Getting our ducks in a row: The need for data utility comparisons of healthcare systems data for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS. METHODS-AND-RESULTS: Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status. DISCUSSION: DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them.

ESR1 F404 Mutations and Acquired Resistance to Fulvestrant in ESR1-Mutant Breast Cancer.

Fulvestrant is used to treat patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, but acquired resistance is poorly understood. PlasmaMATCH Cohort A (NCT03182634) investigated the activity of fulvestrant in patients with activating ESR1 mutations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Baseline ESR1 mutations Y537S are associated with poor outcomes and Y537C with good outcomes. Sequencing of baseline and EOT ctDNA samples (n = 69) revealed 3/69 (4%) patients acquired novel ESR1 F404 mutations (F404L, F404I, and F404V), in cis with activating mutations. In silico modeling revealed that ESR1 F404 contributes to fulvestrant binding to estrogen receptor-alpha (ERα) through a pi-stacking bond, with mutations disrupting this bond. In vitro analysis demonstrated that single F404L, E380Q, and D538G models were less sensitive to fulvestrant, whereas compound mutations D538G + F404L and E380Q + F404L were resistant. Several oral ERα degraders were active against compound mutant models. We have identified a resistance mechanism specific to fulvestrant that can be targeted by treatments in clinical development. SIGNIFICANCE: Novel F404 ESR1 mutations may be acquired to cause overt resistance to fulvestrant when combined with preexisting activating ESR1 mutations. Novel combinations of mutations in the ER ligand binding domain may cause drug-specific resistance, emphasizing the potential of similar drug-specific mutations to impact the efficacy of oral ER degraders in development. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 201.

One versus three weeks hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer treatment: the FAST-Forward phase III RCT.

Background: FAST-Forward aimed to identify a 5-fraction schedule of adjuvant radiotherapy delivered in 1 week that was non-inferior in terms of local cancer control and as safe as the standard 15-fraction regimen after primary surgery for early breast cancer. Published acute toxicity and 5-year results are presented here with other aspects of the trial. Design: Multicentre phase III non-inferiority trial. Patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast (pT1-3pN0-1M0) after breast conservation surgery or mastectomy randomised (1 : 1 : 1) to 40 Gy in 15 fractions (3 weeks), 27 Gy or 26 Gy in 5 fractions (1 week) whole breast/chest wall (Main Trial). Primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse; assuming 2% 5-year incidence for 40 Gy, non-inferiority pre-defined as < 1.6% excess for 5-fraction schedules (critical hazard ratio = 1.81). Normal tissue effects were assessed independently by clinicians, patients and photographs. Sub-studies: Two acute skin toxicity sub-studies were undertaken to confirm safety of the test schedules. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients with grade ≥ 3 acute breast skin toxicity at any time from the start of radiotherapy to 4 weeks after completion. Nodal Sub-Study patients had breast/chest wall plus axillary radiotherapy testing the same three schedules, reduced to the 40 and 26 Gy groups on amendment, with the primary endpoint of 5-year patient-reported arm/hand swelling. Limitations: A sequential hypofractionated or simultaneous integrated boost has not been studied. Participants: Ninety-seven UK centres recruited 4096 patients (1361:40 Gy, 1367:27 Gy, 1368:26 Gy) into the Main Trial from November 2011 to June 2014. The Nodal Sub-Study recruited an additional 469 patients from 50 UK centres. One hundred and ninety and 162 Main Trial patients were included in the acute toxicity sub-studies. Results: Acute toxicity sub-studies evaluable patients: (1) acute grade 3 Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity reported in 40 Gy/15 fractions 6/44 (13.6%); 27 Gy/5 fractions 5/51 (9.8%); 26 Gy/5 fractions 3/52 (5.8%). (2) Grade 3 common toxicity criteria for adverse effects toxicity reported for one patient. At 71-month median follow-up in the Main Trial, 79 ipsilateral breast tumour relapse events (40 Gy: 31, 27 Gy: 27, 26 Gy: 21); hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) versus 40 Gy were 27 Gy: 0.86 (0.51 to 1.44), 26 Gy: 0.67 (0.38 to 1.16). With 2.1% (1.4 to 3.1) 5-year incidence ipsilateral breast tumour relapse after 40 Gy, estimated absolute differences versus 40 Gy (non-inferiority test) were -0.3% (-1.0-0.9) for 27 Gy (p = 0.0022) and -0.7% (-1.3-0.3) for 26 Gy (p = 0.00019). Five-year prevalence of any clinician-assessed moderate/marked breast normal tissue effects was 40 Gy: 98/986 (9.9%), 27 Gy: 155/1005 (15.4%), 26 Gy: 121/1020 (11.9%). Across all clinician assessments from 1 to 5 years, odds ratios versus 40 Gy were 1.55 (1.32 to 1.83; p < 0.0001) for 27 Gy and 1.12 (0.94-1.34; p = 0.20) for 26 Gy. Patient and photographic assessments showed higher normal tissue effects risk for 27 Gy versus 40 Gy but not for 26 Gy. Nodal Sub-Study reported no arm/hand swelling in 80% and 77% in 40 Gy and 26 Gy at baseline, and 73% and 76% at 24 months. The prevalence of moderate/marked arm/hand swelling at 24 months was 10% versus 7% for 40 Gy compared with 26 Gy. Interpretation: Five-year local tumour incidence and normal tissue effects prevalence show 26 Gy in 5 fractions in 1 week is a safe and effective alternative to 40 Gy in 15 fractions for patients prescribed adjuvant local radiotherapy after primary surgery for early-stage breast cancer. Future work: Ten-year Main Trial follow-up is essential. Inclusion in hypofractionation meta-analysis ongoing. A future hypofractionated boost trial is strongly supported. Trial registration: FAST-Forward was sponsored by The Institute of Cancer Research and was registered as ISRCTN19906132. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 09/01/47) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Patients diagnosed with early breast cancer are often recommended to have radiotherapy after surgery because research has shown that it lowers the risk of the cancer returning. However, it may cause some short- and long-term side effects. Previous clinical trials showed that the same, or even better, outcomes with a lower total dose of radiotherapy given in fewer, larger daily doses compared with older historical treatment schedules. The National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme-funded FAST-Forward Trial aimed to see whether the number of doses could be reduced further without reducing the beneficial effects of radiotherapy. Between November 2011 and June 2014, 4096 patients agreed to take part in the FAST-Forward Main Trial testing three schedules of radiotherapy to the breast. Standard treatment given on 15 days over 3 weeks (Control Group) was compared with two different lower dose schedules where treatment was given on 5 days over 1 week (lower dose Test Groups). An additional 469 patients entered a sub-study where the gland area under the arm also received radiotherapy (Nodal Sub-Study). Main Trial 5-year results reported in April 2020 showed that the number of patients whose cancer had returned in the treated breast was low in all groups: around 2 in 100 (2.1%) for the Control Group, and 1.7% in the higher dose and 1.4% in the lower dose Test Groups. The majority of reported side effects assessed by patients and doctors up to 5 years after radiotherapy were mild for all treatment groups. Patients in the Control Group and in the lower dose Test Group experienced similar levels of side effects. More side effects were reported in the higher dose Test Group, although differences were small. Overall, the FAST-Forward findings suggest that the lower dose 1-week schedule gave similar results in terms of the cancer returning and side effects to the standard 3-week treatment and this schedule can now be used to help treat future patients.

Accelerated versus standard epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil or capecitabine as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer (UK TACT2; CRUK/05/19): quality of life results from a multicentre, phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with early breast cancer improves outcomes but its toxicity affects patients' quality of life (QOL). The UK TACT2 trial investigated whether accelerated epirubicin improves time to recurrence and if oral capecitabine is non-inferior to cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) for efficacy with less toxicity. Results showed no benefit for accelerated epirubicin and capecitabine was non-inferior. As part of the QOL substudy, we aimed to assess the effect of chemotherapies on psychological distress, physical symptoms, and functional domains. METHODS: TACT2 was a multicentre, phase 3, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial done in 129 UK centres. Participants were aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed node-positive or high-risk node-negative invasive primary breast cancer, who had undergone complete excision, and due to receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to four cycles of 100 mg/m2 epirubicin either every 3 weeks (standard epirubicin) or every 2 weeks with 6 mg pegfilgrastim on day 2 of each cycle (accelerated epirubicin), followed by four 4-week cycles of either CMF (600 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide intravenously on days 1 and 8 or 100 mg/m2 orally on days 1-14; 40 mg/m2 methotrexate intravenously on days 1 and 8; and 600 mg/m2 fluorouracil intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle) or four 3-week cycles of 2500 mg/m2 capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 given twice daily on days 1-14 of each cycle). The randomisation schedule was computer generated in random permuted blocks, stratified by centre, number of nodes involved (none vs 1-3 vs ≥4), age (≤50 years vs >50 years), and planned endocrine treatment (yes vs no). QOL was one of the secondary outcomes and is reported here. All patients from a subset of 44 centres were invited to complete QOL questionnaires (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS] and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module [QLQ-C30] and Quality of Life Questionnaire breast module [QLQ-BR23]) at baseline, end of standard or accelerated epirubicin, end of CMF or capecitabine, and at 12 and 24 months after randomisation. The QOL substudy prespecified two coprimary QOL outcomes assessed in the intention-to-treat population: overall QOL (reported elsewhere) and HADS total score. Prespecified secondary QOL outcomes were EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales of physical function, role function, and fatigue and EORTC QLQ-BR23 subscales of sexual function and systemic therapy side-effects. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN68068041, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00301925. FINDINGS: From Dec 16, 2005, to Dec 5, 2008, 4391 patients (20 [0·5%] of whom were male) were enrolled in TACT2; 1281 (85·8%) of 1493 eligible patients were included in the QOL substudy. Eight (0·6%) participants in the QOL substudy were male and 1273 (99·4%) were female. Median follow-up was 85·6 months (IQR 80·6-95·9). Analysis was performed on the complete QOL dataset (as of Sept 15, 2011) when all participants had passed the 24-month timepoint. Prerandomisation questionnaires were completed by 1172 (91·5%) patients and 1179 (92·0%) completed at least one postrandomisation questionnaire. End-of-treatment HADS depression score (p=0·0048) and HADS total change score (p=0·0093) were worse for CMF versus capecitabine. Accelerated epirubicin led to worse physical function (p=0·0065), role function (p<0·0001), fatigue (p=0·0002), and systemic side-effects (p=0·0001), but not sexual function (p=0·36), compared with standard epirubicin during treatment, but the effect did not persist. Worse physical function (p=0·0048), sexual function (p=0·0053), fatigue (p<0·0001), and systemic side-effects (p<0·0001), but not role functioning (p=0·013), were seen for CMF versus capecitabine at end of treatment; these differences persisted at 12 months and 24 months. INTERPRETATION: Accelerated epirubicin was associated with worse QOL than was standard epirubicin but only during treatment. These findings will help patients and clinicians make an informed choice about accelerated chemotherapy. CMF had worse QOL effects than did capecitabine, which were persistent for 24 months. The favourable capecitabine QOL compared with CMF supports its use as an adjuvant option after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Amgen, Pfizer, and Roche.

Olaparib and Ceralasertib (AZD6738) in Patients with Triple-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Results from Cohort E of the plasmaMATCH Trial (CRUK/15/010).

PURPOSE: Approximately 10% to 15% of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) have deleterious mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 and may benefit from PARP inhibitor treatment. PARP inhibitors may also increase exogenous replication stress and thereby increase sensitivity to inhibitors of ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) protein. This phase II study examined the activity of the combination of PARP inhibitor, olaparib, and ATR inhibitor, ceralasertib (AZD6738), in patients with advanced TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with TNBC on most recent biopsy who had received 1 or 2 lines of chemotherapy for advanced disease or had relapsed within 12 months of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy were eligible. Treatment was olaparib 300 mg twice a day continuously and celarasertib 160 mg on days 1-7 on a 28-day cycle until disease progression. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Tissue and plasma biomarker analyses were preplanned to identify predictors of response. RESULTS: 70 evaluable patients were enrolled. Germline BRCA1/2 mutations were present in 10 (14%) patients and 3 (4%) patients had somatic BRCA mutations. The confirmed ORR was 12/70; 17.1% (95% confidence interval, 10.4-25.5). Responses were observed in patients without germline or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations, including patients with mutations in other homologous recombination repair genes and tumors with functional homologous recombination deficiency by RAD51 foci. CONCLUSIONS: The response rate to olaparib and ceralasertib did not meet prespecified criteria for activity in the overall evaluable population, but responses were observed in patients who would not be expected to respond to olaparib monotherapy.

Effect of Metformin Versus Placebo on New Primary Cancers in Canadian Cancer Trials Group MA.32: A Secondary Analysis of a Phase III Randomized Double-Blind Trial in Early Breast Cancer.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Metformin has been associated with lower cancer risk in epidemiologic and preclinical research. In the MA.32 randomized adjuvant breast cancer trial, metformin (v placebo) did not affect invasive disease-free or overall survival. Here, we report metformin effects on the risk of new cancer. Between 2010 and 2013, 3,649 patients with breast cancer younger than 75 years without diabetes with high-risk T1-3, N0-3 M0 breast cancer (any estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) were randomly assigned to metformin 850 mg orally twice a day or placebo twice a day for 5 years. New primary invasive cancers (outside the ipsilateral breast) developing as a first event were identified. Time to events was described by the competing risks method; two-sided likelihood ratio tests adjusting for age, BMI, smoking, and alcohol intake were used to compare metformin versus placebo arms. A total of 184 patients developed new invasive cancers: 102 metformin and 82 placebo, hazard ratio (HR), 1.25; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.68; P = .13. These included 48 contralateral invasive breast cancers (27 metformin v 21 placebo), HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.72 to 2.27; P = .40 and 136 new nonbreast primary cancers (75 metformin v 61 placebo), HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.74; P = .21. Metformin did not reduce the risk of new cancer development in these nondiabetic patients with breast cancer.

Molecular profiling of aromatase inhibitor sensitive and resistant ER+HER2- postmenopausal breast cancers.

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) reduce recurrences and mortality in postmenopausal patients with oestrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer (BC), but >20% of patients will eventually relapse. Given the limited understanding of intrinsic resistance in these tumours, here we conduct a large-scale molecular analysis to identify features that impact on the response of ER + HER2- BC to AI. We compare the 15% of poorest responders (PRs, n = 177) as measured by proportional Ki67 changes after 2 weeks of neoadjuvant AI to good responders (GRs, n = 190) selected from the top 50% responders in the POETIC trial and matched for baseline Ki67 categories. In this work, low ESR1 levels are associated with poor response, high proliferation, high expression of growth factor pathways and non-luminal subtypes. PRs having high ESR1 expression have similar proportions of luminal subtypes to GRs but lower plasma estradiol levels, lower expression of estrogen response genes, higher levels of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes and immune markers, and more TP53 mutations.

Dose-escalated simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy in early breast cancer (IMPORT HIGH): a multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A tumour-bed boost delivered after whole-breast radiotherapy increases local cancer-control rates but requires more patient visits and can increase breast hardness. IMPORT HIGH tested simultaneous integrated boost against sequential boost with the aim of reducing treatment duration while maintaining excellent local control and similar or reduced toxicity. METHODS: IMPORT HIGH is a phase 3, non-inferiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial that recruited women after breast-conserving surgery for pT1-3pN0-3aM0 invasive carcinoma from radiotherapy and referral centres in the UK. Patients were randomly allocated to receive one of three treatments in a 1:1:1 ratio, with computer-generated random permuted blocks used to stratify patients by centre. The control group received 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast and 16 Gy in 8 fractions sequential photon tumour-bed boost. Test group 1 received 36 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast, 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the partial breast, and 48 Gy in 15 fractions concomitant photon boost to the tumour-bed volume. Test group 2 received 36 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast, 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the partial breast, and 53 Gy in 15 fractions concomitant photon boost to the tumour-bed volume. The boost clinical target volume was the clip-defined tumour bed. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse (IBTR) analysed by intention to treat; assuming 5% 5-year incidence with the control group, non-inferiority was predefined as 3% or less absolute excess in the test groups (upper limit of two-sided 95% CI). Adverse events were assessed by clinicians, patients, and photographs. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN47437448, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between March 4, 2009, and Sept 16, 2015, 2617 patients were recruited. 871 individuals were assigned to the control group, 874 to test group 1, and 872 to test group 2. Median boost clinical target volume was 13 cm3 (IQR 7 to 22). At a median follow-up of 74 months there were 76 IBTR events (20 for the control group, 21 for test group 1, and 35 for test group 2). 5-year IBTR incidence was 1·9% (95% CI 1·2 to 3·1) for the control group, 2·0% (1·2 to 3·2) for test group 1, and 3·2% (2·2 to 4·7) for test group 2. The estimated absolute differences versus the control group were 0·1% (-0·8 to 1·7) for test group 1 and 1·4% (0·03 to 3·8) for test group 2. The upper confidence limit for test group 1 versus the control group indicated non-inferiority for 48 Gy. Cumulative 5-year incidence of clinician-reported moderate or marked breast induration was 11·5% for the control group, 10·6% for test group 1 (p=0·40 vs control group), and 15·5% for test group 2 (p=0·015 vs control group). INTERPRETATION: In all groups 5-year IBTR incidence was lower than the 5% originally expected regardless of boost sequencing. Dose-escalation is not advantageous. 5-year moderate or marked adverse event rates were low using small boost volumes. Simultaneous integrated boost in IMPORT HIGH was safe and reduced patient visits. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Clinico-pathologic relationships with Ki67 and its change with short-term aromatase inhibitor treatment in primary ER + breast cancer: further results from the POETIC trial (CRUK/07/015).

PURPOSE: Ki67 assessed at diagnosis (Ki67baseline) is an important prognostic factor in primary oestrogen receptor-positive (ER +) breast cancer. Proportional change in Ki67 after 2 weeks (∆Ki672week) is associated with clinical benefit from endocrine therapies and residual Ki67 (Ki672week) with recurrence-free survival. The aim was to define the association between Ki67baseline and after aromatase inhibitor (AI) exposure ∆Ki672week and Ki672week with key prognostic and biologic factors utilising data from the POETIC study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In POETIC 4480 postmenopausal patients with primary ER and/or PgR + breast cancer were randomised 2:1 to 2 weeks' presurgical AI (anastrozole or letrozole) or no presurgical treatment (control). Ki67 was measured centrally in core-cut biopsies taken prior to AI and in core-cuts or the excision biopsy at surgery. Relationships between the Ki67 and biologic factors were explored using linear regression. RESULTS: Established associations of Ki67baseline with biologic factors including PgR status, tumour grade, tumour size, histological subtype, nodal status, and vascular invasion were confirmed in the HER2- subpopulation. In the HER2 + subpopulation only grade and tumour size were significantly associated with Ki67baseline. In control group Ki672week was 18% lower than Ki67baseline (p < 0.001) when Ki672week was measured in excision biopsies but not when measured in core-cuts. Median suppression by AIs (∆Ki672week) was 79.3% (IQR: -89.9 to -54.6) and 53.7% (IQR: -78.9 to -21.1) for HER2-negative and HER2-positive cases, respectively. Significantly less suppression occurred in PgR- vs PgR + and HER2 + vs HER2- tumours which remained apparent after adjustment for 2-week sample type. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of this study allowed characterisation of relationships between Ki67baseline, ∆Ki672week and Ki672week with high degrees of confidence providing a reference source for other studies. Lower values of Ki67 occur when measured on excision biopsies and could lead to apparent but artefactual decreases in Ki67: this should be considered when either ∆Ki672week or Ki672week is used in routine clinical practice to aid treatment decisions or in clinical trials assessing new drug therapies.

Relationship between ER expression by IHC or mRNA with Ki67 response to aromatase inhibition: a POETIC study.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, oestrogen receptor (ER) analysis is almost entirely by immunohistochemistry (IHC). ASCO/CAP recommends cut-offs of < 1% (negative) and 1-10% (low) cells positive. There is uncertainty whether patients with ER low tumours benefit from endocrine therapy. We aimed to assess IHC and mRNA cut-points for ER versus biological response of primary breast cancer to 2 weeks' aromatase inhibitor treatment as measured by change in Ki67. METHODS: Cases were selected from the aromatase inhibitor treatment group of POETIC. We selected the 15% with the poorest Ki67 response (PR, < 40% Ki67 suppression, n = 230) and a random 30% of the remainder categorised as intermediate (IR, 40-79% Ki67 suppression, n = 150) and good-responders (GR, ≥ 80% Ki67 suppression, n = 230) from HER2 - group. All HER2 + cases available were selected irrespective of their response category (n = 317). ER expression was measured by IHC and qPCR. RESULTS: ER IHC was available from 515 HER2 - and 186 HER2 + tumours and ER qPCR from 367 HER2 - and 171 HER2 + tumours. Ninety-one percentage of patients with ER IHC < 10% were PRs with similar rates in HER2 - and HER2 + cases. At or above ER IHC 10% substantial numbers of patients showed IR or GR. Similar proportions of patients were defined by cut-points of ER IHC < 10% and ER mRNA < 5 units. In addition, loss of PgR expression altered ER anti-proliferation response with 92% of PgR - cases with ER IHC < 40% being PRs. CONCLUSIONS: There was little responsiveness at IHC < 10% and no distinction between < 1% and 1-10% cells positive. Similar separation of PRs from IR/GRs was achieved by IHC and mRNA.

HER2-enriched subtype and novel molecular subgroups drive aromatase inhibitor resistance and an increased risk of relapse in early ER+/HER2+ breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oestrogen receptor positive/ human epidermal growth factor receptor positive (ER+/HER2+) breast cancers (BCs) are less responsive to endocrine therapy than ER+/HER2- tumours. Mechanisms underpinning the differential behaviour of ER+HER2+ tumours are poorly characterised. Our aim was to identify biomarkers of response to 2 weeks' presurgical AI treatment in ER+/HER2+ BCs. METHODS: All available ER+/HER2+ BC baseline tumours (n=342) in the POETIC trial were gene expression profiled using BC360™ (NanoString) covering intrinsic subtypes and 46 key biological signatures. Early response to AI was assessed by changes in Ki67 expression and residual Ki67 at 2 weeks (Ki672wk). Time-To-Recurrence (TTR) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox models adjusted for standard clinicopathological variables. New molecular subgroups (MS) were identified using consensus clustering. FINDINGS: HER2-enriched (HER2-E) subtype BCs (44.7% of the total) showed poorer Ki67 response and higher Ki672wk (p<0.0001) than non-HER2-E BCs. High expression of ERBB2 expression, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and TP53 mutational score were associated with poor response and immune-related signatures with High Ki672wk. Five new MS that were associated with differential response to AI were identified. HER2-E had significantly poorer TTR compared to Luminal BCs (HR 2.55, 95% CI 1.14-5.69; p=0.0222). The new MS were independent predictors of TTR, adding significant value beyond intrinsic subtypes. INTERPRETATION: Our results show HER2-E as a standardised biomarker associated with poor response to AI and worse outcome in ER+/HER2+. HRD, TP53 mutational score and immune-tumour tolerance are predictive biomarkers for poor response to AI. Lastly, novel MS identify additional non-HER2-E tumours not responding to AI with an increased risk of relapse. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK (CRUK/07/015).

Effect of Metformin vs Placebo on Invasive Disease-Free Survival in Patients With Breast Cancer: The MA.32 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Metformin, a biguanide commonly used to treat type 2 diabetes, has been associated with potential beneficial effects across breast cancer subtypes in observational and preclinical studies. Objective: To determine whether the administration of adjuvant metformin (vs placebo) to patients with breast cancer without diabetes improves outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: MA.32, a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, conducted in Canada, Switzerland, US, and UK, enrolled 3649 patients with high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer receiving standard therapy between August 2010 and March 2013, with follow-up to October 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized (stratified for hormone receptor [estrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor {ER/PgR}] status, positive vs negative; body mass index, ≤30 vs >30; human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [ERBB2, formerly HER2 or HER2/neu], positive vs negative; and any vs no chemotherapy) to 850 mg of oral metformin twice a day (n = 1824) or oral placebo twice a day (n = 1825) for 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Of the 8 secondary outcomes, overall survival, distant relapse-free survival, and breast cancer-free interval were analyzed. Results: Of the 3649 randomized patients (mean age, 52.4 years; 3643 women [99.8%]), all (100%) were included in analyses. After a second interim analysis, futility was declared for patients who were ER/PgR-, so the primary analysis was conducted for 2533 patients who were ER/PgR+. The median duration of follow-up in the ER/PgR+ group was 96.2 months (range, 0.2-121 months). Invasive disease-free survival events occurred in 465 patients who were ER/PgR+. The incidence rates for invasive disease-free survival events were 2.78 per 100 patient-years in the metformin group vs 2.74 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.21; P = .93), and the incidence rates for death were 1.46 per 100 patient-years in the metformin group vs 1.32 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.86-1.41; P = .47). Among patients who were ER/PgR-, followed up for a median of 94.1 months, incidence of invasive disease-free survival events was 3.58 vs 3.60 per 100 patient-years, respectively (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30; P = .92). None of the 3 secondary outcomes analyzed in the ER/PgR+ group had statistically significant differences. Grade 3 nonhematological toxic events occurred more frequently in patients taking metformin than in patients taking placebo (21.5% vs 17.5%, respectively, P = .003). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events in the metformin vs placebo groups were hypertension (2.4% vs 1.9%), irregular menses (1.5% vs 1.4%), and diarrhea (1.9% vs 7.0%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with high-risk operable breast cancer without diabetes, the addition of metformin vs placebo to standard breast cancer treatment did not significantly improve invasive disease-free survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01101438.

Operational complexity versus design efficiency: challenges of implementing a phase IIa multiple parallel cohort targeted treatment platform trial in advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Platform trial designs are used increasingly in cancer clinical research and are considered an efficient model for evaluating multiple compounds within a single disease or disease subtype. However, these trial designs can be challenging to operationalise. The use of platform trials in oncology clinical research has increased considerably in recent years as advances in molecular biology enable molecularly defined stratification of patient populations and targeted therapy evaluation. Whereas multiple separate trials may be deemed infeasible, platform designs allow efficient, parallel evaluation of multiple targeted therapies in relatively small biologically defined patient sub-populations with the promise of increased molecular screening efficiency and reduced time for drug evaluation. Whilst the theoretical efficiencies are widely reported, the operational challenges associated with these designs (complexity, cost, regulatory, resource) are not always well understood. MAIN: In this commentary, we describe our practical experience of the implementation and delivery of the UK plasmaMATCH trial, a platform trial in advanced breast cancer, comprising an integrated screening component and multiple parallel downstream mutation-directed therapeutic cohorts. plasmaMATCH reported its primary results within 3 years of opening to recruitment. We reflect on the operational challenges encountered and share lessons learnt to inform the successful conduct of future trials. Key to the success of the plasmaMATCH trial was well co-ordinated stakeholder engagement by an experienced clinical trials unit with expert methodology and trial management expertise, a federated model of clinical leadership, a well-written protocol integrating screening and treatment components and including justification for the chosen structure and intentions for future adaptions, and an integrated funding model with streamlined contractual arrangements across multiple partners. Findings based on our practical experience include the importance of early engagement with the regulators and consideration of a flexible resource infrastructure to allow adequate resource allocation to support concurrent trial activities as adaptions are implemented in parallel to the continued management of patient safety and data quality of the ongoing trial cohorts. CONCLUSION: Platform trial designs allow the efficient reporting of multiple treatment cohorts. Operational challenges can be overcome through multidisciplinary engagement, streamlined contracting processes, rationalised protocol and database design and appropriate resourcing.

Serum thymidine kinase activity in patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer treated with palbociclib and fulvestrant.

BACKGROUND: Biomarkers for cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors, such as palbociclib, for patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer are lacking. Thymidine kinase is a proliferation marker downstream of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 pathway. We prospectively investigated the prognostic role of serum thymidine kinase activity (sTKa), in patients treated with Palbociclib + fulvestrant. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PYTHIA was a phase II, single-arm, multicentre, trial that enrolled 124 post-menopausal women with endocrine-resistant hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Serum samples were collected pre-treatment (pre-trt; n = 122), at day 15 of cycle 1 (D15; n = 108), during the one week-off palbociclib before initiating cycle 2 (D28; n = 108) and at end of treatment (n = 76). sTKa was determined centrally using Divitum®, a refined ELISA-based assay with a limit of detection of 20 Divitum Units (Du)/L. The primary study endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed for its association with pre- and on-treatment sTKa. RESULTS: Data from 122 women were analysed. Pre-treatment sTKa was not associated with clinical characteristics and moderately correlated with tissue Ki-67. Palbociclib + fulvestrant markedly suppressed sTKa levels at D15, with 83% of patients recording levels below limit of detection. At D28, sTKa showed a rebound in 60% of patients. At each timepoint, higher sTKa was associated with shorter progression-free survival (each p < 0.001), with the strongest effect at D15. CONCLUSIONS: STKa is an independent prognostic biomarker in patients treated with palbociclib. High pre-treatment sTKa and its incomplete suppression during treatment may identify patients with poorer prognosis and primary resistance. This warrants validation in prospective comparative trials. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02536742; EudraCT 2014-005387-15.

Combined Perioperative Lapatinib and Trastuzumab in Early HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Identifies Early Responders: Randomized UK EPHOS-B Trial Long-Term Results.

PURPOSE: EPHOS-B aimed to determine whether perioperative anti-HER2 therapy inhibited proliferation and/or increased apoptosis in HER2-positive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized phase II, two-part, multicenter trial included newly diagnosed women with HER2-positive invasive breast cancer due to undergo surgery. Patients were randomized to: part 1 (1:2:2), no treatment (control), trastuzumab or lapatinib; part 2 (1:1:2) control, trastuzumab, or lapatinib and trastuzumab combination. Treatment was given for 11 days presurgery. Coprimary endpoints were change in Ki67 and apoptosis between baseline and surgery tumor samples (biologic response: ≥30% change). Central pathology review scored residual cancer burden (RCB). Relapse-free survival (RFS) explored long-term effects. RESULTS: Between November 2010 and September 2015, 257 patients were randomized (part 1: control 22, trastuzumab 57, lapatinib 51; part 2: control 29, trastuzumab 32, combination 66). Ki67 response was evaluable for 223 patients: in part 1 Ki67 response occurred in 29/44 (66%) lapatinib versus 18/49 (37%) trastuzumab (P = 0.007) and 1/22 (5%) control (P < 0.0001); in part 2 in 36/49 (74%) combination versus 14/31 (45%) trastuzumab (P = 0.02) and 2/28 (7%) control (P < 0.0001). No significant increase in apoptosis after 11 days was seen in treatment groups. Six patients achieved complete pathologic response (pCR, RCB0) and 13 RCB1, all but two in the combination group. After 6 years median follow-up, 28 (11%) had recurrence and 19 (7%) died. No recurrences or deaths were observed among patients who achieved a pCR. Ki67% falls ≥50% associated with fewer recurrences (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Early response after short duration anti-HER2 dual therapy identifies cancers dependent on the HER2 pathway providing a strategy for exploring risk-adapted individualized treatment de-escalation.

Biomarkers of Response and Resistance to Palbociclib Plus Letrozole in Patients With ER+/HER2- Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine (i) the relationship between candidate biomarkers of the antiproliferative (Ki67) response to letrozole and palbociclib alone and combined in ER+/HER2- breast cancer; and (ii) the pharmacodynamic effect of the agents on the biomarkers. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: 307 postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2- primary breast cancer were randomly assigned to neoadjuvant treatment with letrozole for 14 weeks; letrozole for 2 weeks, then letrozole+palbociclib to 14 weeks; palbociclib for 2 weeks, then letrozole+palbociclib to 14 weeks; or letrozole+palbociclib for 14 weeks. Biopsies were taken at baseline, 2 and 14 weeks and surgery at varying times after stopping palbociclib. Immunohistochemical analyses were conducted for Ki67, c-PARP, ER, PgR, RB1, CCNE1, and CCND1. RESULTS: Higher baselines ER and PgR were significantly associated with a greater chance of complete cell-cycle arrest (CCCA: Ki67 <2.7%) at 14 weeks and higher baseline Ki67, c-PARP, and CCNE1 with a lower chance. The interaction with treatment was significant only for c-PARP. CCND1 levels were decreased c.20% by letrozole at 2 and 14 weeks but showed a tendency to increase with palbociclib. CCNE1 levels fell 82% (median) in tumors showing CCCA but were unchanged in those with no CCCA. Only 2/9 tumors showed CCCA 3-9 days after stopping palbociclib. ESR1 mutations were found in 2/4 tumors for which surgery took place ≥6 months after starting treatment. CONCLUSIONS: High CCNE1 levels were confirmed as a biomarker of resistance to letrozole+palbociclib. Ki67 recovery within 3-9 days of discontinuing palbociclib indicates incomplete suppression of proliferation during the "off" week of its schedule.

Adjuvant Palbociclib for Early Breast Cancer: The PALLAS Trial Results (ABCSG-42/AFT-05/BIG-14-03).

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

Implementation of platform trials in the COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid review.

MOTIVATION: Platform designs - master protocols that allow for new treatment arms to be added over time - have gained considerable attention in recent years. Between 2001 and 2019, 16 platform trials were initiated globally. The COVID-19 pandemic seems to have provided a new motivation for these designs. We conducted a rapid review to quantify and describe platform trials used in COVID-19. METHODS: We cross-referenced PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cytel COVID-19 Clinical Trials Tracker to identify platform trials, defined by their stated ability to add future arms. RESULTS: We identified 58 COVID-19 platform trials globally registered between January 2020 and May 2021. According to trial registries, 16 trials have added new therapies (median 3, IQR 4) and 11 have dropped arms (median 3, IQR 2.5). About 50% of trials publicly share their protocol, and 31 trials (53%) intend to share trial data. Forty-nine trials (84%) explicitly report adaptive features, and 21 trials (36%) state Bayesian methods. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, there has been a surge in the number of platform trials compared to historical use. While transparency in statistical methods and clarity of data sharing policies needs improvement, platform trials appear particularly well-suited for rapid evidence generation. Trials secured funding quickly and many succeeded in adding new therapies in a short time period, thus demonstrating the potential for these trial designs to be implemented beyond the pandemic. The evidence gathered here may provide ample insight to further inform operational, statistical, and regulatory aspects of future platform trial conduct.