Search Results

As part of Massachusetts General Hospital’s overall quality improvement program, the Massachusetts General Hospital Breast Oncology Program participated in the NCCN Breast Cancer Outcomes Database Opportunities for Improvement Program. A review of concordance to breast oncology quality measures revealed that a small proportion of patients with breast cancer started chemotherapy more than 120 days after diagnosis. Therefore, the research team designed a quality improvement project to increase the percentage of concordance with the ASCO quality measure that requires time to treatment of less than 120 days and to decrease the number weeks from last definitive surgery to first adjuvant chemotherapy by 2014. A multipronged approach of improvements was used: to systems and infrastructure, communication among providers, and recruitment of additional staff as needed. This article describes the project and future initiatives to further improve the quality of breast cancer care at the institution.

Background: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for disproportionately poor outcomes in breast cancer, driven by a subset of rapid-relapse TNBC (rrTNBC) with marked chemoresistance, rapid metastatic spread, and poor survival. Our objective was to evaluate clinicopathologic and sociodemographic features associated with rrTNBC. Methods: We included patients diagnosed with stage I–III TNBC in 1996 through 2012 who received chemotherapy at 1 of 10 academic cancer centers. rrTNBC was defined as a distant metastatic recurrence event or death ≤24 months after diagnosis. Features associated with rrTNBC were included in a multivariable logistic model upon which backward elimination was performed with a P<.10 criterion, with a final multivariable model applied to training (70%) and independent validation (30%) cohorts. Results: Among all patients with breast cancer treated at these centers, 3,016 fit the inclusion criteria. Training cohort (n=2,112) bivariable analyses identified disease stage, insurance type, age, body mass index, race, and income as being associated with rrTNBC (P<.10). In the final multivariable model, rrTNBC was significantly associated with higher disease stage (adjusted odds ratio for stage III vs I, 16.0; 95% CI, 9.8–26.2; P<.0001), Medicaid/indigent insurance, lower income (by 2000 US Census tract), and younger age at diagnosis. Model performance was consistent between the training and validation cohorts. In sensitivity analyses, insurance type, low income, and young age were associated with rrTNBC among patients with stage I/II but not stage III disease. When comparing rrTNBC versus late relapse (>24 months), we found that insurance type and young age remained significant. Conclusions: Timing of relapse in TNBC is associated with stage of disease and distinct sociodemographic features, including insurance type, income, and age at diagnosis.

Purpose: Breast cancer in young women is associated with an aggressive tumor biology and higher risk of recurrence. Pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant therapy has been shown to be a surrogate marker for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), but the association between pCR and survival outcomes in young women with breast cancer is not well described. Methods: This study included women aged ≤40 years at diagnosis who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for stage II–III invasive breast cancer between 1998 and 2014 at Massachusetts General Hospital. Outcomes were compared between patients who achieved pCR (ypT0/is, ypN0) and those with residual disease. Results: A total of 170 young women were included in the analytical data set, of which 53 (31.2%) achieved pCR after NAC. The 5-year DFS rate for patients with and without pCR was 91% versus 60%, respectively (P<.01), and the OS rate was 95% versus 75%, respectively (P<.01). Among patients with pCR, no difference was seen in OS irrespective of baseline clinical stage (P=.6), but among patients with residual disease after NAC, a significant difference in OS based on baseline clinical stage was observed (P<.001). Conclusions: Our results suggest pCR after NAC is strongly associated with significantly improved DFS and OS in young women with breast cancer, and perhaps even more so than baseline stage. However, the significantly higher mortality for patients who did not attain pCR highlights the need for better therapies, and the neoadjuvant trial design could potentially serve as an efficient method for rapid triage and escalation/de-escalation of therapies to improve outcomes for young women with breast cancer.

Background: Studies show that early, integrated palliative care (PC) improves quality of life (QoL) and end-of-life (EoL) care for patients with poor-prognosis cancers. However, the optimal strategy for delivering PC for those with advanced cancers who have longer disease trajectories, such as metastatic breast cancer (MBC), remains unknown. We tested the effect of a PC intervention on the documentation of EoL care discussions, patient-reported outcomes, and hospice utilization in this population. Patients and Methods: Patients with MBC and clinical indicators of poor prognosis (n=120) were randomly assigned to receive an outpatient PC intervention (n=61) or usual care (n=59) between May 2, 2016, and December 26, 2018, at an academic cancer center. The intervention entailed 5 structured PC visits focusing on symptom management, coping, prognostic awareness, decision-making, and EoL planning. The primary outcome was documentation of EoL care discussions in the electronic health record (EHR). Secondary outcomes included patient-report of discussions with clinicians about EoL care, QoL, and mood symptoms at 6, 12, 18, and 24 weeks after baseline and hospice utilization. Results: The rate of EoL care discussions documented in the EHR was higher among intervention patients versus those receiving usual care (67.2% vs 40.7%; P=.006), including a higher completion rate of a Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment form (39.3% vs 13.6%; P=.002). Intervention patients were also more likely to report discussing their EoL care wishes with their doctor (odds ratio [OR], 3.10; 95% CI, 1.21–7.94; P=.019) and to receive hospice services (OR, 4.03; 95% CI, 1.10–14.73; P=.035) compared with usual care patients. Study groups did not differ in patient-reported QoL or mood symptoms. Conclusions: This PC intervention significantly improved rates of discussion and documentation regarding EoL care and delivery of hospice services among patients with MBC, demonstrating that PC can be tailored to address the supportive care needs of patients with longer disease trajectories.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02730858

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.