Apparently, offering children effective treatments for a chronic disease that markedly increases their risk for other chronic diseases, regularly erodes their quality of life, and is the No. 1 target of school-based bullying is wrong.

At least that’s my take watching the coverage of the recent American Academy of Pediatrics new pediatric obesity treatment guidelines that, gasp, suggest that children whose severity of obesity warrants medication or surgeries be offered medication or surgery. Because it’s wiser to not try to treat the obesity that›s contributing to a child’s type 2 diabetes, hypertension, fatty liver disease, or reduced quality of life?

The reaction isn’t surprising. Some of those who are up in arms about it have clinical or research careers dependent on championing their own favorite dietary strategies as if they are more effective and reproducible than decades of uniformly disappointing studies proving that they’re not. Others are upset because, for reasons that at times may be personal and at times may be conflicted, they believe that obesity should not be treated and/or that sustained weight loss is impossible. But overarchingly, probably the bulk of the hoopla stems from obesity being seen as a moral failing. Because the notion that those who suffer with obesity are themselves to blame has been the prevailing societal view for decades, if not centuries.

Working with families of children with obesity severe enough for them to seek help, it’s clear that if desire were sufficient to will it away, we wouldn’t need treatment guidelines let alone medications or surgery. Near uniformly, parents describe their children being bullied consequent to and being deeply self-conscious of their weight.

And what would those who think children shouldn’t be offered reproducibly effective treatment for obesity have them do about it? Many seem to think it would be preferable for kids to be placed on formal diets and, of course, that they should go out and play more. And though I’m all for encouraging the improvement of a child’s dietary quality and activity level, anyone suggesting those as panaceas for childhood obesity haven’t a clue. Not to mention the fact that, in most cases, improving overall dietary quality, something worthwhile at any weight, isn’t the dietary goal being recommended. Instead, the prescription seems to be restrictive dieting coupled with overexercising, which, unlike appropriately and thoughtfully informed and utilized medication, may increase a child’s risk of maladaptive thinking around food and fitness as well as disordered eating, not to mention challenge their self-esteem if their lifestyle results are underwhelming.

This brings us to one of the most bizarre takes on this whole business – that medications will be pushed and used when not necessary. No doubt that at times, that may occur, but the issue is that of a clinician’s overzealous prescribing and not of the treatment options or indications. Consider childhood asthma. There is no worry or uproar that children with mild asthma that isn’t having an impact on their quality of life or markedly risking their health will be placed on multiple inhaled steroids and treatments. Why? Because clinicians have been taught how to dispassionately evaluate treatment needs for asthma, monitor disease course, and not simply prescribe everything in our armamentarium.

Shocking, I know, but as is the case with every other medical condition, I think doctors are capable of learning and following an algorithm covering the indications and options for the treatment of childhood obesity.

How that looks also mirrors what’s seen with any other chronic noncommunicable disease with varied severity and impact. Doctors will evaluate each child with obesity to see whether it’s having a detrimental effect on their health or quality of life. They will monitor their patients’ obesity to see if it’s worsening and will, when necessary, undertake investigations to rule out its potential contribution to common comorbidities like type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and fatty liver disease. And, when appropriate, they will provide information on available treatment options – from lifestyle to medication to surgery and the risks, benefits, and realistic expectations associated with each – and then, without judgment, support their patients’ treatment choices because blame-free informed discussion and supportive prescription of care is, in fact, the distillation of our jobs.

If people are looking to be outraged rather than focusing their outrage on what we now need to do about childhood obesity, they should instead look to what got us here: our obesogenic environment. We and our children are swimming against a torrential current of cheap ultraprocessed calories being pushed upon us by a broken societal food culture that values convenience and simultaneously embraces the notion that knowledge is a match versus the thousands of genes and dozens of hormones that increasingly sophisticated food industry marketers and scientists prey upon. When dealing with torrential currents, we need to do more than just recommend swimming lessons.

Like asthma, which may be exacerbated by pollution in our environment both outdoors and indoors, childhood obesity is a modern-day environmentally influenced disease with varied penetrance that does not always require active treatment. Like asthma, childhood obesity is not a disease that children choose to have; it’s not a disease that can be willed away; and it’s not a disease that responds uniformly, dramatically, or enduringly to diet and exercise. Finally, literally and figuratively, like asthma, for childhood obesity, we thankfully now have a number of effective treatment options that we can offer, and it’s only our societal weight bias that leads to thinking that’s anything but great.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Apparently, offering children effective treatments for a chronic disease that markedly increases their risk for other chronic diseases, regularly erodes their quality of life, and is the No. 1 target of school-based bullying is wrong.

At least that’s my take watching the coverage of the recent American Academy of Pediatrics new pediatric obesity treatment guidelines that, gasp, suggest that children whose severity of obesity warrants medication or surgeries be offered medication or surgery. Because it’s wiser to not try to treat the obesity that›s contributing to a child’s type 2 diabetes, hypertension, fatty liver disease, or reduced quality of life?

The reaction isn’t surprising. Some of those who are up in arms about it have clinical or research careers dependent on championing their own favorite dietary strategies as if they are more effective and reproducible than decades of uniformly disappointing studies proving that they’re not. Others are upset because, for reasons that at times may be personal and at times may be conflicted, they believe that obesity should not be treated and/or that sustained weight loss is impossible. But overarchingly, probably the bulk of the hoopla stems from obesity being seen as a moral failing. Because the notion that those who suffer with obesity are themselves to blame has been the prevailing societal view for decades, if not centuries.

Working with families of children with obesity severe enough for them to seek help, it’s clear that if desire were sufficient to will it away, we wouldn’t need treatment guidelines let alone medications or surgery. Near uniformly, parents describe their children being bullied consequent to and being deeply self-conscious of their weight.

And what would those who think children shouldn’t be offered reproducibly effective treatment for obesity have them do about it? Many seem to think it would be preferable for kids to be placed on formal diets and, of course, that they should go out and play more. And though I’m all for encouraging the improvement of a child’s dietary quality and activity level, anyone suggesting those as panaceas for childhood obesity haven’t a clue. Not to mention the fact that, in most cases, improving overall dietary quality, something worthwhile at any weight, isn’t the dietary goal being recommended. Instead, the prescription seems to be restrictive dieting coupled with overexercising, which, unlike appropriately and thoughtfully informed and utilized medication, may increase a child’s risk of maladaptive thinking around food and fitness as well as disordered eating, not to mention challenge their self-esteem if their lifestyle results are underwhelming.

This brings us to one of the most bizarre takes on this whole business – that medications will be pushed and used when not necessary. No doubt that at times, that may occur, but the issue is that of a clinician’s overzealous prescribing and not of the treatment options or indications. Consider childhood asthma. There is no worry or uproar that children with mild asthma that isn’t having an impact on their quality of life or markedly risking their health will be placed on multiple inhaled steroids and treatments. Why? Because clinicians have been taught how to dispassionately evaluate treatment needs for asthma, monitor disease course, and not simply prescribe everything in our armamentarium.

Shocking, I know, but as is the case with every other medical condition, I think doctors are capable of learning and following an algorithm covering the indications and options for the treatment of childhood obesity.

How that looks also mirrors what’s seen with any other chronic noncommunicable disease with varied severity and impact. Doctors will evaluate each child with obesity to see whether it’s having a detrimental effect on their health or quality of life. They will monitor their patients’ obesity to see if it’s worsening and will, when necessary, undertake investigations to rule out its potential contribution to common comorbidities like type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and fatty liver disease. And, when appropriate, they will provide information on available treatment options – from lifestyle to medication to surgery and the risks, benefits, and realistic expectations associated with each – and then, without judgment, support their patients’ treatment choices because blame-free informed discussion and supportive prescription of care is, in fact, the distillation of our jobs.

If people are looking to be outraged rather than focusing their outrage on what we now need to do about childhood obesity, they should instead look to what got us here: our obesogenic environment. We and our children are swimming against a torrential current of cheap ultraprocessed calories being pushed upon us by a broken societal food culture that values convenience and simultaneously embraces the notion that knowledge is a match versus the thousands of genes and dozens of hormones that increasingly sophisticated food industry marketers and scientists prey upon. When dealing with torrential currents, we need to do more than just recommend swimming lessons.

Like asthma, which may be exacerbated by pollution in our environment both outdoors and indoors, childhood obesity is a modern-day environmentally influenced disease with varied penetrance that does not always require active treatment. Like asthma, childhood obesity is not a disease that children choose to have; it’s not a disease that can be willed away; and it’s not a disease that responds uniformly, dramatically, or enduringly to diet and exercise. Finally, literally and figuratively, like asthma, for childhood obesity, we thankfully now have a number of effective treatment options that we can offer, and it’s only our societal weight bias that leads to thinking that’s anything but great.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Apparently, offering children effective treatments for a chronic disease that markedly increases their risk for other chronic diseases, regularly erodes their quality of life, and is the No. 1 target of school-based bullying is wrong.

At least that’s my take watching the coverage of the recent American Academy of Pediatrics new pediatric obesity treatment guidelines that, gasp, suggest that children whose severity of obesity warrants medication or surgeries be offered medication or surgery. Because it’s wiser to not try to treat the obesity that›s contributing to a child’s type 2 diabetes, hypertension, fatty liver disease, or reduced quality of life?

The reaction isn’t surprising. Some of those who are up in arms about it have clinical or research careers dependent on championing their own favorite dietary strategies as if they are more effective and reproducible than decades of uniformly disappointing studies proving that they’re not. Others are upset because, for reasons that at times may be personal and at times may be conflicted, they believe that obesity should not be treated and/or that sustained weight loss is impossible. But overarchingly, probably the bulk of the hoopla stems from obesity being seen as a moral failing. Because the notion that those who suffer with obesity are themselves to blame has been the prevailing societal view for decades, if not centuries.

Working with families of children with obesity severe enough for them to seek help, it’s clear that if desire were sufficient to will it away, we wouldn’t need treatment guidelines let alone medications or surgery. Near uniformly, parents describe their children being bullied consequent to and being deeply self-conscious of their weight.

And what would those who think children shouldn’t be offered reproducibly effective treatment for obesity have them do about it? Many seem to think it would be preferable for kids to be placed on formal diets and, of course, that they should go out and play more. And though I’m all for encouraging the improvement of a child’s dietary quality and activity level, anyone suggesting those as panaceas for childhood obesity haven’t a clue. Not to mention the fact that, in most cases, improving overall dietary quality, something worthwhile at any weight, isn’t the dietary goal being recommended. Instead, the prescription seems to be restrictive dieting coupled with overexercising, which, unlike appropriately and thoughtfully informed and utilized medication, may increase a child’s risk of maladaptive thinking around food and fitness as well as disordered eating, not to mention challenge their self-esteem if their lifestyle results are underwhelming.

This brings us to one of the most bizarre takes on this whole business – that medications will be pushed and used when not necessary. No doubt that at times, that may occur, but the issue is that of a clinician’s overzealous prescribing and not of the treatment options or indications. Consider childhood asthma. There is no worry or uproar that children with mild asthma that isn’t having an impact on their quality of life or markedly risking their health will be placed on multiple inhaled steroids and treatments. Why? Because clinicians have been taught how to dispassionately evaluate treatment needs for asthma, monitor disease course, and not simply prescribe everything in our armamentarium.

Shocking, I know, but as is the case with every other medical condition, I think doctors are capable of learning and following an algorithm covering the indications and options for the treatment of childhood obesity.

How that looks also mirrors what’s seen with any other chronic noncommunicable disease with varied severity and impact. Doctors will evaluate each child with obesity to see whether it’s having a detrimental effect on their health or quality of life. They will monitor their patients’ obesity to see if it’s worsening and will, when necessary, undertake investigations to rule out its potential contribution to common comorbidities like type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and fatty liver disease. And, when appropriate, they will provide information on available treatment options – from lifestyle to medication to surgery and the risks, benefits, and realistic expectations associated with each – and then, without judgment, support their patients’ treatment choices because blame-free informed discussion and supportive prescription of care is, in fact, the distillation of our jobs.

If people are looking to be outraged rather than focusing their outrage on what we now need to do about childhood obesity, they should instead look to what got us here: our obesogenic environment. We and our children are swimming against a torrential current of cheap ultraprocessed calories being pushed upon us by a broken societal food culture that values convenience and simultaneously embraces the notion that knowledge is a match versus the thousands of genes and dozens of hormones that increasingly sophisticated food industry marketers and scientists prey upon. When dealing with torrential currents, we need to do more than just recommend swimming lessons.

Like asthma, which may be exacerbated by pollution in our environment both outdoors and indoors, childhood obesity is a modern-day environmentally influenced disease with varied penetrance that does not always require active treatment. Like asthma, childhood obesity is not a disease that children choose to have; it’s not a disease that can be willed away; and it’s not a disease that responds uniformly, dramatically, or enduringly to diet and exercise. Finally, literally and figuratively, like asthma, for childhood obesity, we thankfully now have a number of effective treatment options that we can offer, and it’s only our societal weight bias that leads to thinking that’s anything but great.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Key clinical point: The presence of metabolic syndromes (MetS) worsened survival outcomes and increased disease recurrence risk in patients with breast cancer (BC) who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

Major finding: The MetS group had a significantly lower likelihood of achieving pathological complete response than the non-MetS group (odds ratio [OR] 0.316; P  =  .028), with the risk for death (OR 2.587; P  =  .004) and disease recurrence (OR 2.228; P  =  .007) being significantly higher in patients with vs without MetS.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 221 women with BC who received preoperative NAC, of which 22.2% of patients were included in the MetS group.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Beijing Medical Award Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhou Z et al. Metabolic syndrome is a risk factor for breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A case-control study. Front Oncol. 2023;12:1080054 (Jan 4). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1080054

Key clinical point: The presence of metabolic syndromes (MetS) worsened survival outcomes and increased disease recurrence risk in patients with breast cancer (BC) who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

Major finding: The MetS group had a significantly lower likelihood of achieving pathological complete response than the non-MetS group (odds ratio [OR] 0.316; P  =  .028), with the risk for death (OR 2.587; P  =  .004) and disease recurrence (OR 2.228; P  =  .007) being significantly higher in patients with vs without MetS.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 221 women with BC who received preoperative NAC, of which 22.2% of patients were included in the MetS group.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Beijing Medical Award Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhou Z et al. Metabolic syndrome is a risk factor for breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A case-control study. Front Oncol. 2023;12:1080054 (Jan 4). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1080054

Key clinical point: The presence of metabolic syndromes (MetS) worsened survival outcomes and increased disease recurrence risk in patients with breast cancer (BC) who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

Major finding: The MetS group had a significantly lower likelihood of achieving pathological complete response than the non-MetS group (odds ratio [OR] 0.316; P  =  .028), with the risk for death (OR 2.587; P  =  .004) and disease recurrence (OR 2.228; P  =  .007) being significantly higher in patients with vs without MetS.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 221 women with BC who received preoperative NAC, of which 22.2% of patients were included in the MetS group.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Beijing Medical Award Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhou Z et al. Metabolic syndrome is a risk factor for breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A case-control study. Front Oncol. 2023;12:1080054 (Jan 4). Doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1080054

Key clinical point: Recent phase 2 trials have recommended a 2-weekly schedule of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in patients with heavily treated metastatic breast cancer (BC); however, it failed to demonstrate any advantage in terms of efficacy or safety over the registered 4-weekly regimen of PLD.

Major finding: The median progression-free survival was 3.0 and 3.4 months in the 2-weekly and 4-weekly PLD schedule groups, respectively, with a weighted hazard ratio of 1.12 (P  =  .54). The rate of adverse events also appeared comparable between both the groups.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 191 heavily pretreated patients with metastatic BC who received a 2-weekly (n = 95) or the registered 4-weekly (n = 96) schedule of PLD.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bischoff H et al. A propensity score-weighted study comparing a two- versus four-weekly pegylated liposomal doxorubicin regimen in metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022 (Dec 23). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06844-5

Key clinical point: Recent phase 2 trials have recommended a 2-weekly schedule of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in patients with heavily treated metastatic breast cancer (BC); however, it failed to demonstrate any advantage in terms of efficacy or safety over the registered 4-weekly regimen of PLD.

Major finding: The median progression-free survival was 3.0 and 3.4 months in the 2-weekly and 4-weekly PLD schedule groups, respectively, with a weighted hazard ratio of 1.12 (P  =  .54). The rate of adverse events also appeared comparable between both the groups.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 191 heavily pretreated patients with metastatic BC who received a 2-weekly (n = 95) or the registered 4-weekly (n = 96) schedule of PLD.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bischoff H et al. A propensity score-weighted study comparing a two- versus four-weekly pegylated liposomal doxorubicin regimen in metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022 (Dec 23). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06844-5

Key clinical point: Recent phase 2 trials have recommended a 2-weekly schedule of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in patients with heavily treated metastatic breast cancer (BC); however, it failed to demonstrate any advantage in terms of efficacy or safety over the registered 4-weekly regimen of PLD.

Major finding: The median progression-free survival was 3.0 and 3.4 months in the 2-weekly and 4-weekly PLD schedule groups, respectively, with a weighted hazard ratio of 1.12 (P  =  .54). The rate of adverse events also appeared comparable between both the groups.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 191 heavily pretreated patients with metastatic BC who received a 2-weekly (n = 95) or the registered 4-weekly (n = 96) schedule of PLD.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bischoff H et al. A propensity score-weighted study comparing a two- versus four-weekly pegylated liposomal doxorubicin regimen in metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022 (Dec 23). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06844-5

Key clinical point: Autologous fat grafting (AFG) in the second stage of a 2-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction was linked to a higher risk for breast cancer (BC) recurrence when performed within a year after mastectomy.

Major finding: Patients who did vs did not undergo AFG within 1 year after the primary operation had a significantly increased risk for disease recurrence (hazard ratio 5.701; 95% CI 1.164-27.927). However, delaying the fat grafting beyond 12 months after mastectomy did not affect survival outcomes.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 267 patients with unilateral invasive BC who underwent total mastectomy and immediate tissue-expander-based reconstruction, of which 203 patients underwent the second-stage operation within 12 months of mastectomy and 64 patients underwent the operation after 12 months of mastectomy.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lee KT et al. Association of fat graft with breast cancer recurrence in implant-based reconstruction: Does the timing matter? Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;30(2):1087-1097 (Dec 10). Doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-12389-0

Key clinical point: Autologous fat grafting (AFG) in the second stage of a 2-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction was linked to a higher risk for breast cancer (BC) recurrence when performed within a year after mastectomy.

Major finding: Patients who did vs did not undergo AFG within 1 year after the primary operation had a significantly increased risk for disease recurrence (hazard ratio 5.701; 95% CI 1.164-27.927). However, delaying the fat grafting beyond 12 months after mastectomy did not affect survival outcomes.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 267 patients with unilateral invasive BC who underwent total mastectomy and immediate tissue-expander-based reconstruction, of which 203 patients underwent the second-stage operation within 12 months of mastectomy and 64 patients underwent the operation after 12 months of mastectomy.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lee KT et al. Association of fat graft with breast cancer recurrence in implant-based reconstruction: Does the timing matter? Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;30(2):1087-1097 (Dec 10). Doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-12389-0

Key clinical point: Autologous fat grafting (AFG) in the second stage of a 2-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction was linked to a higher risk for breast cancer (BC) recurrence when performed within a year after mastectomy.

Major finding: Patients who did vs did not undergo AFG within 1 year after the primary operation had a significantly increased risk for disease recurrence (hazard ratio 5.701; 95% CI 1.164-27.927). However, delaying the fat grafting beyond 12 months after mastectomy did not affect survival outcomes.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 267 patients with unilateral invasive BC who underwent total mastectomy and immediate tissue-expander-based reconstruction, of which 203 patients underwent the second-stage operation within 12 months of mastectomy and 64 patients underwent the operation after 12 months of mastectomy.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lee KT et al. Association of fat graft with breast cancer recurrence in implant-based reconstruction: Does the timing matter? Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;30(2):1087-1097 (Dec 10). Doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-12389-0

Key clinical point: In patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), adding capecitabine to classic anthracycline/taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy improved overall survival (OS) and carboplatin/paclitaxel was the most effective regimen for improving disease-free survival (DFS).

Major finding: Adjuvant chemotherapy with anthracyclines/taxanes plus capecitabine vs anthracyclines significantly improved OS outcomes (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56; 95% CI 0.36-0.87; probability for ranking the first 29%), whereas carboplatin/paclitaxel vs anthracyclines was the best regimen for improving DFS outcomes (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.30-0.86; probability for ranking the first 41%).

Study details: Findings are from a network meta-analysis of 27 randomized phase 3 trials that compared adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in patients with resected, stage I-III TNBC.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Petrelli F et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected triple negative breast cancer patients: A network meta-analysis. Breast. 2022;67:8-13 (Dec 15). Doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.12.004

Key clinical point: In patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), adding capecitabine to classic anthracycline/taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy improved overall survival (OS) and carboplatin/paclitaxel was the most effective regimen for improving disease-free survival (DFS).

Major finding: Adjuvant chemotherapy with anthracyclines/taxanes plus capecitabine vs anthracyclines significantly improved OS outcomes (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56; 95% CI 0.36-0.87; probability for ranking the first 29%), whereas carboplatin/paclitaxel vs anthracyclines was the best regimen for improving DFS outcomes (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.30-0.86; probability for ranking the first 41%).

Study details: Findings are from a network meta-analysis of 27 randomized phase 3 trials that compared adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in patients with resected, stage I-III TNBC.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Petrelli F et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected triple negative breast cancer patients: A network meta-analysis. Breast. 2022;67:8-13 (Dec 15). Doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.12.004

Key clinical point: In patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), adding capecitabine to classic anthracycline/taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy improved overall survival (OS) and carboplatin/paclitaxel was the most effective regimen for improving disease-free survival (DFS).

Major finding: Adjuvant chemotherapy with anthracyclines/taxanes plus capecitabine vs anthracyclines significantly improved OS outcomes (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56; 95% CI 0.36-0.87; probability for ranking the first 29%), whereas carboplatin/paclitaxel vs anthracyclines was the best regimen for improving DFS outcomes (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.30-0.86; probability for ranking the first 41%).

Study details: Findings are from a network meta-analysis of 27 randomized phase 3 trials that compared adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in patients with resected, stage I-III TNBC.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Petrelli F et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected triple negative breast cancer patients: A network meta-analysis. Breast. 2022;67:8-13 (Dec 15). Doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.12.004

Key clinical point: Treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival (OS) outcomes in patients with estrogen receptor-negative (ER−)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−), T1abN0 breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 7.7 years, a significant improvement was observed in OS with vs without chemotherapy in the overall cohort of patients with T1abN0 BC (hazard ratio 0.35; P  =  .02), along with both subgroups of patients with T1a (log-rank P  =  .001) and T1b (P  =  .001) BC.

Study details: Findings are from a nationwide, retrospective cohort study including 296 patients with ER− /HER2−, T1abN0 BC, of which 79.4% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Danish Cancer Society, Denmark, and other sources. Some authors declared receiving personal fees, speaker honorarium, or research grants from various sources.

Source: Hassing CMS et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with ER-negative/HER2-negative, T1abN0 breast cancer: A nationwide study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022 (Dec 28). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06839-2

Key clinical point: Treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival (OS) outcomes in patients with estrogen receptor-negative (ER−)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−), T1abN0 breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 7.7 years, a significant improvement was observed in OS with vs without chemotherapy in the overall cohort of patients with T1abN0 BC (hazard ratio 0.35; P  =  .02), along with both subgroups of patients with T1a (log-rank P  =  .001) and T1b (P  =  .001) BC.

Study details: Findings are from a nationwide, retrospective cohort study including 296 patients with ER− /HER2−, T1abN0 BC, of which 79.4% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Danish Cancer Society, Denmark, and other sources. Some authors declared receiving personal fees, speaker honorarium, or research grants from various sources.

Source: Hassing CMS et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with ER-negative/HER2-negative, T1abN0 breast cancer: A nationwide study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022 (Dec 28). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06839-2

Key clinical point: Treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival (OS) outcomes in patients with estrogen receptor-negative (ER−)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−), T1abN0 breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 7.7 years, a significant improvement was observed in OS with vs without chemotherapy in the overall cohort of patients with T1abN0 BC (hazard ratio 0.35; P  =  .02), along with both subgroups of patients with T1a (log-rank P  =  .001) and T1b (P  =  .001) BC.

Study details: Findings are from a nationwide, retrospective cohort study including 296 patients with ER− /HER2−, T1abN0 BC, of which 79.4% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Danish Cancer Society, Denmark, and other sources. Some authors declared receiving personal fees, speaker honorarium, or research grants from various sources.

Source: Hassing CMS et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with ER-negative/HER2-negative, T1abN0 breast cancer: A nationwide study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022 (Dec 28). Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06839-2

Key clinical point: In patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+ or ERBB2+) breast cancer (BC) treated with trastuzumab emtansine, the pre-established levels of ERBB2 mRNA expression according to the HER2DX standardized assay served as an important prognostic biomarker in predicting survival outcomes.

Major finding: High, medium, and low levels of ERBB2 mRNA expression were associated with overall response rates of 56%, 29%, and 0%, respectively, with high ERBB2 mRNA expression being associated with both better progression-free survival (P < .001) and overall survival (P  =  .007) outcomes.

Study details: Findings are from a study including 87 patients with HER2+ advanced BC who received treatment with trastuzumab emtansine.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Hospital Clinic, Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Oncologiche e Gastroenterologiche, University of Padova, Italy, and other sources. The authors declared serving as consultants; receiving advisory, lecture, or consulting fees; or having other ties with several sources.

Source: Brasó-Maristany F et al. HER2DX ERBB2 mRNA expression in advanced HER2-positive breast cancer treated with T-DM1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022 (Dec 28). Doi: 10.1093/jnci/djac227

Key clinical point: In patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+ or ERBB2+) breast cancer (BC) treated with trastuzumab emtansine, the pre-established levels of ERBB2 mRNA expression according to the HER2DX standardized assay served as an important prognostic biomarker in predicting survival outcomes.

Major finding: High, medium, and low levels of ERBB2 mRNA expression were associated with overall response rates of 56%, 29%, and 0%, respectively, with high ERBB2 mRNA expression being associated with both better progression-free survival (P < .001) and overall survival (P  =  .007) outcomes.

Study details: Findings are from a study including 87 patients with HER2+ advanced BC who received treatment with trastuzumab emtansine.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Hospital Clinic, Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Oncologiche e Gastroenterologiche, University of Padova, Italy, and other sources. The authors declared serving as consultants; receiving advisory, lecture, or consulting fees; or having other ties with several sources.

Source: Brasó-Maristany F et al. HER2DX ERBB2 mRNA expression in advanced HER2-positive breast cancer treated with T-DM1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022 (Dec 28). Doi: 10.1093/jnci/djac227

Key clinical point: In patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+ or ERBB2+) breast cancer (BC) treated with trastuzumab emtansine, the pre-established levels of ERBB2 mRNA expression according to the HER2DX standardized assay served as an important prognostic biomarker in predicting survival outcomes.

Major finding: High, medium, and low levels of ERBB2 mRNA expression were associated with overall response rates of 56%, 29%, and 0%, respectively, with high ERBB2 mRNA expression being associated with both better progression-free survival (P < .001) and overall survival (P  =  .007) outcomes.

Study details: Findings are from a study including 87 patients with HER2+ advanced BC who received treatment with trastuzumab emtansine.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Hospital Clinic, Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Oncologiche e Gastroenterologiche, University of Padova, Italy, and other sources. The authors declared serving as consultants; receiving advisory, lecture, or consulting fees; or having other ties with several sources.

Source: Brasó-Maristany F et al. HER2DX ERBB2 mRNA expression in advanced HER2-positive breast cancer treated with T-DM1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022 (Dec 28). Doi: 10.1093/jnci/djac227

Key clinical point: Addition of atezolizumab to carboplatin+paclitaxel in the neoadjuvant setting improved the pathological complete response (pCR) rate in patients with stage II-III triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 6.6 months, a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved pCR in the atezolizumab+chemotherapy vs chemotherapy-only group (55.6% vs 18.8%; P  =  .018). However, the increase in the percentage of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes was nominal and not significantly different between both groups (P  =  .36). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were reported by 62.5% vs 57.8% of patients in the only chemotherapy vs atezolizumab+chemotherapy group, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 NCI-10013 study including 67 patients with previously untreated stage II and III TNBC who were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant carboplatin+paclitaxel with or without atezolizumab.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program. Some authors declared receiving research grants or having other financial or non-financial ties with several sources.

Source: Ademuyiwa FO et al. A randomized phase 2 study of neoadjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without atezolizumab in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) - NCI 10013. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2022;8(1):134 (Dec 30). Doi: 10.1038/s41523-022-00500-3

Key clinical point: Addition of atezolizumab to carboplatin+paclitaxel in the neoadjuvant setting improved the pathological complete response (pCR) rate in patients with stage II-III triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 6.6 months, a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved pCR in the atezolizumab+chemotherapy vs chemotherapy-only group (55.6% vs 18.8%; P  =  .018). However, the increase in the percentage of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes was nominal and not significantly different between both groups (P  =  .36). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were reported by 62.5% vs 57.8% of patients in the only chemotherapy vs atezolizumab+chemotherapy group, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 NCI-10013 study including 67 patients with previously untreated stage II and III TNBC who were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant carboplatin+paclitaxel with or without atezolizumab.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program. Some authors declared receiving research grants or having other financial or non-financial ties with several sources.

Source: Ademuyiwa FO et al. A randomized phase 2 study of neoadjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without atezolizumab in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) - NCI 10013. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2022;8(1):134 (Dec 30). Doi: 10.1038/s41523-022-00500-3

Key clinical point: Addition of atezolizumab to carboplatin+paclitaxel in the neoadjuvant setting improved the pathological complete response (pCR) rate in patients with stage II-III triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 6.6 months, a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved pCR in the atezolizumab+chemotherapy vs chemotherapy-only group (55.6% vs 18.8%; P  =  .018). However, the increase in the percentage of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes was nominal and not significantly different between both groups (P  =  .36). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were reported by 62.5% vs 57.8% of patients in the only chemotherapy vs atezolizumab+chemotherapy group, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 NCI-10013 study including 67 patients with previously untreated stage II and III TNBC who were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant carboplatin+paclitaxel with or without atezolizumab.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program. Some authors declared receiving research grants or having other financial or non-financial ties with several sources.

Source: Ademuyiwa FO et al. A randomized phase 2 study of neoadjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without atezolizumab in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) - NCI 10013. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2022;8(1):134 (Dec 30). Doi: 10.1038/s41523-022-00500-3

AURORA, COLO. – The therapeutic action of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), one of the most frequently prescribed drugs for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), can be defeated by enzymes that reside in the very gut that the drug is designed to treat.

“What we found is two gut microbial acetyltransferase families that were previously unknown to be participating in drug metabolism that directly inactivate the drug 5-ASA. It seems that in turn, having a subset of these microbial acetyltransferases is prospectively linked with treatment failure, and could potentially explain why some of these patients of ours fail on the drug,”  Raaj S. Mehta, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

More than half of all patients with IBD treated with 5-ASA either lose their response to the drug or never respond to it at all, including some of his own patients, Dr. Mehta said.

There is an urgent need for a way to predict which patients will be likely to respond to 5-ASA and other drugs to treat IBD, he said.
 

The same old story

In the early 1990s, investigators at St. Radboud Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, studied cultured feces from patients with IBD treated with 5-ASA, and found in some patients that the drug was metabolized into N-acetyl-5-ASA. In an earlier, double-blind comparison trial in patients with idiopathic proctitis, the same investigators found N-acetyl-5-ASA to be “no better than placebo.”

“But prior to our work, we didn’t know which specific bacteria or enzymes performed this conversion ... of the drug, and we didn’t know if having these enzymes in your intestines or colon could explain why people are at risk for failing on 5-ASA,” Dr. Mehta said.
 

New evidence

Dr. Mehta and his colleagues first turned to the Human Microbiome Project 2, a cohort of 132 persons with IBD followed for 1 year each, with the goal of generating molecular profiles of host and microbial activity over time.

The patients provided stool samples about every 2 weeks, as well as blood and biopsy specimens, and reported details on their use of medications.

The investigators generated metagenomic, metatranscriptomic, genomic, and metabolomic profiles from the data, and then narrowed their focus to 45 participants who used 5-ASA and 34 who did not.

They found that “5-ASA has a major impact on the fecal metabolome,” with significant increases in fecal drug levels of both 5-ASA and the inactive metabolites, as well as more than 2,000 other metabolites.

Looking at the gemomics of gut microbiota, the investigators identified gene clusters in two superfamilies of enzymes, thiolases and acyl CoA N-acyltransferases. They identified 12 candidates.

To bolster their findings, they then expressed one gene from each superfamily in Escherichia coli and purified the protein. When they cocultured it with acetylCoA and 5-ASA, there was a greater than 25% conversion of the drug within 1 hour.

They also found that microbial thiolases appear to step outside of their normal roles to inactivate 5-ASA in a manner similar to that of an N-acetyltrasferase not found in persons with IBD.
 

Clinical relevance

To see whether their findings had clinical implications, the investigators conducted a case-cohort study nested within the Human Microbiome Project 2 cohort. They saw that, after adjusting for age, sex, IBD type, smoking, and N-acetyltransferase (NAT2) phenotype, 4 of the 12 acetyltranfserase candidates were associated with a roughly threefold increase in steroid use, suggesting that 5-ASA treatment had failed the patients.

“So then to take it one step further, we turned to the SPARC IBD cohort,” Dr. Mehta said.

SPARC IBD is an ongoing prospective cohort of patients who provide stool samples and detailed medication and symptom data.

They identified 208 cohort members who were on 5-ASA, were free of steroids at baseline, and who had fecal metabolomic data available. In this group, there were 60 cases of new corticosteroid prescriptions after about 8 months of follow-up.

The authors found that having three or four of the suspect acetyltransferases in gut microbiota was associated with a an overall odds ratio for 5-ASA treatment failure of 3.12 (95% confidence interval, 1.41-6.89).

“Taken together, I think this advances the idea of using the microbiome for personalized medicine in IBD,” Dr. Mehta said.

“Right now it’s an ideal outcome for a patient with [ulcerative colitis] to retain a robust remission on 5-ASA alone,” commented session moderator Michael J. Rosen, MD, MSCI, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Stanford University Medical Center in Palo Alto, Calif., who was not involved in the study.

Asked in an interview whether the findings would be likely to change clinical practice, Dr. Rosen replied that “I think it’s fairly early stage, but I think it’s wonderful that they sort of rediscovered this older data and are modernizing it to understand why [5-ASA] may not work for some patients. It certainly seems like it might be a tractable approach to use the microbiome to personalize therapy and potentially increase the effectiveness of 5-ASA.”

The study was supported by grants from Pfizer, the National Institutes of Health, American College of Gastroenterology, and the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. Dr. Mehta disclosed that his team has filed a provisional patent application related to the work. Dr. Rosen reported no relevant conflict of interest.

AURORA, COLO. – The therapeutic action of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), one of the most frequently prescribed drugs for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), can be defeated by enzymes that reside in the very gut that the drug is designed to treat.

“What we found is two gut microbial acetyltransferase families that were previously unknown to be participating in drug metabolism that directly inactivate the drug 5-ASA. It seems that in turn, having a subset of these microbial acetyltransferases is prospectively linked with treatment failure, and could potentially explain why some of these patients of ours fail on the drug,”  Raaj S. Mehta, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

More than half of all patients with IBD treated with 5-ASA either lose their response to the drug or never respond to it at all, including some of his own patients, Dr. Mehta said.

There is an urgent need for a way to predict which patients will be likely to respond to 5-ASA and other drugs to treat IBD, he said.
 

The same old story

In the early 1990s, investigators at St. Radboud Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, studied cultured feces from patients with IBD treated with 5-ASA, and found in some patients that the drug was metabolized into N-acetyl-5-ASA. In an earlier, double-blind comparison trial in patients with idiopathic proctitis, the same investigators found N-acetyl-5-ASA to be “no better than placebo.”

“But prior to our work, we didn’t know which specific bacteria or enzymes performed this conversion ... of the drug, and we didn’t know if having these enzymes in your intestines or colon could explain why people are at risk for failing on 5-ASA,” Dr. Mehta said.
 

New evidence

Dr. Mehta and his colleagues first turned to the Human Microbiome Project 2, a cohort of 132 persons with IBD followed for 1 year each, with the goal of generating molecular profiles of host and microbial activity over time.

The patients provided stool samples about every 2 weeks, as well as blood and biopsy specimens, and reported details on their use of medications.

The investigators generated metagenomic, metatranscriptomic, genomic, and metabolomic profiles from the data, and then narrowed their focus to 45 participants who used 5-ASA and 34 who did not.

They found that “5-ASA has a major impact on the fecal metabolome,” with significant increases in fecal drug levels of both 5-ASA and the inactive metabolites, as well as more than 2,000 other metabolites.

Looking at the gemomics of gut microbiota, the investigators identified gene clusters in two superfamilies of enzymes, thiolases and acyl CoA N-acyltransferases. They identified 12 candidates.

To bolster their findings, they then expressed one gene from each superfamily in Escherichia coli and purified the protein. When they cocultured it with acetylCoA and 5-ASA, there was a greater than 25% conversion of the drug within 1 hour.

They also found that microbial thiolases appear to step outside of their normal roles to inactivate 5-ASA in a manner similar to that of an N-acetyltrasferase not found in persons with IBD.
 

Clinical relevance

To see whether their findings had clinical implications, the investigators conducted a case-cohort study nested within the Human Microbiome Project 2 cohort. They saw that, after adjusting for age, sex, IBD type, smoking, and N-acetyltransferase (NAT2) phenotype, 4 of the 12 acetyltranfserase candidates were associated with a roughly threefold increase in steroid use, suggesting that 5-ASA treatment had failed the patients.

“So then to take it one step further, we turned to the SPARC IBD cohort,” Dr. Mehta said.

SPARC IBD is an ongoing prospective cohort of patients who provide stool samples and detailed medication and symptom data.

They identified 208 cohort members who were on 5-ASA, were free of steroids at baseline, and who had fecal metabolomic data available. In this group, there were 60 cases of new corticosteroid prescriptions after about 8 months of follow-up.

The authors found that having three or four of the suspect acetyltransferases in gut microbiota was associated with a an overall odds ratio for 5-ASA treatment failure of 3.12 (95% confidence interval, 1.41-6.89).

“Taken together, I think this advances the idea of using the microbiome for personalized medicine in IBD,” Dr. Mehta said.

“Right now it’s an ideal outcome for a patient with [ulcerative colitis] to retain a robust remission on 5-ASA alone,” commented session moderator Michael J. Rosen, MD, MSCI, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Stanford University Medical Center in Palo Alto, Calif., who was not involved in the study.

Asked in an interview whether the findings would be likely to change clinical practice, Dr. Rosen replied that “I think it’s fairly early stage, but I think it’s wonderful that they sort of rediscovered this older data and are modernizing it to understand why [5-ASA] may not work for some patients. It certainly seems like it might be a tractable approach to use the microbiome to personalize therapy and potentially increase the effectiveness of 5-ASA.”

The study was supported by grants from Pfizer, the National Institutes of Health, American College of Gastroenterology, and the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. Dr. Mehta disclosed that his team has filed a provisional patent application related to the work. Dr. Rosen reported no relevant conflict of interest.

AURORA, COLO. – The therapeutic action of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), one of the most frequently prescribed drugs for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), can be defeated by enzymes that reside in the very gut that the drug is designed to treat.

“What we found is two gut microbial acetyltransferase families that were previously unknown to be participating in drug metabolism that directly inactivate the drug 5-ASA. It seems that in turn, having a subset of these microbial acetyltransferases is prospectively linked with treatment failure, and could potentially explain why some of these patients of ours fail on the drug,”  Raaj S. Mehta, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

More than half of all patients with IBD treated with 5-ASA either lose their response to the drug or never respond to it at all, including some of his own patients, Dr. Mehta said.

There is an urgent need for a way to predict which patients will be likely to respond to 5-ASA and other drugs to treat IBD, he said.
 

The same old story

In the early 1990s, investigators at St. Radboud Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, studied cultured feces from patients with IBD treated with 5-ASA, and found in some patients that the drug was metabolized into N-acetyl-5-ASA. In an earlier, double-blind comparison trial in patients with idiopathic proctitis, the same investigators found N-acetyl-5-ASA to be “no better than placebo.”

“But prior to our work, we didn’t know which specific bacteria or enzymes performed this conversion ... of the drug, and we didn’t know if having these enzymes in your intestines or colon could explain why people are at risk for failing on 5-ASA,” Dr. Mehta said.
 

New evidence

Dr. Mehta and his colleagues first turned to the Human Microbiome Project 2, a cohort of 132 persons with IBD followed for 1 year each, with the goal of generating molecular profiles of host and microbial activity over time.

The patients provided stool samples about every 2 weeks, as well as blood and biopsy specimens, and reported details on their use of medications.

The investigators generated metagenomic, metatranscriptomic, genomic, and metabolomic profiles from the data, and then narrowed their focus to 45 participants who used 5-ASA and 34 who did not.

They found that “5-ASA has a major impact on the fecal metabolome,” with significant increases in fecal drug levels of both 5-ASA and the inactive metabolites, as well as more than 2,000 other metabolites.

Looking at the gemomics of gut microbiota, the investigators identified gene clusters in two superfamilies of enzymes, thiolases and acyl CoA N-acyltransferases. They identified 12 candidates.

To bolster their findings, they then expressed one gene from each superfamily in Escherichia coli and purified the protein. When they cocultured it with acetylCoA and 5-ASA, there was a greater than 25% conversion of the drug within 1 hour.

They also found that microbial thiolases appear to step outside of their normal roles to inactivate 5-ASA in a manner similar to that of an N-acetyltrasferase not found in persons with IBD.
 

Clinical relevance

To see whether their findings had clinical implications, the investigators conducted a case-cohort study nested within the Human Microbiome Project 2 cohort. They saw that, after adjusting for age, sex, IBD type, smoking, and N-acetyltransferase (NAT2) phenotype, 4 of the 12 acetyltranfserase candidates were associated with a roughly threefold increase in steroid use, suggesting that 5-ASA treatment had failed the patients.

“So then to take it one step further, we turned to the SPARC IBD cohort,” Dr. Mehta said.

SPARC IBD is an ongoing prospective cohort of patients who provide stool samples and detailed medication and symptom data.

They identified 208 cohort members who were on 5-ASA, were free of steroids at baseline, and who had fecal metabolomic data available. In this group, there were 60 cases of new corticosteroid prescriptions after about 8 months of follow-up.

The authors found that having three or four of the suspect acetyltransferases in gut microbiota was associated with a an overall odds ratio for 5-ASA treatment failure of 3.12 (95% confidence interval, 1.41-6.89).

“Taken together, I think this advances the idea of using the microbiome for personalized medicine in IBD,” Dr. Mehta said.

“Right now it’s an ideal outcome for a patient with [ulcerative colitis] to retain a robust remission on 5-ASA alone,” commented session moderator Michael J. Rosen, MD, MSCI, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Stanford University Medical Center in Palo Alto, Calif., who was not involved in the study.

Asked in an interview whether the findings would be likely to change clinical practice, Dr. Rosen replied that “I think it’s fairly early stage, but I think it’s wonderful that they sort of rediscovered this older data and are modernizing it to understand why [5-ASA] may not work for some patients. It certainly seems like it might be a tractable approach to use the microbiome to personalize therapy and potentially increase the effectiveness of 5-ASA.”

The study was supported by grants from Pfizer, the National Institutes of Health, American College of Gastroenterology, and the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. Dr. Mehta disclosed that his team has filed a provisional patent application related to the work. Dr. Rosen reported no relevant conflict of interest.

Key clinical point: Exemestane plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) led to a greater reduction in recurrence risk than tamoxifen+OFS in premenopausal women with estrogen or progesterone receptor-positive (ER/PgR+) early breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: There was a significant improvement in 12-year disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79; P < .001) and distant recurrence-free interval (HR 0.83; P  =  .03) with exemestane+OFS vs tamoxifen+OFS, with overall survival outcomes (90.1% vs 89.1%) being excellent in both treatment arms.

Study details: Findings are from a combined analysis of the SOFT and TEXT trials including 4690 premenopausal women with ER/PgR+ early BC who were randomly assigned to receive OFS plus exemestane or tamoxifen.

Disclosures: The SOFT and TEXT are supported by ETOP IBCSG (European Thoracic Oncology Platform, International Breast Cancer Study Group) Partners Foundation, Switzerland. The authors declared serving as consultants or advisors or receiving honoraria, research funding, or travel and accommodation expenses from several sources.

Source: Pagani O, Walley BA, et al for the SOFT and TEXT Investigators and the International Breast Cancer Study Group (a division of ETOP IBCSG Partners Foundation). Adjuvant exemestane with ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer: Long-term follow-up of the combined TEXT and SOFT trials. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Dec 15). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01064

Key clinical point: Exemestane plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) led to a greater reduction in recurrence risk than tamoxifen+OFS in premenopausal women with estrogen or progesterone receptor-positive (ER/PgR+) early breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: There was a significant improvement in 12-year disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79; P < .001) and distant recurrence-free interval (HR 0.83; P  =  .03) with exemestane+OFS vs tamoxifen+OFS, with overall survival outcomes (90.1% vs 89.1%) being excellent in both treatment arms.

Study details: Findings are from a combined analysis of the SOFT and TEXT trials including 4690 premenopausal women with ER/PgR+ early BC who were randomly assigned to receive OFS plus exemestane or tamoxifen.

Disclosures: The SOFT and TEXT are supported by ETOP IBCSG (European Thoracic Oncology Platform, International Breast Cancer Study Group) Partners Foundation, Switzerland. The authors declared serving as consultants or advisors or receiving honoraria, research funding, or travel and accommodation expenses from several sources.

Source: Pagani O, Walley BA, et al for the SOFT and TEXT Investigators and the International Breast Cancer Study Group (a division of ETOP IBCSG Partners Foundation). Adjuvant exemestane with ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer: Long-term follow-up of the combined TEXT and SOFT trials. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Dec 15). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01064

Key clinical point: Exemestane plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) led to a greater reduction in recurrence risk than tamoxifen+OFS in premenopausal women with estrogen or progesterone receptor-positive (ER/PgR+) early breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: There was a significant improvement in 12-year disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79; P < .001) and distant recurrence-free interval (HR 0.83; P  =  .03) with exemestane+OFS vs tamoxifen+OFS, with overall survival outcomes (90.1% vs 89.1%) being excellent in both treatment arms.

Study details: Findings are from a combined analysis of the SOFT and TEXT trials including 4690 premenopausal women with ER/PgR+ early BC who were randomly assigned to receive OFS plus exemestane or tamoxifen.

Disclosures: The SOFT and TEXT are supported by ETOP IBCSG (European Thoracic Oncology Platform, International Breast Cancer Study Group) Partners Foundation, Switzerland. The authors declared serving as consultants or advisors or receiving honoraria, research funding, or travel and accommodation expenses from several sources.

Source: Pagani O, Walley BA, et al for the SOFT and TEXT Investigators and the International Breast Cancer Study Group (a division of ETOP IBCSG Partners Foundation). Adjuvant exemestane with ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer: Long-term follow-up of the combined TEXT and SOFT trials. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Dec 15). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01064