This paper describes a dataset collected by infrared thermography, a non-contact, non-intrusive technique to acquire data and analyze the built environment in various aspects. While most studies focus on the city and building scales, an observatory installed on a rooftop provides high temporal and spatial resolution observations with dynamic interactions on the district scale. The rooftop infrared thermography observatory with a multi-modal platform capable of assessing a wide range of dynamic processes in urban systems was deployed in Singapore. It was placed on the top of two buildings that overlook the outdoor context of the National University of Singapore campus. The platform collects remote sensing data from tropical areas on a temporal scale, allowing users to determine the temperature trend of individual features such as buildings, roads, and vegetation. The dataset includes 1,365,921 thermal images collected on average at approximately 10-second intervals from two locations during ten months.

Background

KRISTINE is an open-label, phase III study of trastuzumab emtansine + pertuzumab (T-DM1 + P) versus docetaxel + carboplatin + trastuzumab + pertuzumab (TCH + P) in patients with HER2-positive, stage II-III breast cancer. We investigated the association of biomarkers with clinical outcomes in KRISTINE.

Methods

Patients were randomized to receive neoadjuvant T-DM1 + P or TCH + P and assessed for pathologic complete response (pCR; ypT0/is, ypN0). HER2 status (per central assessment), hormone receptor status, PIK3CA mutation status, HER2/HER3 mRNA levels, tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte levels, PD-L1 status, and NanoString data were analyzed. pCR rates by treatment arm were compared across biomarker subgroups. Analyses were descriptive.

Results

Biomarker analyses included data from all 444 patients (T-DM1 + P, n = 223; TCH + P, n = 221) enrolled in KRISTINE. Biomarker distribution was balanced across treatment arms. All subgroups with higher HER2 amplification/expression and immune marker levels showed numerically higher pCR rates in both arms. Mutated versus non-mutated PIK3CA tumors were associated with numerically lower pCR rates in the T-DM1 + P arm but not in the TCH + P arm. In a multivariate analysis, Prediction Analysis of Microarray with the 50-gene classifier (PAM50) HER2-enriched subtype, HER2 gene ratio ≥ 4, and PD-L1-positive status positively influenced the pCR rate. Biomarkers associated with lower pCR rates (e.g., low HER2 levels, positive hormone receptor status, mutated PIK3CA) were more likely to co-occur. Dynamic on-treatment biomarker changes were observed. Differences in the treatment effects for T-DM1 + P versus TCH + P were similar to those observed in the intent-to-treat population for the majority of the biomarker subgroups.

Conclusions

Although our biomarker analysis did not identify a subgroup of patients that benefited from neoadjuvant T-DM1 + P versus TCH + P, the data revealed that patients with higher HER2 amplification/expression and immune marker levels had improved response irrespective of treatment arm. These analyses confirm the role of HER2 tumor biology and the immune microenvironment in influencing pCR in the neoadjuvant setting and reaffirm the molecular diversity of HER2-positive breast cancer.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02131064. Registered 06 May 2014.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused over 68.7 million infections and 1.35 million deaths in South America. There are limited data on SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and its determinants from Andean countries prior to mass vaccinations against COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To estimate SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and its determinants before vaccination in occupational groups of adults presumed to have different levels of exposure and associations with potential symptomatology. METHODS: We measured seropositivity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in a cross-sectional study of vaccine-naïve adults aged 18 years and older, recruited within three occupational risk groups (defined as low [LR], moderate [MR], and high [HR]) between January and September 2021 in two Andean cities in Ecuador. Associations with risk factors were estimated using logistic regression. RESULTS: In a sample of 882 adults, IgG seropositivity for the three different occupational risk groups was 39.9% (CI 95% 35.3-44.6), 74.6% (CI 95% 66.4-81.4), and 39.0% (CI 95% 34.0-44.4) for the HR, MR, and LR groups, respectively. History of an illness with loss of taste and/or smell was significantly associated with seropositivity in all occupational groups, with adjusted ORs of 14.31 (95%CI, 5.83-35.12; p<0.001), 14.34 (95%CI 3.01-68.42; p<0.001), and 8.79 (95%CI 2.69-28.72; p<0.001), for the HR, MR, and LR groups, respectively; while fever was significant for the LR group with an adjusted OR of 1.24 (95%CI, 1.11-4.57; p = 0.025) and myalgia for the HR group with an adjusted OR of 2.07 (95%CI, 1.13-3.81; p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Notable proportions of seropositivity were seen in all occupational groups between January and September 2021 prior to mass vaccination. Loss of taste and/or smell was strongly associated with presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies irrespective of presumed occupational exposure risk.

Purpose

PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have demonstrated efficacy in tumors with germline breast cancer susceptibility genes (gBRCA) 1 and 2 mutations, but further factors influencing response to PARPi are poorly understood.

Experimental design

Breast cancer tumor tissue from patients with gBRCA1/2 mutations from the phase III EMBRACA trial of the PARPi talazoparib versus chemotherapy was sequenced using FoundationOne CDx.

Results

In the evaluable intent-to-treat population, 96.1% (296/308) had ≥1 tumor BRCA (tBRCA) mutation and there was strong concordance (95.3%) between tBRCA and gBRCA mutational status. Genetic/genomic characteristics including BRCA loss of heterozygosity (LOH; identified in 82.6% of evaluable patients), DNA damage response (DDR) gene mutational burden, and tumor homologous recombination deficiency [assessed by genomic LOH (gLOH)] demonstrated no association with talazoparib efficacy.

Conclusions

Overall, BRCA LOH status, DDR gene mutational burden, and gLOH were not associated with talazoparib efficacy; however, these conclusions are qualified by population heterogeneity and low patient numbers in some subgroups. Further investigation in larger patient populations is warranted.

In monarchE, adjuvant abemaciclib significantly improved invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS), with sustained benefit beyond the 2-year treatment period. Abemaciclib dose reductions were allowed to proactively manage adverse events. Exploratory analyses to investigate the impact of dose reductions on efficacy were conducted. Across the three patient subgroups as defined by relative dose intensity (≤66%, 66-93%, ≥93%), the estimated 4-year IDFS rates were generally consistent (87.1%, 86.4%, and 83.7%, respectively). In the time-dependent Cox proportional hazard model, the effect of abemaciclib was consistent at the full dose compared to being reduced to a lower dose (IDFS hazard ratio: 0.905; 95% confidence interval: 0.727, 1.125; DRFS hazard ratio: 0.942; 95% confidence interval: 0.742, 1.195). These analyses showed that the efficacy of adjuvant abemaciclib was not compromised by protocol mandated dose reductions for patients with node positive, hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative, high-risk early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) inhibitor talazoparib has shown antitumor activity in patients with advanced breast cancer and germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 ( BRCA1/2). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation were assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive talazoparib (1 mg once daily) or standard single-agent therapy of the physicians choice (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine in continuous 21-day cycles). The primary end point was progression-free survival, which was assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: Of the 431 patients who underwent randomization, 287 were assigned to receive talazoparib and 144 were assigned to receive standard therapy. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the talazoparib group than in the standard-therapy group (8.6 months vs. 5.6 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.71; P<0.001). The interim median hazard ratio for death was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.55 to 1.06; P=0.11 [57% of projected events]). The objective response rate was higher in the talazoparib group than in the standard-therapy group (62.6% vs. 27.2%; odds ratio, 5.0; 95% CI, 2.9 to 8.8; P<0.001). Hematologic grade 3-4 adverse events (primarily anemia) occurred in 55% of the patients who received talazoparib and in 38% of the patients who received standard therapy; nonhematologic grade 3 adverse events occurred in 32% and 38% of the patients, respectively. Patient-reported outcomes favored talazoparib; significant overall improvements and significant delays in the time to clinically meaningful deterioration according to both the global health status-quality-of-life and breast symptoms scales were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation, single-agent talazoparib provided a significant benefit over standard chemotherapy with respect to progression-free survival. Patient-reported outcomes were superior with talazoparib. (Funded by Medivation [Pfizer]; EMBRACA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01945775 .).

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.PALOMA-2 demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in progression-free survival with palbociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Here, we report results for the secondary end point overall survival (OS). Postmenopausal women (N = 666) with ER+/HER2- ABC without previous systemic therapy for ABC were randomly assigned 2:1 to palbociclib plus letrozole or placebo plus letrozole. After a median follow-up of 90.1 months, 405 deaths were observed and 155 patients were known to be alive. The median OS was 53.9 months (95% CI, 49.8 to 60.8) with palbociclib plus letrozole versus 51.2 months (95% CI, 43.7 to 58.9) with placebo plus letrozole (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.18]; stratified one-sided P = .34). An imbalance in the number of patients with unknown survival outcome between the treatment arms (13.3% v 21.2%, respectively) limited interpretation of OS results. With recovered survival data, the median OS was 53.8 (95% CI, 49.8 to 59.2) versus 49.8 months (95% CI, 42.3 to 56.4), respectively (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.12]; one-sided P = .21). OS was not significantly improved with palbociclib plus letrozole compared with placebo plus letrozole.

Purpose

neoMONARCH assessed the biological effects of abemaciclib in combination with anastrozole in the neoadjuvant setting.

Patients and methods

Postmenopausal women with stage I-IIIB HR⁺/HER2^- breast cancer were randomized to a 2-week lead-in of abemaciclib, anastrozole, or abemaciclib plus anastrozole followed by 14 weeks of the combination. The primary objective evaluated change in Ki67 from baseline to 2 weeks of treatment. Additional objectives included clinical, radiologic, and pathologic responses, safety, as well as gene expression changes related to cell proliferation and immune response.

Results

Abemaciclib, alone or in combination with anastrozole, achieved a significant decrease in Ki67 expression and led to potent cell-cycle arrest after 2 weeks of treatment compared with anastrozole alone. More patients in the abemaciclib-containing arms versus anastrozole alone achieved complete cell-cycle arrest (58%/68% vs. 14%, P < 0.001). At the end of treatment, following 2 weeks lead-in and 14 weeks of combination therapy, 46% of intent-to-treat patients achieved a radiologic response, with pathologic complete response observed in 4%. The most common all-grade adverse events were diarrhea (62%), constipation (44%), and nausea (42%). Abemaciclib, anastrozole, and the combination inhibited cell-cycle processes and estrogen signaling; however, combination therapy resulted in increased cytokine signaling and adaptive immune response indicative of enhanced antigen presentation and activated T-cell phenotypes.

Conclusions

Abemaciclib plus anastrozole demonstrated biological and clinical activity with generally manageable toxicities in patients with HR⁺/HER2^- early breast cancer. Abemaciclib led to potent cell-cycle arrest, and in combination with anastrozole, enhanced immune activation.

COVID-19 appeared in late 2019, causing a pandemic spread. This led to a reorganisation of oncology care in order to reduce the risk of spreading infection between patients and healthcare staff. Here we analysed measures taken in major oncological units in Europe and the USA. A 46-item survey was sent by email to representatives of 30 oncological centres in 12 of the most affected countries. The survey inquired about preventive measures established to reduce virus spread, patient education and processes employed for risk reduction in each oncological unit. Investigators from 21 centres in 10 countries answered the survey between 10 April and 6 May 2020. A triage for patients with cancer before hospital or clinic visits was conducted by 90.5% of centres before consultations, 95.2% before day care admissions and in 100% of the cases before overnight hospitalisation by means of phone calls, interactive online platforms, swab test and/or chest CT scan. Permission for caregivers to attend clinic visits was limited in many centres, with some exceptions (ie, for non-autonomous patients, in the case of a new diagnosis, when bad news was expected and for terminally ill patients). With a variable delay period, the use of personal protective equipment was unanimously mandatory, and in many centres, only targeted clinical and instrumental examinations were performed. Telemedicine was implemented in 76.2% of the centres. Separated pathways for COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients were organised, with separate inpatient units and day care areas. Self-isolation was required for COVID-19-positive or symptomatic staff, while return to work policies required a negative swab test in 76.2% of the centres. Many pragmatic measures have been quickly implemented to deal with the health emergency linked to COVID-19, although the relative efficacy of each intervention should be further analysed in large observational studies.