Factors Associated with Nodal Pathologic Complete Response Among Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Results of CALGB 40601 (HER2+) and 40603 (Triple-Negative) (Alliance)

Background: De-escalation of axillary surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) requires careful patient selection. We seek to determine predictors of nodal pathologic complete response (ypN0) among patients treated on CALGB 40601 or 40603, which tested NAC regimens in HER2+ and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), respectively. Patients and Methods: A total of 760 patients with stage II–III HER2+ or TNBC were analyzed. Those who had axillary surgery before NAC (N = 122), or who had missing pretreatment clinical nodal status (cN) (N = 58) or ypN status (N = 41) were excluded. The proportion of patients with ypN0 disease was estimated for those with and without breast pathologic complete response (pCR) according to pretreatment nodal status. Results: In 539 patients, the overall ypN0 rate was 76.3% (411/539) to 93.2% (245/263) in patients with breast pCR and 60.1% (166/276) with residual breast disease (RD) (P < 0.0001). For patients who were cN0 pretreatment, the ypN0 rate was 88.8% (214/241), 96.3% (104/108) with breast pCR, and 82.7% (110/133) with RD. For patients who were cN1, 66.2% (157/237) converted to ypN0, 91.7% (111/121) with breast pCR and 39.7% (46/116) with RD. For patients who were cN2/3, 65.6% (40/61) converted to ypN0, 88.2% (30/34) with breast pCR and 37.0% (10/27) with RD. On multivariable analysis, only pretreatment clinical nodal status and breast pCR/RD were associated with ypN0 status (both P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Breast pCR and pretreatment nodal status are predictive of ypN0 axillary nodal involvement, with < 5% residual nodal disease among cN0 patients who experience breast pCR. These findings support the incorporation of axillary surgery de-escalation strategies into NAC trials

Feasibility assessment of patient reporting of symptomatic adverse events in multicenter cancer clinical trials

IMPORTANCE: In cancer clinical trials, symptomatic adverse events (AEs), such as nausea, are reported by investigators rather than by patients. There is increasing interest to collect symptomatic AE data via patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, but it is unclear whether it is feasible to implement this approach in multicenter trials. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether patients are willing and able to report their symptomatic AEs in multicenter trials. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 361 consecutive patients enrolled in any 1 of 9 US multicenter cancer treatment trials were invited to self-report 13 common symptomatic AEs using a PRO adaptation of the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) via tablet computers at 5 successive clinic visits. Patient adherence was tracked with reasons for missed self-reports. Agreement with clinician AE reports was analyzed with weighted κ statistics. Patient and investigator perspectives were elicited by survey. The study was conducted from March 15, 2007, to August 11, 2011. Data analysis was performed from August 9, 2013, to March 21, 2014. RESULTS: Of the 361 patients invited to participate, 285 individuals enrolled, with a median age of 57 years (range, 24-88), 202 (74.3%) female, 241 (85.5%) white, 73 (26.8%) with a high school education or less, and 176 (64.7%) who reported regular internet use (denominators varied owing to missing data). Across all patients and trials, there were 1280 visits during which patients had an opportunity to self-report (ie, patients were alive and enrolled in a treatment trial at the time of the visit). Self-reports were completed at 1202 visits (93.9% overall adherence). Adherence was highest at baseline and declined over time (visit 1, 100%; visit 2, 96%; visit 3, 95%; visit 4, 91%; and visit 5, 85%). Reasons for missing PROs included institutional errors in 27 of 48 (56.3%) of the cases (eg, staff forgetting to bring computers to patients at visits), patients feeling “too ill” in 8 (16.7%), patient refusal in 8 (16.7%), and internet connectivity problems in 5 (10.4%). Patient-investigator CTCAE agreement was moderate or worse for most symptoms (most κ < 0.05), with investigators reporting fewer AEs than patients across symptoms. Most patients believed that the system was easy to use (234 [93.2%]) and useful (230 [93.1%]), and investigators thought that the patient-reported AEs were useful (133 [94.3%]) and accurate (119 [83.2%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Participants in multicenter cancer trials are willing and able to report their own symptomatic AEs at most clinic visits and report more AEs than investigators. This approach may improve the precision of AE reporting in cancer trials

Axillary Management of Stage II/III Breast Cancer in Patients Treated with Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy: Results of CALGB 40601 (HER2-Positive) and CALGB 40603 (Triple-Negative)

Background Management of the axilla in stage II/III breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) is controversial. To understand current patterns of care, we collected axillary data from 2 NST trials: HER2-positive (Cancer and Leukemia Group B [CALGB] 40601) and triple-negative (CALGB 40603). Study Design Axillary evaluation pre- and post-NST was per the treating surgeon and could include sentinel node biopsy. Post-NST, node-positive patients were recommended to undergo axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). We report pre-NST histopathologic nodal evaluation and post-NST axillary surgical procedures with correlation to clinical and pathologic nodal status. Results Seven hundred and forty-two patients were treated, 704 had complete nodal data pre-NST and post-NST. Pre-NST, 422 (60%) of 704 patients underwent at least 1 procedure for axillary node evaluation (total of 468 procedures): fine needle aspiration (n = 234; 74% positive), core needle biopsy (n = 138; 72% positive), and sentinel node biopsy (n = 96; 33% positive). Pre-NST, 304 patients were considered node-positive. Post-NST, 304 of 704 patients (43%) underwent sentinel node biopsy; 44 were positive and 259 were negative (29 and 36 patients, respectively, had subsequent ALND). Three hundred and ninety-one (56%) patients went directly to post-NST ALND and 9 (1%) pre-NST node-positive patients had no post-NST axillary procedure. Post-NST, 170 (24%) of the 704 patients had residual axillary disease. Agreement between post-NST clinical and radiologic staging and post-NST histologic staging was strongest for node-negative (81%) and weaker for node-positive (N1 31%, N2 29%), with more than half of the clinically node-positive patients found to be pathologic negative (p < 0.001). Conclusions Our results suggest there is no widely accepted standard for axillary nodal evaluation pre-NST. Post-NST staging was highly concordant in patients with N0 disease, but poorly so in node-positive disease. Accurate methods are needed to identify post-NST patients without residual axillary disease to potentially spare ALND