Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points in Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: NeoSTEEP

Author:

Litton Jennifer K.1ORCID,Regan Meredith M.2ORCID,Pusztai Lajos3ORCID,Rugo Hope S.4ORCID,Tolaney Sara M.5ORCID,Garrett-Mayer Elizabeth6ORCID,Amiri-Kordestani Laleh7ORCID,Basho Reva K.8ORCID,Best Ana F.9ORCID,Boileau Jean-Francois10ORCID,Denkert Carsten11ORCID,Foster Jared C.9ORCID,Harbeck Nadia12ORCID,Jacene Heather A.13ORCID,King Tari A.14,Mason Ginny15,O'Sullivan Ciara C.16ORCID,Prowell Tatiana M.717ORCID,Richardson Andrea L.18,Sepulveda Karla A.19,Smith Mary Lou20,Tjoe Judy A.21,Turashvili Gulisa22ORCID,Woodward Wendy A.23ORCID,Butler Lynn Pearson24,Schwartz Elena I.25,Korde Larissa A.26

Affiliation:

1. Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

2. Division of Biostatistics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

3. Breast Medical Oncology, Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT

4. University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA

5. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA

6. American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA

7. US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD

8. The Lawrence J. Ellison Institute for Transformative Medicine, Los Angeles, CA

9. Biometric Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD

10. Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

11. Institute of Pathology, Philipps University Marburg and University Hospital Marburg (UKGM), Marburg, Germany

12. The Breast Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Comprehensive Cancer Center Munich, LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany

13. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA

14. Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA

15. The Inflammatory Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Broadway, VA

16. Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

17. Women's Malignancies Disease Group, Johns Hopkins Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD

18. Department of Pathology, John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD

19. Department of Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX

20. Research Advocacy Network, Plano, TX

21. Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Novant Health, Greensboro, NC

22. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA

23. Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

24. The Emmes Corporation, Rockville, MD

25. Coordinating Center for Clinical Trials, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD

26. Cancer Therapy and Evaluation Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD

Abstract

PURPOSE The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007 and updated in 2021 (STEEP 2.0), provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer (BC) end points. STEEP 2.0 identified a need to separately address end points for neoadjuvant clinical trials. The multidisciplinary NeoSTEEP working group of experts was convened to critically evaluate and align neoadjuvant BC trial end points. METHODS The NeoSTEEP working group concentrated on neoadjuvant systemic therapy end points in clinical trials with efficacy outcomes—both pathologic and time-to-event survival end points—particularly for registrational intent. Special considerations for subtypes and therapeutic approaches, imaging, nodal staging at surgery, bilateral and multifocal diseases, correlative tissue collection, and US Food and Drug Administration regulatory considerations were contemplated. RESULTS The working group recommends a preferred definition of pathologic complete response (pCR) as the absence of residual invasive cancer in the complete resected breast specimen and all sampled regional lymph nodes (ypT0/Tis ypN0 per AJCC staging). Residual cancer burden should be a secondary end point to facilitate future assessment of its utility. Alternative end points are needed for hormone receptor–positive disease. Time-to-event survival end point definitions should pay particular attention to the measurement starting point. Trials should include end points originating at random assignment (event-free survival and overall survival) to capture presurgery progression and deaths as events. Secondary end points adapted from STEEP 2.0, which are defined from starting at curative-intent surgery, may also be appropriate. Specification and standardization of biopsy protocols, imaging, and pathologic nodal evaluation are also crucial. CONCLUSION End points in addition to pCR should be selected on the basis of clinical and biologic aspects of the tumor and the therapeutic agent investigated. Consistent prespecified definitions and interventions are paramount for clinically meaningful trial results and cross-trial comparison.

Publisher

American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)

Subject

Cancer Research,Oncology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3