Anastrozole dose escalation for optimal estrogen suppression in postmenopausal early stage breast cancer: A prospective trial

Introduction: We performed matched case-control studies utilizing cohorts of postmenopausal women with ER+ breast cancer receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AI) on MA.27 [anastrozole, exemestane] or PreFace [letrozole] to assess the association between estrogen suppression after 6 months of treatment and an early breast cancer (EBC) event within 5 years of AI initiation (Clin Cancer Res 2020;26:2986-98). We found a significant 3.0-fold increase in risk of an EBC event for those taking anastrozole with levels of estrone (E1) >=1.3 pg/mL and estradiol (E2) >=0.5 pg/mL, but not for exemestane or letrozole. Given these findings we designed a prospective pharmacodynamic (PD) study to evaluate the impact of anastrozole (1 mg/day: ANA1) on E1 and E2 levels, and among those with inadequate estrogen suppression (IES: E1 >=1.3 pg/mL and E2 >=0.5 pg/mL), to evaluate the safety and PD efficacy of high-dose anastrozole (10 mg/day: ANA10), which has been found to be safe in prior clinical trials (Cancer 1998;83:1142-52). Method(s): Post-menopausal women with stage I-III, ER >=1% positive/HER2-negative breast cancer who were candidates for anastrozole were eligible after completion of locoregional therapy and chemotherapy, as clinically indicated. Women who were pre-menopausal at diagnosis were not eligible. All patients received 8-10 weeks of ANA1, after which those with adequate estrogen suppression (AES: E1< 1.3 pg/mL or E2< 0.5 pg/mL) came off study. Those with IES went on to receive ANA10 for 8-10 weeks, followed by letrozole (2.5 mg/day: LET) for 8-10 weeks. All patients were managed at their treating oncologist's discretion following study discontinuation. E1 and E2 blood levels were measured pre-treatment and after completion of each treatment cycle by a CLIA-approved liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry in the Immunochemical Core Laboratory at Mayo Clinic. With a sample size of 29 patients with IES after ANA1, a one-sided binomial test of proportions with a significance level of 0.05 will have an 87% chance of rejecting the proportion with AES after ANA10 is at most 25% (Ho) when the true proportion is at least 50%. Specifically, the null hypothesis is rejected if the number of women with AES after ANA10 is 12 or more. Data lock was July 6, 2022. Result(s): Of the 161 women enrolled from April 2020 through May 2022, 3 withdrew consent prior to start of ANA1 and 2 were ineligible;thus, 156 women comprised the study cohort. Median patient age was 64 years (range 44-86), 10% of patients were of Hispanic ethnicity and/or non-white race, and 15% received chemotherapy. Six patients remain on ANA1, and 10 discontinued ANA1 due to refusal (7), adverse event (AE) (2), or COVID-19 (1). Forty-one of the remaining 140 patients (29.3% 95%CI: 21.9- 37.6%) had IES with ANA1. Nine of these 41 patients did not go on to ANA10 due to refusal (6) or AE (3). Of the 32 patients who started ANA10, 8 remain on treatment, 5 discontinued due to refusal (3) or AE (1-grade 2 urinary tract infection;1-grade 1 palpitations), and 19 had a blood draw 45 days or more after starting ANA10. No grade 3-5 AEs or grade 2 hot flashes or arthralgias were reported. Of these 19 patients, 14 achieved AES with ANA10 (73.7% 95%CI: 48.8-90.9%). All 19 patients switched to LET of which 3 remain on treatment, 1 is missing E1/E2 data, and 15 had a blood draw 45 days or more after starting LET. Of these 15 patients, 10 maintained AES, 2 acquired AES with LET, and 3 no longer had AES. Anastrozole and letrozole drug levels will be reported at the meeting. Conclusion(s): Approximately 29% of postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2- BC receiving adjuvant anastrozole 1 mg/daily had IES. A majority of these patients achieved AES with dose escalation to ANA10 without tolerability issues. E1 and E2 levels are logical biomarkers given the mechanism of action of anastrozole, and further study utilizing them to determine the optimal dose of anastrozole for a given patient should be performed.

Operational metrics for the ELAINE II study combining a traditional approach with a just-in-time model

Background: Trial recruitment that requires specific actionable mutations based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) is challenging. Barriers can include competing studies, physician study awareness, site proximity, mutation incidence, among other concerns. Methods: This study (NCT04432454) opened clinical sites using two methods during the COVID-19 pandemic. The “Traditional” approach included site selection, IRB and contract approval, and trial activation prior to a patient being identified for enrollment. The second approach used the Tempus “TIME” Trials network that would only open a site after identifying a patient with a mutation of interest and eligible for the trial. Results: The first patient enrolled was on 10/12/20 and the last patient was on 6/24/21. A total of 16 sites (6 Traditional and 10 TIME) participated. All Traditional sites, and none of the TIME sites, were affiliated with major academic institutions. Duration for full CTA execution for Traditional sites averaged 200.5 days (range 142 to 257) and for TIME sites averaged 7.6 days (range 2 to 14). IRB approval time average for Traditional sites was 27.5 days (range 12 to 71) and TIME sites was 3.0 days (range 1 to 12 days). Days from site selection to activation letter for Traditional sites was on average 250.0 days (range 187 to 281) and for TIME sites was 131.6 days (range 22 to 248). Time from study activation to first consent was 33.3 days (range 18 to 58) for Traditional sites and 8.8 days (range 1 to 35) for TIME sites. The first patient on-study was at a TIME site 115 days prior to a Traditional site and the first 7 patients enrolled were at TIME sites. Traditional sites consented 23 and enrolled 16 patients while the TIME sites consented 16 and enrolled 13. The trial enrolled all 29 patients in 8 months with the anticipated enrollment duration being 12 to 18 months. Conclusions: Although the Traditional and TIME programs had different operational models, they both contributed a significant number of patients and reduced the projected enrollment timeline. TIME sites enrolled the initial patients. These results demonstrate that the “Just-in-Time model,” in conjunction with a Traditional model, can reduce projected overall time to enrollment in biomarker-driven studies.

Frailty, covid-19 disease severity and outcome among hospitalised older adults

Aim To examine the characteristics and outcomes of hospitalised older adults with COVID-19. Methods Retrospective, multi-centre, cohort observational study. Data from sixty-nine hospitalised patients aged over 70 years with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 at three Irish hospitals were collected from health records. Symptom profile, COVID-19 severity level based on Irish Thoracic Society guidelines, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Cumulative Illness Rating Scale-Geriatric (CIRS-G) scores, laboratory and radiological data were reviewed. Results Patient mortality rate was 23.2% (n=16). Median survivor age was 81.5 years (IQR 76.5-86.5). Mean CFS and CIRS-G scores were 5;(SD1.6) and 8.19;(SD4.4). Most patients (n=56, 81.1%) were categorised as mild COVID-19 cases. Five patients (n=5, 7%) were asymptomatic. Atypical symptom presentation was 7%(n=5). Delirium was noted in almost one-third of patients (n=21, 30.4%). Seven patients (n=7,10.1%) required intubation and intensive care unit admission. Over 1/3 of delirious patients died (n=8, 38%). Frail patients were older (P= 0.005), more likely to have dementia (P=0.04) and required less ventilatory support than non-frail patients (P=0.001) but were categorised as mild COVID-19 on admission (P=0.004). Conclusion Despite mild COVID-19 symptoms, mortality and delirium rates remained high. Low co-morbidity burden & atypical symptom rates were recorded despite high frailty rates.