Collaborative Modeling to Compare Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Decision Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: The effects of breast cancer incidence changes and advances in screening and treatment on outcomes of different screening strategies are not well known. Objective: To estimate outcomes of various mammography screening strategies. Design, Setting, and Population: Comparison of outcomes using 6 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models and national data on breast cancer incidence, mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality in US women without previous cancer diagnoses. Exposures: Thirty-six screening strategies with varying start ages (40, 45, 50 years) and stop ages (74, 79 years) with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) annually, biennially, or a combination of intervals. Strategies were evaluated for all women and for Black women, assuming 100% screening adherence and "real-world" treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated lifetime benefits (breast cancer deaths averted, percent reduction in breast cancer mortality, life-years gained), harms (false-positive recalls, benign biopsies, overdiagnosis), and number of mammograms per 1000 women. Results: Biennial screening with DBT starting at age 40, 45, or 50 years until age 74 years averted a median of 8.2, 7.5, or 6.7 breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened, respectively, vs no screening. Biennial DBT screening at age 40 to 74 years (vs no screening) was associated with a 30.0% breast cancer mortality reduction, 1376 false-positive recalls, and 14 overdiagnosed cases per 1000 women screened. Digital mammography screening benefits were similar to those for DBT but had more false-positive recalls. Annual screening increased benefits but resulted in more false-positive recalls and overdiagnosed cases. Benefit-to-harm ratios of continuing screening until age 79 years were similar or superior to stopping at age 74. In all strategies, women with higher-than-average breast cancer risk, higher breast density, and lower comorbidity level experienced greater screening benefits than other groups. Annual screening of Black women from age 40 to 49 years with biennial screening thereafter reduced breast cancer mortality disparities while maintaining similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs as for all women. Conclusions: This modeling analysis suggests that biennial mammography screening starting at age 40 years reduces breast cancer mortality and increases life-years gained per mammogram. More intensive screening for women with greater risk of breast cancer diagnosis or death can maintain similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs and reduce mortality disparities.

Analysis of Breast Cancer Mortality in the US-1975 to 2019.

Importance: Breast cancer mortality in the US declined between 1975 and 2019. The association of changes in metastatic breast cancer treatment with improved breast cancer mortality is unclear. Objective: To simulate the relative associations of breast cancer screening, treatment of stage I to III breast cancer, and treatment of metastatic breast cancer with improved breast cancer mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using aggregated observational and clinical trial data on the dissemination and effects of screening and treatment, 4 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models simulated US breast cancer mortality rates. Death due to breast cancer, overall and by estrogen receptor and ERBB2 (formerly HER2) status, among women aged 30 to 79 years in the US from 1975 to 2019 was simulated. Exposures: Screening mammography, treatment of stage I to III breast cancer, and treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Model-estimated age-adjusted breast cancer mortality rate associated with screening, stage I to III treatment, and metastatic treatment relative to the absence of these exposures was assessed, as was model-estimated median survival after breast cancer metastatic recurrence. Results: The breast cancer mortality rate in the US (age adjusted) was 48/100 000 women in 1975 and 27/100 000 women in 2019. In 2019, the combination of screening, stage I to III treatment, and metastatic treatment was associated with a 58% reduction (model range, 55%-61%) in breast cancer mortality. Of this reduction, 29% (model range, 19%-33%) was associated with treatment of metastatic breast cancer, 47% (model range, 35%-60%) with treatment of stage I to III breast cancer, and 25% (model range, 21%-33%) with mammography screening. Based on simulations, the greatest change in survival after metastatic recurrence occurred between 2000 and 2019, from 1.9 years (model range, 1.0-2.7 years) to 3.2 years (model range, 2.0-4.9 years). Median survival for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/ERBB2-positive breast cancer improved by 2.5 years (model range, 2.0-3.4 years), whereas median survival for ER-/ERBB2- breast cancer improved by 0.5 years (model range, 0.3-0.8 years). Conclusions and Relevance: According to 4 simulation models, breast cancer screening and treatment in 2019 were associated with a 58% reduction in US breast cancer mortality compared with interventions in 1975. Simulations suggested that treatment for stage I to III breast cancer was associated with approximately 47% of the mortality reduction, whereas treatment for metastatic breast cancer was associated with 29% of the reduction and screening with 25% of the reduction.

Population simulation modeling of disparities in US breast cancer mortality.

BACKGROUND: Populations of African American or Black women have persistently higher breast cancer mortality than the overall US population, despite having slightly lower age-adjusted incidence. METHODS: Three Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network simulation teams modeled cancer mortality disparities between Black female populations and the overall US population. Model inputs used racial group-specific data from clinical trials, national registries, nationally representative surveys, and observational studies. Analyses began with cancer mortality in the overall population and sequentially replaced parameters for Black populations to quantify the percentage of modeled breast cancer morality disparities attributable to differences in demographics, incidence, access to screening and treatment, and variation in tumor biology and response to therapy. RESULTS: Results were similar across the 3 models. In 2019, racial differences in incidence and competing mortality accounted for a net ‒1% of mortality disparities, while tumor subtype and stage distributions accounted for a mean of 20% (range across models = 13%-24%), and screening accounted for a mean of 3% (range = 3%-4%) of the modeled mortality disparities. Treatment parameters accounted for the majority of modeled mortality disparities: mean = 17% (range = 16%-19%) for treatment initiation and mean = 61% (range = 57%-63%) for real-world effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Our model results suggest that changes in policies that target improvements in treatment access could increase breast cancer equity. The findings also highlight that efforts must extend beyond policies targeting equity in treatment initiation to include high-quality treatment completion. This research will facilitate future modeling to test the effects of different specific policy changes on mortality disparities.

Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor Influence on Soluble and Membrane-Bound ICOS in Combination with Immune Checkpoint Blockade.

With the successful development of immune checkpoint blockade, there remains the continued need to improve efficacy and decrease toxicities. The addition of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) to ipilimumab has previously demonstrated both an improvement in efficacy and decrease in the incidence of high-grade adverse events. ICOS+CD4+ or ICOS+CD8+ peripheral blood T cells are significantly greater in the patients treated with ipilimumab plus GM-CSF than in the patients treated with ipilimumab alone. To better understand the effects of GM-CSF on inducible T-cell costimulator (ICOS) and clinical outcomes, the relative roles of identified soluble ICOS and membrane-bound ICOS were evaluated. The ICOS splice variant was secreted and found to have immunologic suppressive effects. Changes in soluble ICOS splice variant levels in treated patients correlated with clinical outcomes. GM-CSF enhanced membrane-bound ICOS in an IL12-dependent manner but did not increase soluble ICOS levels. Whereas soluble ICOS plays a role in immune suppression, GM-CSF efficacy involves increasing membrane-bound ICOS and induction of dendritic cell development. Thus, soluble ICOS splice variants may be used as a biomarker for GM-CSF and immune checkpoint blockade-based therapies.

Granulomatous and Sarcoid-like Immune-Related Adverse Events following CTLA4 and PD1 Blockade Adjuvant Therapy of Melanoma: A Combined Analysis of ECOG-ACRIN E1609 and SWOG S1404 Phase III Trials and a Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has been linked to granulomatous and sarcoid-like lesions (GSLs) affecting different organs. This study sought to evaluate GSL incidence in patients with high-risk melanoma treated with cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA4) or programmed cell death 1 (PD1) blockade adjuvant therapy in two clinical trials: ECOG-ACRIN E1609 and SWOG S1404. Descriptions and GSL severity ratings were recorded. METHODS: Data were collected from ECOG-ACRIN E1609 and SWOG S1404. Descriptive statistics along with GSL severity grades were reported. Additionally, a literature review for such cases was summarized. RESULTS: A total of 11 GSL cases were reported among 2878 patients treated with either ICI or with High-Dose Interferon Alfa-2b (HDI) in ECOG-ACRIN E1609 and SWOG S1404 trials. Cases were numerically more commonly reported with ipi10, followed by pembrolizumab, ipi3, and HDI, respectively. Most of the cases were grade III. Further, organs involved included lung, mediastinal lymph nodes, skin and subcutaneous tissue, and eye. Furthermore, a summary of 62 reports in the literature was described. CONCLUSIONS: GSLs following anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 antibody therapy in patients with melanoma were reported unusually. Reported cases ranged in grade from I to III and appeared manageable. Careful attention to these events and their reporting will be essential to better guide practice and management guidelines.

Patient-reported tolerability of adjuvant ipilimumab (3 or 10 mg/kg) versus high-dose interferon alfa-2b for resected high-risk stage III-IV melanoma in phase III trial E1609.

PURPOSE: Trial E1609 demonstrated superior overall survival with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (ipi3) compared to high-dose interferon (HDI) for patients with resected high-risk melanoma. To inform treatment tolerability, we compared health-related quality of life (HRQoL), gastrointestinal (GI), and treatment-specific physical and cognitive/emotional symptoms. We also compared treatment-specific concerns between all arms. METHODS: We assessed HRQoL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, physical and cognitive/emotional concerns using the FACT-Biologic Response Modifier subscale, and GI symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Diarrhea subscale pre-treatment and every 3 months. The primary outcome was the difference in HRQoL at 3 months between ipi3/ipi10 vs. HDI. RESULTS: 549 patients (n = 158 ipi3; n = 191 ipi10; n = 200 HDI) were analyzed. 3-month completion was 58.7%. Compared to HDI, ipilimumab patients reported better HRQoL (ipi3 = 87.5 ± 14.6 vs. HDI = 74.7 ± 15.4, p < .001; ipi10 = 84.9 ± 16.5 vs. HDI, p < .001) and fewer physical (ipi3 = 22.3 ± 4.6 vs. HDI = 17.1 ± 5.4, p < .001; ipi10 = 21.8 ± 5.0 vs. HDI p < .001) and cognitive/emotional (ipi3 = 18.6 ± 4.4 vs. HDI = 15.0 ± 5.3, p < .001; ipi10 = 17.7 ± 4.8 vs. HDI p < .001) concerns, but worse GI symptoms (ipi3 = 40.8 ± 5.0 vs. HDI = 42.2 ± 2.9, p = .011; ipi10 = 39.5 ± 7.0 vs. HDI, p < .001). Fewer ipilimumab patients reported worsening treatment-specific concerns (e.g., 52% of ipi3 and 58% of ipi10 reported worsening fatigue vs. 82% HDI, p's < .001). CONCLUSION: PROs demonstrated less toxicity of ipi3 compared to HDI and ipi10. Priorities for symptom management among patients receiving ipilimumab include GI toxicities, fatigue, weakness, appetite loss, arthralgia, and depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01274338, January 11, 2011 (first posted date) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01274338?term=NCT01274338&draw=2&rank=1 .

Combination Dabrafenib and Trametinib Versus Combination Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Patients With Advanced BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: The DREAMseq Trial-ECOG-ACRIN EA6134.

PURPOSE: Combination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4-blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A (P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B (P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated. CONCLUSION: Combination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

Enhanced immune activation within the tumor microenvironment and circulation of female high-risk melanoma patients and improved survival with adjuvant CTLA4 blockade compared to males.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that a gender difference in clinical response may exist to adjuvant CTLA4 blockade with ipilimumab versus high-dose IFNα (HDI). We investigated differences in candidate immune biomarkers in the circulation and tumor microenvironment (TME). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This gender-based analysis was nested within the E1609 trial that tested adjuvant therapy with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (ipi3) and 10 mg/kg (ipi10) versus HDI in high risk resected melanoma. We investigated gender differences in treatment efficacy with ipi3 and ipi10 versus HDI while adjusting for age, stage, ECOG performance (PS), ulceration, primary tumor status and lymph node number. Forest plots were created to compare overall survival (OS) and relapse free survival (RFS) between ipi and HDI. Gene expression profiling (GEP) was performed on tumors of 718 (454 male, 264 female) patients. Similarly, serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) samples were tested for soluble and cellular biomarkers (N = 321 patients; 109 female and 212 male). RESULTS: The subgroups of female, stage IIIC, PS = 1, ulcerated primary, in-transit metastasis demonstrated significant improvement in RFS and/or OS with ipi3 versus HDI. Female gender was significant for both OS and RFS and was further explored. In the RFS comparison, a multivariate Cox regression model including significant variables indicated a significant interaction between gender and treatment (P = 0.024). In peripheral blood, percentages of CD3+ T cells (P = 0.024) and CD3+ CD4+ helper T cells (P = 0.0001) were higher in females compared to males. Trends toward higher circulating levels of IL1ß (P = 0.07) and IL6 (P = 0.06) were also found in females. Males had higher percentages of monocytes (P = 0.03) with trends toward higher percentages of regulatory T cells (T-reg). Tumor GEP analysis supported enhanced infiltration with immune cells including gammadelta T cells (P = 0.005), NK cells (P = 0.01), dendritic cells (P = 0.01), CD4+ T cells (P = 0.03), CD8+ T cells (P = 0.03) and T-reg (P = 0.008) in the tumors of females compared to males and a higher T-effector and IFNγ gene signature score (P = 0.0244). CONCLUSION: Female gender was associated with adjuvant CTLA4 blockade clinical benefits and female patients were more likely to have evidence of type1 immune activation within the TME and the circulation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01274338. Registered 11 January 2011, https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT01274338.

Improved prognosis and evidence of enhanced immunogenicity in tumor and circulation of high-risk melanoma patients with unknown primary.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma of unknown primary (MUP) represents a poorly understood group of patients both clinically and immunologically. We investigated differences in prognosis and candidate immune biomarkers in patients with unknown compared with those with known primary melanoma enrolled in the E1609 adjuvant trial that tested ipilimumab at 3 and 10 mg/kg vs high-dose interferon-alfa (HDI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: MUP status was defined as initial presentation with cutaneous, nodal or distant metastasis without a known primary. Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Stratified (by stage) log-rank test was used to compare RFS and OS by primary tumor status. Gene expression profiling (GEP) was performed on the tumor biopsies of a subset of patients. Similarly, peripheral blood samples were tested for candidate soluble and cellular immune biomarkers. RESULTS: MUP cases represented 12.8% of the total population (N=1699) including 11.7% on the ipilimumab arms and 14.7% on the HDI arm. Stratifying by stage, RFS (p=0.001) and overall survival (OS) (p=0.009) showed outcomes significantly better for patients with unknown primary. The primary tumor status remained prognostically significant after adjusting for treatment and stage in multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. Including only ipilimumab-treated patients, RFS (p=0.005) and OS (p=0.023) were significantly better in favor of those with unknown primary. Among patients with GEP data (n=718; 102 MUP, 616 known), GEP identified pathways and genes related to autoimmunity, inflammation, immune cell infiltration and immune activation that were significantly enriched in the MUP tumors compared with known primaries. Further investigation into infiltrating immune cell types estimated significant enrichment with CD8 +and CD4+T cells, B cells and NK cells as well as significantly higher major histocompatibility complex (MHC)-I and MHC-II scores in MUP compared with known primary. Among patients tested for circulating biomarkers (n=321; 66 unknown and 255 known), patients with MUP had significantly higher circulating levels of IL-2R (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Patients with MUP and high-risk melanoma had significantly better prognosis and evidence of significantly enhanced immune activation within the TME and the circulation, supporting the designation of MUP as a distinct prognostic marker in patients with high-risk melanoma.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Breast Cancer Mortality in the US: Estimates From Collaborative Simulation Modeling.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted breast cancer control through short-term declines in screening and delays in diagnosis and treatments. We projected the impact of COVID-19 on future breast cancer mortality between 2020 and 2030. METHODS: Three established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network breast cancer models modeled reductions in mammography screening use, delays in symptomatic cancer diagnosis, and reduced use of chemotherapy for women with early-stage disease for the first 6 months of the pandemic with return to prepandemic patterns after that time. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the effect of key model parameters, including the duration of the pandemic impact. RESULTS: By 2030, the models project 950 (model range = 860-1297) cumulative excess breast cancer deaths related to reduced screening, 1314 (model range = 266-1325) associated with delayed diagnosis of symptomatic cases, and 151 (model range = 146-207) associated with reduced chemotherapy use in women with hormone positive, early-stage cancer. Jointly, 2487 (model range = 1713-2575) excess breast cancer deaths were estimated, representing a 0.52% (model range = 0.36%-0.56%) cumulative increase over breast cancer deaths expected by 2030 in the absence of the pandemic's disruptions. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the breast cancer mortality impact would be approximately double if the modeled pandemic effects on screening, symptomatic diagnosis, and chemotherapy extended for 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Initial pandemic-related disruptions in breast cancer care will have a small long-term cumulative impact on breast cancer mortality. Continued efforts to ensure prompt return to screening and minimize delays in evaluation of symptomatic women can largely mitigate the effects of the initial pandemic-associated disruptions.

Reflecting on 20 years of breast cancer modeling in CISNET: Recommendations for future cancer systems modeling efforts.

Since 2000, the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) modeling teams have developed and applied microsimulation and statistical models of breast cancer. Here, we illustrate the use of collaborative breast cancer multilevel systems modeling in CISNET to demonstrate the flexibility of systems modeling to address important clinical and policy-relevant questions. Challenges and opportunities of future systems modeling are also summarized. The 6 CISNET breast cancer models embody the key features of systems modeling by incorporating numerous data sources and reflecting tumor, person, and health system factors that change over time and interact to affect the burden of breast cancer. Multidisciplinary modeling teams have explored alternative representations of breast cancer to reveal insights into breast cancer natural history, including the role of overdiagnosis and race differences in tumor characteristics. The models have been used to compare strategies for improving the balance of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening based on personal risk factors, including age, breast density, polygenic risk, and history of Down syndrome or a history of childhood cancer. The models have also provided evidence to support the delivery of care by simulating outcomes following clinical decisions about breast cancer treatment and estimating the relative impact of screening and treatment on the United States population. The insights provided by the CISNET breast cancer multilevel modeling efforts have informed policy and clinical guidelines. The 20 years of CISNET modeling experience has highlighted opportunities and challenges to expanding the impact of systems modeling. Moving forward, CISNET research will continue to use systems modeling to address cancer control issues, including modeling structural inequities affecting racial disparities in the burden of breast cancer. Future work will also leverage the lessons from team science, expand resource sharing, and foster the careers of early stage modeling scientists to ensure the sustainability of these efforts.

Immune adverse events (irAEs) with adjuvant ipilimumab in melanoma, use of immunosuppressants and association with outcome: ECOG-ACRIN E1609 study analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) occurring from adjuvant use of immunotherapy and of their management on relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes is currently not well understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS: E1609 enrolled 1673 patients with resected high-risk melanoma and evaluated adjuvant ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (ipi3) and 10 mg/kg (ipi10) versus interferon-α. We investigated the association of irAEs and of use of immunosuppressants with RFS and OS for patients treated with ipilimumab (n=1034). RESULTS: Occurrence of grades 1-2 irAEs was associated with RFS (5 years: 52% (95% CI 47% to 56%) vs 41% (95% CI 31% to 50%) with no AE; p=0.006) and a trend toward improved OS (5 years: 75% (95% CI 71% to 79%) compared with 67% (95% CI 56% to 75%) with no AE; p=0.064). Among specific irAEs, grades 1-2 rash was most significantly associated with RFS (p=0.002) and OS (p=0.003). In multivariate models adjusting for prognostic factors, the most significant associations were seen for grades 1-2 rash with RFS (p<0.001, HR=0.70) and OS (p=0.01, HR=0.71) and for grades 1-2 endocrine+rash with RFS (p<0.001, HR=0.66) and OS (p=0.008, HR=0.7). Overall, grades 1-2 irAEs had the best prognosis in terms of RFS and OS and those with grades 3-4 had less RFS benefits and no OS advantage over no irAE. Patients experiencing grades 3-4 irAE had significantly higher exposure to corticosteroids and immunosuppressants than those with grades 1-2 (92% vs 60%; p<0.001), but no significant associations were found between corticosteroid and immunosuppressant use and RFS or OS. In investigating the impact of non-corticosteroid immunosuppressants, although there were trends toward better RFS and OS favoring cases who were not exposed, no significant associations were found. CONCLUSIONS: Rash and endocrine irAEs were independent prognostic factors of RFS and OS in patients treated with adjuvant ipilimumab. Patients experiencing lower grade irAEs derived the most benefit, but we found no significant evidence supporting a negative impact of high dose corticosteroids and immunosuppressants more commonly used to manage grades 3-4 irAEs.

Prognostic Gene Expression Profiling in Cutaneous Melanoma: Identifying the Knowledge Gaps and Assessing the Clinical Benefit.

Importance: Use of prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) testing in cutaneous melanoma (CM) is rising despite a lack of endorsement as standard of care. Objective: To develop guidelines within the national Melanoma Prevention Working Group (MPWG) on integration of GEP testing into the management of patients with CM, including (1) review of published data using GEP tests, (2) definition of acceptable performance criteria, (3) current recommendations for use of GEP testing in clinical practice, and (4) considerations for future studies. Evidence Review: The MPWG members and other international melanoma specialists participated in 2 online surveys and then convened a summit meeting. Published data and meeting abstracts from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. Findings: The MPWG members are optimistic about the future use of prognostic GEP testing to improve risk stratification and enhance clinical decision-making but acknowledge that current utility is limited by test performance in patients with stage I disease. Published studies of GEP testing have not evaluated results in the context of all relevant clinicopathologic factors or as predictors of regional nodal metastasis to replace sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). The performance of GEP tests has generally been reported for small groups of patients representing particular tumor stages or in aggregate form, such that stage-specific performance cannot be ascertained, and without survival outcomes compared with data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition melanoma staging system international database. There are significant challenges to performing clinical trials incorporating GEP testing with SLNB and adjuvant therapy. The MPWG members favor conducting retrospective studies that evaluate multiple GEP testing platforms on fully annotated archived samples before embarking on costly prospective studies and recommend avoiding routine use of GEP testing to direct patient management until prospective studies support their clinical utility. Conclusions and Relevance: More evidence is needed to support using GEP testing to inform recommendations regarding SLNB, intensity of follow-up or imaging surveillance, and postoperative adjuvant therapy. The MPWG recommends further research to assess the validity and clinical applicability of existing and emerging GEP tests. Decisions on performing GEP testing and patient management based on these results should only be made in the context of discussion of testing limitations with the patient or within a multidisciplinary group.

Modeling the natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ based on population data.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased substantially since the introduction of mammography screening. Nevertheless, little is known about the natural history of preclinical DCIS in the absence of biopsy or complete excision. METHODS: Two well-established population models evaluated six possible DCIS natural history submodels. The submodels assumed 30%, 50%, or 80% of breast lesions progress from undetectable DCIS to preclinical screen-detectable DCIS; each model additionally allowed or prohibited DCIS regression. Preclinical screen-detectable DCIS could also progress to clinical DCIS or invasive breast cancer (IBC). Applying US population screening dissemination patterns, the models projected age-specific DCIS and IBC incidence that were compared to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data. Models estimated mean sojourn time (MST) in the preclinical screen-detectable DCIS state, overdiagnosis, and the risk of progression from preclinical screen-detectable DCIS. RESULTS: Without biopsy and surgical excision, the majority of DCIS (64-100%) in the preclinical screen-detectable state progressed to IBC in submodels assuming no DCIS regression (36-100% in submodels allowing for DCIS regression). DCIS overdiagnosis differed substantially between models and submodels, 3.1-65.8%. IBC overdiagnosis ranged 1.3-2.4%. Submodels assuming DCIS regression resulted in a higher DCIS overdiagnosis than submodels without DCIS regression. MST for progressive DCIS varied between 0.2 and 2.5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the majority of screen-detectable but unbiopsied preclinical DCIS lesions progress to IBC and that the MST is relatively short. Nevertheless, due to the heterogeneity of DCIS, more research is needed to understand the progression of DCIS by grades and molecular subtypes.

Phase III Study of Adjuvant Ipilimumab (3 or 10 mg/kg) Versus High-Dose Interferon Alfa-2b for Resected High-Risk Melanoma: North American Intergroup E1609.

PURPOSE: Phase III adjuvant trials have reported significant benefits in both relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) for high-dose interferon alfa (HDI) and ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg (ipi10). E1609 evaluated the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg (ipi3) and ipi10 versus HDI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: E1609 was a phase III trial in patients with resected cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition stage IIIB, IIIC, M1a, or M1b). It had 2 coprimary end points: OS and RFS. A 2-step hierarchic approach first evaluated ipi3 versus HDI followed by ipi10 versus HDI. RESULTS: Between May 2011 and August 2014, 1,670 adult patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1:1) to ipi3 (n = 523), HDI (n = 636), or ipi10 (n = 511). Treatment-related adverse events grade ≥ 3 occurred in 37% of patients receiving ipi3, 79% receiving HDI, and 58% receiving ipi10, with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in 35%, 20%, and 54%, respectively. Comparison of ipi3 versus HDI used an intent-to-treat analysis of concurrently randomly assigned patient cases (n = 1,051) and showed significant OS difference in favor of ipi3 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95.6% repeated CI, 0.61 to 0.99; P = .044; RFS: HR, 0.85; 99.4% CI, 0.66 to 1.09; P = .065). In the second step, for ipi10 versus HDI (n = 989), trends in favor of ipi10 did not achieve statistical significance. Salvage patterns after melanoma relapse showed significantly higher rates of ipilimumab and ipilimumab/anti-programmed death 1 use in the HDI arm versus ipi3 and ipi10 (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapy with ipi3 benefits survival versus HDI; for the first time to our knowledge in melanoma adjuvant therapy, E1609 has demonstrated a significant improvement in OS against an active control regimen. The currently approved adjuvant ipilimumab dose (ipi10) was more toxic and not superior in efficacy to HDI.

Long-Term Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is increasingly being used for routine breast cancer screening. We projected the long-term impact and cost-effectiveness of DBT compared to conventional digital mammography (DM) for breast cancer screening in the United States. METHODS: Three Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network breast cancer models simulated US women ages 40 years and older undergoing breast cancer screening with either DBT or DM starting in 2011 and continuing for the lifetime of the cohort. Screening performance estimates were based on observational data; in an alternative scenario, we assumed 4% higher sensitivity for DBT. Analyses used federal payer perspective; costs and utilities were discounted at 3% annually. Outcomes included breast cancer deaths, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), false-positive examinations, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Compared to DM, DBT screening resulted in a slight reduction in breast cancer deaths (range across models 0-0.21 per 1000 women), small increase in QALYs (1.97-3.27 per 1000 women), and a 24-28% reduction in false-positive exams (237-268 per 1000 women) relative to DM. ICERs ranged from $195 026 to $270 135 per QALY for DBT relative to DM. When assuming 4% higher DBT sensitivity, ICERs decreased to $130 533-$156 624 per QALY. ICERs were sensitive to DBT costs, decreasing to $78 731 to $168 883 and $52 918 to $118 048 when the additional cost of DBT was reduced to $36 and $26 (from baseline of $56), respectively. CONCLUSION: DBT reduces false-positive exams while achieving similar or slightly improved health benefits. At current reimbursement rates, the additional costs of DBT screening are likely high relative to the benefits gained; however, DBT could be cost-effective at lower screening costs.

An updated analysis of 4 randomized ECOG trials of high-dose interferon in the adjuvant treatment of melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The pivotal E1684, E1690, E1694, and E2696 trials of adjuvant high-dose interferon-α (HDI) enrolled nearly 2000 patients, and established HDI as the standard of care in adjuvant therapy for patients with resected high-risk melanoma. Herein, the authors present an updated analysis of these 4 trials. METHODS: Survival and disease status were updated in September 2016. These data represent a median follow-up of 17.9 years for the E1684 trial, 12.2 years for the E1690 trial, 16.0 years for the E1694 trial, and 16.5 years for the E2696 trial. RESULTS: The current analysis confirmed the benefit to recurrence-free survival (RFS) of HDI in the E1684 trial at a median follow-up of 17.9 years. The RFS benefit in the E1694 trial remained evident at a median follow-up of 16 years. Furthermore, the results of the current study confirmed the RFS benefit of adjuvant HDI compared with observation in a pooled analysis of the E1684 and E1690 trials. No overall survival benefit was apparent in this pooled analysis. Updated results for the E1690 and E2696 trials did not differ from those previously reported. In addition, to the authors' knowledge, the current study is the first to report a significant difference in melanoma-specific survival (MSS) between patients treated with HDI compared with the ganglioside GM2/keyhole limpet hemocyanin (GMK) vaccine in the E1694 trial. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resected high-risk melanoma, adjuvant HDI demonstrated improved RFS in the E1684 and E1694 trials, and improved MSS in a pooled analysis of HDI in the E1694 trial. To the authors' knowledge, these findings represent the most mature level of evidence for the benefit of HDI with respect to RFS and MSS. HDI is the only approved adjuvant treatment for which there are data available in patients with resected stage IIB/IIC melanoma, and remains a reasonable treatment option in this population.

Cancer Outcomes in DCIS Patients Without Locoregional Treatment.

BACKGROUND: The vast majority of women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) undergo treatment. Therefore, the risks of invasive progression and competing death in the absence of locoregional therapy are uncertain. METHODS: We performed survival analyses of patient-level data from DCIS patients who did not receive definitive surgery or radiation therapy as recorded in the US National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program (1992-2014). Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the net risk of subsequent ipsilateral invasive cancer. The cumulative incidences of ipsilateral invasive cancer, contralateral breast cancer, and death were estimated using competing risk methods. RESULTS: A total of 1286 DCIS patients who did not undergo locoregional therapy were identified. Median age at diagnosis was 60 years (inter-quartile range = 51-74 years), with median follow-up of 5.5 years (inter-quartile range = 2.3-10.6 years). Among patients with tumor grade I/II (n = 547), the 10-year net risk of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer was 12.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.6% to 17.1%) compared with 17.6% (95% CI = 12.1% to 25.2%) among patients with tumor grade III (n = 244) and 10.1% (95% CI = 7.4% to 13.8%) among patients with unknown grade (n = 495). Among all patients, the 10-year cumulative incidences of ipsilateral invasive cancer, contralateral breast cancer, and all-cause mortality were 10.5% (95% CI = 8.5% to 12.4%), 3.9% (95% CI = 2.6% to 5.2%), and 24.1% (95% CI = 21.2% to 26.9%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite limited data, our findings suggest that DCIS patients without locoregional treatment have a limited risk of invasive progression. Although the cohort is not representative of the general population of patients diagnosed with DCIS, the findings suggest that there may be overtreatment, especially among older patients and patients with elevated comorbidities.

Validation of Melanoma Immune Profile (MIP), a Prognostic Immune Gene Prediction Score for Stage II-III Melanoma.

PURPOSE: Biomarkers are needed to stratify patients with stage II-III melanoma for clinical trials of adjuvant therapy because, while immunotherapy is protective, it also confers the risk of severe toxicity. We previously defined and validated a 53-immune gene melanoma immune profile (MIP) predictive both of distant metastatic recurrence and of disease-specific survival (DSS). Here, we test MIP on a third independent population. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A retrospective cohort of 78 patients with stage II-III primary melanoma was analyzed using the NanoString assay to measure expression of 53 target genes, and MIP score was calculated. Statistical analysis correlating MIP with DSS, overall survival, distant metastatic recurrence, and distant metastasis-free interval was performed using ROC curves, Kaplan-Meier curves, and standard univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: MIP significantly distinguished patients with distant metastatic recurrence from those without distant metastatic recurrence using ROC curve analysis (AUC = 0.695; P = 0.008). We defined high- and low-risk groups based on the cutoff defined by this ROC curve and find that MIP correlates with both DSS and overall survival by ROC curve analysis (AUC = 0.719; P = 0.004 and AUC = 0.698; P = 0.004, respectively). Univariable Cox regression reveals that a high-risk MIP score correlates with DSS (P = 0.015; HR = 3.2). CONCLUSIONS: MIP identifies patients with low risk of death from melanoma and may constitute a clinical tool to stratify patients with stage II-III melanoma for enrollment in clinical trials.

Clinicopathologic, misdiagnosis, and survival differences between clinically amelanotic melanomas and pigmented melanomas.

BACKGROUND: Amelanotic malignant melanoma (AMM) is challenging to diagnose. Clinical risk factors for AMM are not well defined. OBJECTIVE: To investigate clinicopathologic, misdiagnosis, and survival differences between patients with AMM and those with pigmented malignant melanoma (PMM). METHODS: A cross-sectional retrospective medical record review at a tertiary academic medical center. RESULTS: A total of 933 patients with melanoma with known presenting tumor color were identified (342 with AMM vs 591 with PMM). AMM was associated with older age, history of nonmelanoma skin cancer, and red hair, whereas AMM was inversely associated with a family history of melanoma, more than 50 nevi, and a history of dysplastic nevi. Compared with PMM, AMM was more likely to be located on the head and/or neck, had more aggressive pathologic features (greater Breslow depth and/or mitoses, ulceration, nodular subtype), and was less likely to be associated with a precursor nevus or regression. Finally, patients with AMM were more likely to be misdiagnosed than were patients with PMM (25% vs 12% clinically and 12% vs 7% pathologically), and they had poorer melanoma-specific survival (5-year overall survival rate, 0.77 [95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.82] vs 0.84 [95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.87]). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study design, single-institutional study. CONCLUSION: Greater clinician awareness, lower biopsy thresholds, and increased patient education may be useful to enhance AMM detection in patients with certain characteristics.