The current leaders labor under assumptions that markets primed for profit are the priorities, independent of patient needs or promising scientific leads, forgetting how their companies once ...flourished. It is time to refocus the research system on the true meaning of translational research—to transform scientific discoveries into clinical tools that solve real patient problems. This chapter offers a glimpse into the (im)patient side of fundamental problems that thwart medical research efforts, confuse markets, discourage patients, and ultimately rescind profitability. There is no more time for systemic tweaking that produces but little frustration. Patients deal with the dilemmas posed by this broken system every day. It is time for all of the players to center the research culture on patients and turn collaboration into the norm. A candid discussion is presented on how our current system looks to patients who often feel betrayed by simplistic (and sometimes duplicitous) images about medical research and health delivery in the United States. It will take true understanding and new partnerships between traditional competitors, many stakeholders, and patient representatives to resolve the barriers that keep relevant and timely solutions from people. Many look forward to working toward a coherent process that puts patient needs first.
The majority of ‘low-risk’ (grade I/II) Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) may not progress to invasive breast cancer during a women’s lifetime. Therefore, the safety of active surveillance versus ...standard surgical treatment for DCIS is prospectively being evaluated in clinical trials. If proven safe and selectively implemented in clinical practice, a significant group of women with low-risk DCIS may forego surgery and radiotherapy in the future. Identification of modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors associated with prognosis after a primary DCIS would also enhance our care of women with low-risk DCIS.
To identify modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for subsequent breast events after DCIS, we performed a systematic literature search in PUBMED, EMBASE and Scopus.
Six out of the 3870 articles retrieved were included for final data extraction. These six studies included a total of 4950 patients with primary DCIS and 640 recorded subsequent breast events. There was moderate evidence for an association of a family history of breast cancer, premenopausal status, high BMI, and high breast density with a subsequent breast cancer or further DCIS.
There is a limited number of recent studies published on the impact of modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors on subsequent events after DCIS. The available evidence is insufficient to identify potential targets for risk reduction strategies, reflecting the relatively small numbers and the lack of long-term follow-up in DCIS, a low-event condition.
•Need for risk management strategies for untreated DCIS patients.•Limited evidence for association between lifestyle factors and prognosis after DCIS.•Positive family history, premenopausal status, high breast density associated with prognosis.
AbstractObjectiveTo examine the association between size and margin status of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and risk of developing ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS after ...treatment, and stage and subtype of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer.DesignMultinational, pooled cohort study.SettingFour large international cohorts.ParticipantsPatient level data on 47 695 women with a diagnosis of pure, primary DCIS between 1999 and 2017 in the Netherlands, UK, and US who underwent surgery, either breast conserving or mastectomy, often followed by radiotherapy or endocrine treatment, or both.Main outcome measuresThe main outcomes were 10 year cumulative incidence of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS estimated in relation to DCIS size and margin status, and adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals, estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses with multiple imputed dataResultsThe 10 year cumulative incidence of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer was 3.2%. In women who underwent breast conserving surgery with or without radiotherapy, only adjusted risks for ipsilateral DCIS were significantly increased for larger DCIS (20-49 mm) compared with DCIS <20 mm (hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.72). Risks for both ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS were significantly higher with involved compared with clear margins (invasive breast cancer 1.40, 1.07 to 1.83; DCIS 1.39, 1.04 to 1.87). Use of adjuvant endocrine treatment was not significantly associated with a lower risk of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer compared to treatment with breast conserving surgery only (0.86, 0.62 to 1.21). In women who received breast conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy, higher DCIS grade was not significantly associated with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer, only with a higher risk of ipsilateral DCIS (grade 1: 1.42, 1.08 to 1.87; grade 3: 2.17, 1.66 to 2.83). Higher age at diagnosis was associated with lower risk (per year) of ipsilateral DCIS (0.98, 0.97 to 0.99) but not ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (1.00, 0.99 to 1.00). Women with large DCIS (≥50 mm) more often developed stage III and IV ipsilateral invasive breast cancer compared to women with DCIS <20 mm. No such association was found between involved margins and higher stage of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. Associations between larger DCIS and hormone receptor negative and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and involved margins and hormone receptor negative ipsilateral invasive breast cancer were found.ConclusionsThe association of DCIS size and margin status with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS was small. When these two factors were added to other known risk factors in multivariable models, clinicopathological risk factors alone were found to be limited in discriminating between low and high risk DCIS.
Abstract
Introduction: Treatment options for women diagnosed with DCIS require careful consideration of the potential risks and benefits. An interactive decision support tool (DST) was developed to ...provide information about these options, including their potential long-term risk. The DST was implemented through the website www.dcisoptions.org in collaboration with the AFT-25 Comparing an Operation to Monitoring, with or without Endocrine Therapy (COMET), for low-risk DCIS study. Methods: The DST provides personalized prediction of the potential clinical impact of six different treatment options over a 10-year period. Women were asked to select one or more option, and to complete two surveys - one prior to interacting with the DST and one following interaction. Chi-square tests were used to compare the distribution of age group and DCIS grade among women who completed both surveys and those who completed the pre-tool survey only. Mean age was compared using the t-test and median age was compared using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. The signed-rank test was used to compare the median age. The cohort that answered both surveys was analyzed for potential differences in response (pre- versus post-tool). The McNemar test was used to compare percentage distributions and the paired t-test was used to compare mean responses for questions using the Likert scale. A signed rank test was used to compare median changes from pre- to post-tool. Statistical significance was defined as P<0.05 in a two-sided test. The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the DST in communicating information about DCIS treatment options and related risk predictions. Results: Data were collected from January 2019 to April 2022 for women (non-COMET participants) who completed the DST. Of those 976 women, 831 (85%) completed the pre-tool survey only and 145 (15%) completed both the pre- and post-tool survey. The mean age was 54.4 (9.8 SD) years. 73% of women had low/intermediate-grade DCIS, while 19% had high-grade DCIS. Among women who submitted both surveys, average time spent completing the DST was 10 minutes. Awareness of the treatment options prior to use of the DST was high (90%), except for active surveillance (85.2%) and bilateral mastectomy (84.3%). Awareness post-tool did not change significantly except for active surveillance (85.2% to 96.5% (p=0.004)). Among women who completed both surveys, the percentage who correctly identified that the chance of dying from DCIS is ‘Very Low’ increased from 60.0% to 73.8% (p<0.0001). The median estimated risk of dying from DCIS in 10 years decreased from 9% to 3% (p<0.0001). A total of 101/132 (76.5%) women that responded to a specific question about the DST found it to be ‘Very Helpful’ or ‘Helpful’ in making a treatment decision for DCIS. A limitation of the study is the lower response rate to the post-tool survey. Conclusion: In this study, we demonstrated that utilization of a DST by women diagnosed with DCIS may enable value-congruent decision making and potentially result in improved patient outcomes.
Citation Format: Thomas Lynch, Ann Partridge, E. Shelley Hwang, Alastair Thompson, Elizabeth Frank, Donna Pinto, Deborah Collyar, Desiree Basila, Terry Hyslop, Marc Ryser, Anna Weiss, Anna Rapperport, Rinaa Punglia, Elissa Ozanne. Effectiveness of an online decision support tool in communicating information about treatment options and related risks for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) abstract. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Rethinking DCIS: An Opportunity for Prevention?; 2022 Sep 8-11; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Can Prev Res 2022;15(12 Suppl_1): Abstract nr A011.
Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can progress to invasive breast cancer (IBC), but often never will. As we cannot predict accurately which DCIS-lesions will or will not progress to IBC, almost all ...women with DCIS undergo breast-conserving surgery supplemented with radiotherapy, or even mastectomy. In some countries, endocrine treatment is prescribed as well. This implies many women with non-progressive DCIS undergo overtreatment. To reduce this, the LORD patient preference trial (LORD-PPT) tests whether mammographic active surveillance (AS) is safe by giving women with low-risk DCIS a choice between treatment and AS. For this, sufficient knowledge about DCIS is crucial. Therefore, we assessed women's DCIS knowledge in association with socio-demographic and clinical characteristics.
LORD-PPT participants (N = 376) completed a questionnaire assessing socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, risk perception, treatment choice and DCIS knowledge after being informed about their diagnosis and treatment options.
66 % of participants had poor knowledge (i.e., answered ≤3 out of 7 knowledge items correctly). Most incorrect answers involved overestimating the safety of AS and misunderstanding of DCIS prognostic risks. Overall, women with higher DCIS knowledge score perceived their risk of developing IBC as being somewhat higher than women with poorer knowledge (p = 0.049). Women with better DCIS knowledge more often chose surgery whilst most women with poorer knowledge chose active surveillance (p = 0.049).
Our findings show that there is room for improvement of information provision to patients. Decision support tools for patients and clinicians could help to stimulate effective shared decision-making about DCIS management.
•Low-risk DCIS is surgically treated, but not all will progress to breast cancer.•LORD trial: women can opt for conventional treatment or for active surveillance.•Adequate knowledge about DCIS is essential for patients to make an informed choice.•Overall DCIS knowledge about safety of active surveillance was poor.•DCIS knowledge level is associated with risk perception and treatment choice.
Abstract
Introduction: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is considered a non-obligate precursor of invasive ductal carcinoma. With the aim of preventing a subsequent invasive cancer, all DCIS lesions ...are currently treated with surgical excision often supplemented with radiotherapy (RT). To prevent DCIS over- or undertreatment, a reliable marker of DCIS invasiveness risk is urgently needed. Methods: We studied two large DCIS cohorts: the Sloane cohort, a prospective breast screening cohort from the UK (median follow-up of 11 years), and a Dutch population-based cohort (NKI, median follow-up of 13 years). FFPE tissue specimens from patients with pure primary DCIS after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) +/- RT that did develop a subsequent ipsilateral event (DCIS or invasive) were considered as cases, whereas patients that did not develop any form of recurrence up to the last follow-up or death were considered as controls. We performed copy number analysis (CNA) and RNAseq analysis on 229 cases (80 DCIS only recurrences) and 344 controls. Results: DCIS was classified into the PAM50 subtypes using RNAseq data which revealed an enrichment of luminal A phenotype in DCIS that did not recur (P = 0.01, Fisher Exact test). No single copy number aberration was more common in cases compared to controls. RNAseq data did not reveal any genes significantly over/under-expressed in cases versus controls after FDR correction. However, by limiting the analysis to samples that had not had RT and excluding pure DCIS recurrences, we could develop a penalized Cox model from RNAseq data. The model was trained on weighted samples (to correct for the biased sampling of the case-control dataset) from the NKI series with double loop cross-validation. The genes were selected using the Elastic net framework of penalization. Using this predicted hazard ratio, the samples were split into high, medium, and low-risk quantiles, with a recurrence risk of 23%, 7% and 2%, respectively at 5 years (p = 10-10, Wald test). The NKI-trained predictor was independently validated in the Sloane No RT no DCIS recurrence cohort (p = 0.02, Wald test). GSEA analysis revealed proliferation hallmarks enriched in the recurrence predictor (FDR = 0.058). The RNAseq predictor was more predictive of recurrence than PAM50, clinical features (Grade, Her2 and ER) and the 12-gene Oncotype DCIS score (p < 0.001, permutation test using the Wald statistic) in both the NKI and Sloane series. Conclusion: Genomic profiling of two independent series of DCIS with outcome data did not reveal any clear associations with recurrence until analysis was limited to a set of samples who had not had radiotherapy and DCIS recurrences were excluded. We then identified an RNAseq-based classifier that could differentiate primary DCIS in low-, medium-, and high-risk groups, and validated it in an independent cohort. This classifier, if validated in other datasets, will allow us to identify women who do not need intensive treatment for their DCIS.
Citation Format: Maria Roman Escorza, Michael Sheinman, Tycho Bismeijer, Ahmed A. Ahmed, Vandna Shah, Jeffrey R. Marks, Lorraine M. King, Anargyros Megalios, Lindy L. Visser, Marlous Hoogstrat, Helen R. Davies, Tapsi Kumar, Deborah Collyar, Hilary Stobart, Sarah Pinder, Nicholas N. Navin, Andrew Futreal, Serena Nik-Zainal, E. Shelley Hwang, Esther H. Lips, Alastair Thompson, Lodewyk F.A. Wessels, Jelle Wesseling, Elinor J. Sawyer. Genomic predictor can discriminate between high- and low-risk DCIS abstract. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Rethinking DCIS: An Opportunity for Prevention?; 2022 Sep 8-11; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Can Prev Res 2022;15(12 Suppl_1): Abstract nr PR002.
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) can progress to invasive breast cancer, but most DCIS lesions never will. Therefore, four clinical trials (COMET, LORIS, LORETTA, AND LORD) test whether active ...surveillance for women with low-risk Ductal carcinoma In Situ is safe (E. S. Hwang et al., BMJ Open, 9: e026797, 2019, A. Francis et al., Eur J Cancer. 51: 2296-2303, 2015, Chizuko Kanbayashi et al. The international collaboration of active surveillance trials for low-risk DCIS (LORIS, LORD, COMET, LORETTA), L. E. Elshof et al., Eur J Cancer, 51, 1497-510, 2015). Low-risk is defined as grade I or II DCIS. Because DCIS grade is a major eligibility criteria in these trials, it would be very helpful to assess DCIS grade on mammography, informed by grade assessed on DCIS histopathology in pre-surgery biopsies, since surgery will not be performed on a significant number of patients participating in these trials.
To assess the performance and clinical utility of a convolutional neural network (CNN) in discriminating high-risk (grade III) DCIS and/or Invasive Breast Cancer (IBC) from low-risk (grade I/II) DCIS based on mammographic features. We explored whether the CNN could be used as a decision support tool, from excluding high-risk patients for active surveillance.
In this single centre retrospective study, 464 patients diagnosed with DCIS based on pre-surgery biopsy between 2000 and 2014 were included. The collection of mammography images was partitioned on a patient-level into two subsets, one for training containing 80% of cases (371 cases, 681 images) and 20% (93 cases, 173 images) for testing. A deep learning model based on the U-Net CNN was trained and validated on 681 two-dimensional mammograms. Classification performance was assessed with the Area Under the Curve (AUC) receiver operating characteristic and predictive values on the test set for predicting high risk DCIS-and high-risk DCIS and/ or IBC from low-risk DCIS.
When classifying DCIS as high-risk, the deep learning network achieved a Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of 0.40, Negative Predictive Value (NPV) of 0.91 and an AUC of 0.72 on the test dataset. For distinguishing high-risk and/or upstaged DCIS (occult invasive breast cancer) from low-risk DCIS a PPV of 0.80, a NPV of 0.84 and an AUC of 0.76 were achieved.
For both scenarios (DCIS grade I/II vs. III, DCIS grade I/II vs. III and/or IBC) AUCs were high, 0.72 and 0.76, respectively, concluding that our convolutional neural network can discriminate low-grade from high-grade DCIS.
Abstract Introduction: A phase III multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial called “Comparing an Operation to Monitoring, with or without Endocrine Therapy (COMET)” (NCT02926911) assesses ...the risks/benefits of active monitoring (AM) versus surgery for women with low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). It is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and enrolled 997 women between 06/30/17 and 01/13/23. Research Patient Advocates (PAs) have been embedded from the study design stage and continue to provide guidance as part of the COMET leadership team. The COMET biobank is funded by independent foundations and is managed through monthly Translational Working Group (TWG) meetings. The TWG includes PAs, clinicians, pathologists, radiologists, and researchers from multiple institutions who discuss topics like categorization of biospecimens into discovery/validation sets; development of a pathology workflow/sample tracking process; use of small samples; and potential areas of future research/technologies that may improve DCIS diagnostics, prognostics, and care management. Methods: The TWG leveraged the existing Alliance Foundation Trials, LLC biobank infrastructure and facilitates the collection, submission, storage and analysis/use of blood, tissue, and breast images collected at specified timepoints and stored in central tissue/image repositories. PAs are active and integral in the TWG, assisting with logistical issues (contracts, transfer agreements, resource requests); communicating with sites; identifying study topics and biomarkers relevant to diverse patients; providing guidance on commercial predictive/prognostic tests; promoting effective stewardship of samples; ensuring overall focus remains on advancing clinical utility; and reporting translational study results to trial participants who agreed to donate samples/images. Results: Over 90% of requested samples/images have been submitted by ˃85 sites. Each patient’s biospecimens and pathology images are linked and de-identified for research. Use of artificial intelligence (AI) is being considered to assist in sample review. TWG members have complementary areas of expertise/experience and promote active stewardship for effective management of these scarce resources. PAs have played key roles concerning equitable data-sharing and acceleration of data and material transfer agreements. They have also been active in development of standards for discovery/training sets, validation test sets; communication procedures for patient cases that progress to future breast events; ways to catalog technologies (e.g., multi-omics, AI); and in research proposal review. Consensus has been achieved regarding major issues such as authorship, biospecimen custodianship, intellectual property, and criteria relevant to patient needs. Logistical barriers, including data sharing and technicalities of biospecimen release, have been resolved. The TWG also played an integral role in resolving recruitment challenges to COMET by creating standard pathology eligibility criteria, resulting in evidence-based protocol amendments that increased accrual. A retrospective review of biospecimens has been performed to determine adequacy for ensuing correlative molecular and spatial profiling studies. Conclusion: PAs help the COMET TWG set policy, and oversee biospecimen/image collection, and biobank use and sharing. PA input also facilitates equitable, transparent research studies and technology development that can improve personalized decisions for surgery versus AM in women with low-risk DCIS. PAs in the TWG aim to integrate the diagnostic and prognostic tools developed as part of the COMET study into future patient care. Citation Format: Deborah Collyar, Desiree Basila, Thomas Lynch, Stuart Schnitt, Jeffrey Marks, Siri Strand, Terry Hyslop, Sunil Badve, Mark Watson, H. T. Carisa Le-Petross, Lars Grimm, Robert West, Anna Weiss, Anna Rapperport, Lorraine King, Rachel Factor, Marc Ryser, Ann Partridge, E Shelley Hwang, Alastair Thompson. Added Value from Patient Advocates in a Translational Working Group: the COMET Study abstract. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO4-13-04.
Despite recent interest on the part of advocates and researchers of oncology clinical trials in sharing study results, participants in these trials are not routinely informed about the results. We ...identified oncology physicians and nurses through the Cancer and Leukemia Group B database and surveyed them about sharing clinical trial results with participants. Of 1977 eligible members, 796 (40.3%) responded to the mailed survey, 497 (62.4%) of whom reported that they offer trial results to participants less than one-fifth of the time. A total of 576 (72.4%) of responders believed that most patients want to know the results of studies, and 634 (79.7%) of responders expressed willingness to offer results to most study participants in the future, believing that most patients want to know trial results and that routinely offering results would not have a negative effect on patients. Concerns of some responders about routinely offering trial results included negative emotional effect on patients, patient difficulty understanding the information, and resources required to offer the results. Of concern, 16.2% (129/796) of responders believed an obligation to offer results to study participants would make them less likely to enroll patients on studies. Future studies should consider sharing trial results with patients and evaluating the process and its effect on both patients and clinicians.
PDF
