Secondary Analysis of the Rate of Second Primary Lung Cancer From Cancer and Leukemia Group B 140503 (Alliance) Trial of Lobar Versus Sublobar Resection for T1aN0 Non-Small-Cell Lung 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 co-primary 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.Patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who undergo curative surgical resection are at risk for developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). Cancer and Leukemia Group B 140503 (Alliance) was a multicenter, international, randomized, phase III trial in patients with stage T1aN0 NSCLC (using the TNM staging system seventh edition) and demonstrated the noninferiority for disease-free survival between sublobar resection (SLR) and lobar resection (LR). After surgery, patients underwent computed tomography surveillance as defined by the protocol. The determination of a SPLC was done by the treating physician and recorded in the study database. We performed an analysis of the rate of SPLC (per patient per year) and the 5-year cumulative incidence in the study population and within the SLR and LR arms. Median follow-up was 7 years. The rate per patient per year in the study population, in the SLR arm, and in the LR arm was 3.4% (95% CI, 2.9 to 4.1), 3.8% (95% CI, 2.9 to 4.9), and 3.1% (95% CI, 2.4 to 4.1), respectively. The estimated 5-year cumulative incidence of SPLC in the study population, SLR arm, and LR arm was 15.9% (95% CI, 12.9 to 18.9), 17.2% (95% CI, 12.7 to 21.5), and 14.7% (95% CI, 10.6 to 18.7), respectively.

Lobectomy, segmentectomy, or wedge resection for peripheral clinical T1aN0 non-small cell lung cancer: A post hoc analysis of CALGB 140503 (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: We have recently reported the primary results of CALGB 140503 (Alliance), a randomized trial in patients with peripheral cT1aN0 non-small cell lung cancer (American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh) treated with either lobar resection (LR) or sublobar resection (SLR). Here we report differences in disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS) between LR, segmental resection (SR), and wedge resection (WR). We also report differences between WR and SR in terms of surgical margins, rate of locoregional recurrence (LRR), and expiratory flow rate at 6 months postoperatively. METHODS: Between June 2007 and March 2017, a total of 697 patients were randomized to LR (n = 357) or SLR (n = 340) stratified by clinical tumor size, histology, and smoking history. Ten patients were converted from SLR to LR, and 5 patients were converted from LR to SLR. Survival endpoints were estimated using the Kaplan-Maier estimator and tested by the stratified log-rank test. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare margins and changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) between groups, and the χ2 test was used to test the associations between recurrence and groups. RESULTS: A total of 362 patients had LR, 131 had SR, and 204 had WR. Basic demographic and clinical and pathologic characteristics were similar in the 3 groups. Five-year DFS was 64.7% after LR (95% confidence interval [CI], 59.6%-70.1%), 63.8% after SR (95% CI, 55.6%-73.2%), and 62.5% after WR (95% CI, 55.8%-69.9%) (P = .888, log-rank test). Five-year OS was 78.7% after LR, 81.9% after SR, and 79.7% after WR (P = .873, log-rank test). Five-year LCSS was 86.8% after LR, 89.2% after SR, and 89.7% after WR (P = .903, log-rank test). LRR occurred in 12% after SR and in 14% after WR (P = .295). At 6 months postoperatively, the median reduction in % FEV1 was 5% after WR and 3% after SR (P = .930). CONCLUSIONS: In this large randomized trial, LR, SR, and WR were associated with similar survival outcomes. Although LRR was numerically higher after WR compared to SR, the difference was not statistically significant. There was no significant difference in the reduction of FEV1 between the SR and WR groups.

Functional assays for classification of BRCA2 variants of uncertain significance.

The assessment of the influence of many rare BRCA2 missense mutations on cancer risk has proved difficult. A multifactorial likelihood model that predicts the odds of cancer causality for missense variants is effective, but is limited by the availability of family data. As an alternative, we developed functional assays that measure the influence of missense mutations on the ability of BRCA2 to repair DNA damage by homologous recombination and to control centriole amplification. We evaluated 22 missense mutations from the BRCA2 DNA binding domain (DBD) that were identified in multiple breast cancer families using these assays and compared the results with those from the likelihood model. Thirteen variants inactivated BRCA2 function in at least one assay; two others truncated BRCA2 by aberrant splicing; and seven had no effect on BRCA2 function. Of 10 variants with odds in favor of causality in the likelihood model of 50:1 or more and a posterior probability of pathogenicity of 0.99, eight inactivated BRCA2 function and the other two caused splicing defects. Four variants and four controls displaying odds in favor of neutrality of 50:1 and posterior probabilities of pathogenicity of at least 1 x 10(-3) had no effect on function in either assay. The strong correlation between the functional assays and likelihood model data suggests that these functional assays are an excellent method for identifying inactivating missense mutations in the BRCA2 DBD and that the assays may be a useful addition to models that predict the likelihood of cancer in carriers of missense mutations.