecified threshold for success (graduated) after block A; and across all blocks, pathologic complete response rates were equivalent to the rate expected for the standard of care (79%), but 54% achieved that result after Dato-DXd/durvalumab alone (block A) and 92% without doxorubicin–cyclophosphamide (after blocks A + B). The treatment strategy across all blocks graduated in the hormone-negative/immune-negative subtype. No new toxicities were observed. Stomatitis was the most common side effect in block A. No patients receiving block A treatment alone had adrenal insufficiency. Dato-DXd/durvalumab is a promising therapy combination that can eliminate standard chemotherapy in many patients, particularly the immune-positive subtype. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT01042379 . In the I-SPY2.2 trial, patients with high-risk stage 2/3 breast cancer received neoadjuvant datopotamab–deruxtecan plus durvalumab, followed by sequential chemotherapy with or without targeted therapy, with the option of early surgical resection after each block of therapy, showing that de-escalation of therapy is possible for several patient subgroups without compromising outcome and avoiding toxicity of standard chemotherapy.

Purpose.—To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of immunohistochemical (IHC) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer and the utility of these receptors as predictive markers. Methods.—The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature in partnership with Cancer Care Ontario and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance. Results.—Up to 20% of current IHC determinations of ER and PgR testing worldwide may be inaccurate (false negative or false positive). Most of the issues with testing have occurred because of variation in preanalytic variables, thresholds for positivity, and interpretation criteria. Recommendations.—The Panel recommends that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation are specified. It is recommended that ER and PgR assays be considered positive if there are at least 1% positive tumor nuclei in the sample on testing in the presence of expected reactivity of internal (normal epithelial elements) and external controls. The absence of benefit from endocrine therapy for women with ER-negative invasive breast cancers has been confirmed in large overviews of randomized clinical trials.

Among the goals of patient-centric care are the advancement of effective personalized treatment, while minimizing toxicity. The phase 2 I-SPY2.2 trial uses a neoadjuvant sequential therapy approach in breast cancer to further these goals, testing promising new agents while optimizing individual outcomes. Here we tested datopotamab–deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) in the I-SPY2.2 trial for patients with high-risk stage 2/3 breast cancer. I-SPY2.2 uses a sequential multiple assignment randomization trial design that includes three sequential blocks of biologically targeted neoadjuvant treatment: the experimental agent(s) (block A), a taxane-based regimen tailored to the tumor subtype (block B) and doxorubicin–cyclophosphamide (block C). Patients are randomized into arms consisting of different investigational block A treatments. Algorithms based on magnetic resonance imaging and core biopsy guide treatment redirection after each block, including the option of early surgical resection in patients predicted to have a high likelihood of pathological complete response, the primary endpoint. There are two primary efficacy analyses: after block A and across all blocks for the six prespecified breast cancer subtypes (defined by clinical hormone receptor/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status and/or the response-predictive subtypes). We report results of 103 patients treated with Dato-DXd. While Dato-DXd did not meet the prespecified threshold for success (graduation) after block A in any subtype, the treatment strategy across all blocks graduated in the hormone receptor-negative HER2 − Immune − DNA repair deficiency − subtype with an estimated pathological complete response rate of 41%. No new toxicities were observed, with stomatitis and ocular events occurring at low grades. Dato-DXd was particularly active in the hormone receptor-negative/HER2 − Immune − DNA repair deficiency − signature, warranting further investigation, and was safe in other subtypes in patients who followed the treatment strategy. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT01042379 . In the I-SPY2.2 trial, patients with high-risk stage 2/3 breast cancer received neoadjuvant datopotamab–deruxtecan, followed by sequential chemotherapy with or without targeted therapy, with the option of early surgical resection after each block of therapy. In a subgroup of patients, the sequential treatment strategy was superior to standard of care.

Among the goals of patient-centric care are the advancement of effective personalized treatment, minimising toxicity. The phase-2 I-SPY2.2 trial uses a neoadjuvant sequential therapy approach in breast cancer to further these goals, testing promising new agents while optimising individual outcomes. Here we tested datopotamab-deruxtecan (Dato-Dxd) in the I-SPY2.2 trial for patients with high-risk stage 2/3 breast cancer. I-SPY2.2 uses a sequential multiple assignment randomisation trial (SMART) design that includes three sequential blocks of biologically targeted neoadjuvant treatment: the experimental agent (Block A), a taxane-based regimen tailored to the tumour subtype (Block B), and doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (Block C). Patients are randomised into different arms consisting of different investigational Block A treatments. Algorithms based on MRI and core biopsy guide treatment redirection after each block, including the option of early surgical resection in patients predicted to have a high likelihood of pathological complete response (pCR), the primary endpoint. There are two primary efficacy analyses: after Block A and across all blocks for the 6 pre-specified breast cancer subtype groups (defined by clinical HR/HER2 status and/or the response predictive subtypes). We report results of 103 patients treated with Dato-Dxd. While Dato-Dxd did not meet the prespecified threshold for success (graduation) after Block A in any subtype, the treatment strategy across all blocks graduated in the HER2-negative Immune-negative DNA repair deficiency (DRD)-negative subtype with an estimated pCR rate of 41%. No new toxicities were observed, with stomatitis and ocular events occurring at low grades. Dato was particularly active in the HR-HER2-Im-DRD− signature, warranting further investigation, and was safe in other subtypes, in patients who followed the treatment strategy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01042379