Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author: Joyce O’Shaughnessy x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Impact of the Breast Cancer Index for Extended Endocrine Decision-Making: First Results of the Prospective BCI Registry Study

Tara B. Sanft, Jenna Wong, Brandon O’Neal, Natalia Siuliukina, Rachel C. Jankowitz, Mark D. Pegram, Jenny R. Fox, Yi Zhang, Kai Treuner, and Joyce A. O’Shaughnessy

Background: The Breast Cancer Index (BCI) test assay provides an individualized risk of late distant recurrence (5–10 years) and predicts the likelihood of benefitting from extended endocrine therapy (EET) in hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer. This analysis aimed to assess the impact of BCI on EET decision-making in current clinical practice. Methods: The BCI Registry study evaluates long-term outcomes, decision impact, and medication adherence in patients receiving BCI testing as part of routine clinical care. Physicians and patients completed pre-BCI and post-BCI test questionnaires to assess a range of questions, including physician decision-making and confidence regarding EET; patient preferences and concerns about the cost, side effects, drug safety, and benefit of EET; and patient satisfaction regarding treatment recommendations. Pre-BCI and post-BCI test responses were compared using McNemar’s test and Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results: Pre-BCI and post-BCI questionnaires were completed for 843 physicians and 823 patients. The mean age at enrollment was 65 years, and 88.4% of patients were postmenopausal. Of the tumors, 74.7% were T1, 53.4% were grade 2, 76.0% were N0, and 13.8% were HER2-positive. Following BCI testing, physicians changed EET recommendations in 40.1% of patients (P<.0001), and 45.1% of patients changed their preferences for EET (P<.0001). In addition, 38.8% of physicians felt more confident in their recommendation (P<.0001), and 41.4% of patients felt more comfortable with their EET decision (P<.0001). Compared with baseline, significantly more patients were less concerned about the cost (20.9%; P<.0001), drug safety (25.4%; P=.0014), and benefit of EET (29.3%; P=.0002). Conclusions: This analysis in a large patient cohort of the BCI Registry confirms and extends previous findings on the significant decision-making impact of BCI on EET. Incorporating BCI into clinical practice resulted in changes in physician recommendations, increased physician confidence, improved patient satisfaction, and reduced patient concerns regarding the cost, drug safety, and benefit of EET.

Full access

Evaluation of Pathologic Complete Response as a Surrogate for Long-Term Survival Outcomes in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Min Huang, Joyce O’Shaughnessy, Jing Zhao, Amin Haiderali, Javier Cortes, Scott Ramsey, Andrew Briggs, Vassiliki Karantza, Gursel Aktan, Cynthia Z. Qi, Chenyang Gu, Jipan Xie, Muhan Yuan, John Cook, Michael Untch, Peter Schmid, and Peter A. Fasching

Background: Pathologic complete response (pCR) is a common efficacy endpoint in neoadjuvant therapy trials for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Previous studies have shown that pCR is strongly associated with improved long-term survival outcomes, including event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). However, the trial-level associations between treatment effect on pCR and long-term survival outcomes are not well established. This study sought to evaluate these associations by incorporating more recent clinical trials in TNBC. Methods: A literature review identified published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of neoadjuvant therapy for TNBC that reported results for both pCR and EFS/OS. Meta-regression models were performed to evaluate the association of treatment effect on pCR and EFS/OS. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of divergent study designs. Results: Ten comparisons from 8 RCTs (N=2,478 patients) were identified from the literature review. The log (odds ratio) of pCR was a significant predictor of the log (hazard ratio) of EFS (P=.003), with a coefficient of determination of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.41–0.95). There was a weaker association between pCR and OS (P=.18), with a coefficient of determination of 0.24 (95% CI, 0.01–0.77). Consistent results were found in the exploratory analysis and sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: This is the first study that has shown a trial-level association between pCR and survival outcomes in TNBC. By incorporating the most up-to-date RCTs, this study showed a significant trial-level association between pCR and EFS. A positive association between pCR and OS was also recorded.

Full access

Clinical Outcomes With Abemaciclib After Prior CDK4/6 Inhibitor Progression in Breast Cancer: A Multicenter Experience

Seth A. Wander, Hyo S. Han, Mark L. Zangardi, Andrzej Niemierko, Veronica Mariotti, Leslie S.L. Kim, Jing Xi, Apurva Pandey, Siobhan Dunne, Azadeh Nasrazadani, Avinash Kambadakone, Casey Stein, Maxwell R. Lloyd, Megan Yuen, Laura M. Spring, Dejan Juric, Irene Kuter, Ioannis Sanidas, Beverly Moy, Therese Mulvey, Neelima Vidula, Nicholas J. Dyson, Leif W. Ellisen, Steven Isakoff, Nikhil Wagle, Adam Brufsky, Kevin Kalinsky, Cynthia X. Ma, Joyce O’Shaughnessy, and Aditya Bardia

Background: Inhibitors of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6i) are widely used as first-line therapy for hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer (HR+ MBC). Although abemaciclib monotherapy is also FDA-approved for treatment of disease progression on endocrine therapy, there is limited insight into the clinical activity of abemaciclib after progression on prior CDK4/6i. Patients and Methods: We identified patients with HR+ MBC from 6 cancer centers in the United States who received abemaciclib after disease progression on prior CDK4/6i, and abstracted clinical features, outcomes, toxicity, and predictive biomarkers. Results: In the multicenter cohort, abemaciclib was well tolerated after a prior course of CDK4/6i (palbociclib)-based therapy; a minority of patients discontinued abemaciclib because of toxicity without progression (9.2%). After progression on palbociclib, most patients (71.3%) received nonsequential therapy with abemaciclib (with ≥1 intervening non-CDK4/6i regimens), with most receiving abemaciclib with an antiestrogen agent (fulvestrant, 47.1%; aromatase inhibitor, 27.6%), and the remainder receiving abemaciclib monotherapy (19.5%). Median progression-free survival for abemaciclib in this population was 5.3 months and median overall survival was 17.2 months, notably similar to results obtained in the MONARCH-1 study of abemaciclib monotherapy in heavily pretreated HR+/HER2-negative CDK4/6i-naïve patients. A total of 36.8% of patients received abemaciclib for ≥6 months. There was no relationship between the duration of clinical benefit while on palbociclib and the subsequent duration of treatment with abemaciclib. RB1, ERBB2, and CCNE1 alterations were noted among patients with rapid progression on abemaciclib. Conclusions: A subset of patients with HR+ MBC continue to derive clinical benefit from abemaciclib after progression on prior palbociclib. These results highlight the need for future studies to confirm molecular predictors of cross-resistance to CDK4/6i therapy and to better characterize the utility of abemaciclib after disease progression on prior CDK4/6i.