Searching for the "Holy Grail" of breast cancer recurrence risk: a narrative review of the hunt for a better biomarker and the promise of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA).

BACKGROUND: This paper is a narrative review of a major clinical challenge at the heart of breast cancer care: determining which patients are at risk of recurrence, which require systemic therapy, and which remain at risk in the survivorship phase of care despite initial therapy. METHODS: We review the literature on prognostic and predictive biomarkers in breast cancer with a focus on detection of minimal residual disease. RESULTS: While we have many tools to estimate and refine risk that are used to individualize local and systemic therapy, we know that we continue to over treat many patients and undertreat others. Many patients also experience what is, at least in hindsight, needless fear of recurrence. In this review, we frame this dilemma for the practicing breast oncologist and discuss the search for what we term the "holy grail" of breast cancer evaluation: the ideal biomarker of residual distant disease. We review the history of attempts to address this problem and the up-to-date science on biomarkers, circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). CONCLUSION: This review suggests that the emerging promise of ctDNA may help resolve a crticical dilemma at the heart of breast cancer care, and improve prognostication, treatment selection, and outcomes for patients with breast cancer.

Feasibility of introducing a smartphone navigation application into the care of breast cancer patients (The FIONA Study).

PURPOSE: Patients with breast cancer (BC) face complex medical information and decisions. The Outcomes4Me mobile app provides evidence-based BC education, symptom management tracking and clinical trial matching. This study sought to evaluate the feasibility of introducing this app into routine BC care. METHODS: In this pilot study among BC patients undergoing therapy at an academic cancer center, patients were followed for 12 weeks with survey administration and electronic health record (EHR) abstraction at baseline and completion. Feasibility was defined as 40% of patients engaging with the app 3 or more times during the study. Additional endpoints included app usability (system usability scale), patient care experience, symptom evaluation, and clinical trial matching. RESULTS: The study enrolled 107 patients from 6/01/2020 to 3/31/2021. Utilization of the app was deemed feasible with 60% of patients engaging with the app at least 3 times. SUS score of 70 indicated above average usability. New diagnosis and higher education level was associated with greater app engagement, with usability similar across all age groups. 41% of patients found the app helped track symptoms. Cognitive and sexual symptoms were infrequently reported, but were more frequently captured in the app than in the EHR. After using the app, 33% of patients reported increased interest in clinical trial enrollment. CONCLUSION: Introducing the Outcomes4Me patient navigation app into routine BC care is feasible and may improve the patient experience. These results support further evaluation of this mobile technology platform to improve BC education, symptom management, and decision making. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinicaltrials.gov registration #: NCT04262518.

Sacituzumab Govitecan-hziy in Refractory Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Standard chemotherapy is associated with low response rates and short progression-free survival among patients with pretreated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Sacituzumab govitecan-hziy is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines a humanized monoclonal antibody, which targets the human trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (Trop-2), with SN-38, which is conjugated to the antibody by a cleavable linker. Sacituzumab govitecan-hziy enables delivery of high concentrations of SN-38 to tumors. METHODS: We conducted a phase 1/2 single-group, multicenter trial involving patients with advanced epithelial cancers who received sacituzumab govitecan-hziy intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. A total of 108 patients received sacituzumab govitecan-hziy at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight after receiving at least two previous anticancer therapies for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. The end points included safety; the objective response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), which was assessed locally; the duration of response; the clinical benefit rate (defined as a complete or partial response or stable disease for at least 6 months); progression-free survival; and overall survival. Post hoc analyses determined the response rate and duration, which were assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: The 108 patients with triple-negative breast cancer had received a median of 3 previous therapies (range, 2 to 10). Four deaths occurred during treatment; 3 patients (2.8%) discontinued treatment because of adverse events. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (in ≥10% of the patients) included anemia and neutropenia; 10 patients (9.3%) had febrile neutropenia. The response rate (3 complete and 33 partial responses) was 33.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.6 to 43.1), and the median duration of response was 7.7 months (95% CI, 4.9 to 10.8); as assessed by independent central review, these values were 34.3% and 9.1 months, respectively. The clinical benefit rate was 45.4%. Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 6.3), and overall survival was 13.0 months (95% CI, 11.2 to 13.7). CONCLUSIONS: Sacituzumab govitecan-hziy was associated with durable objective responses in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Myelotoxic effects were the main adverse reactions. (Funded by Immunomedics; IMMU-132-01 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01631552.).

Ipatasertib plus paclitaxel for PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: primary results from cohort B of the IPATunity130 randomized phase 3 trial.

PURPOSE: PI3K/AKT pathway alterations are frequent in hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancers. IPATunity130 Cohort B investigated ipatasertib-paclitaxel in PI3K pathway-mutant HR+ unresectable locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer (aBC). METHODS: Cohort B of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 IPATunity130 trial enrolled patients with HR+ HER2-negative PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered measurable aBC who were considered inappropriate for endocrine-based therapy (demonstrated insensitivity to endocrine therapy or visceral crisis) and were candidates for taxane monotherapy. Patients with prior chemotherapy for aBC or relapse < 1 year since (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy were ineligible. Patients were randomized 2:1 to ipatasertib (400 mg, days 1-21) or placebo, plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15), every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Overall, 146 patients were randomized to ipatasertib-paclitaxel and 76 to placebo-paclitaxel. In both arms, median investigator-assessed PFS was 9.3 months (hazard ratio, 1.00, 95% CI 0.71-1.40) and the objective response rate was 47%. Median paclitaxel duration was 6.9 versus 8.8 months in the ipatasertib-paclitaxel versus placebo-paclitaxel arms, respectively; median ipatasertib/placebo duration was 8.0 versus 9.1 months, respectively. The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were diarrhea (12% with ipatasertib-paclitaxel vs 1% with placebo-paclitaxel), neutrophil count decreased (9% vs 7%), neutropenia (8% vs 9%), peripheral neuropathy (7% vs 3%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (3% vs 5%) and hypertension (1% vs 5%). CONCLUSION: Adding ipatasertib to paclitaxel did not improve efficacy in PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered HR+ HER2-negative aBC. The ipatasertib-paclitaxel safety profile was consistent with each agent's known adverse effects. Trial registration NCT03337724.

The Evolving Role of Neoadjuvant Therapy for Operable Breast Cancer.

The role of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for localized breast cancer has evolved tremendously over the past several years. Currently, NAT is the preferred option for high-risk early triple-negative (TN) and HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancers and is indicated for some estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancers. In addition to traditional absolute indications for NAT, relative indications such as the assessment of outcomes at the time of surgery and guidance of treatment escalation and de-escalation have greatly evolved in recent years. Pathologic complete response (pCR) and the Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) index are highly prognostic for disease recurrence and survival, mainly in patients with TN or HER2+ disease. Furthermore, post-NAT escalation strategies have been shown to improve long-term outcomes of patients who do not achieve pCR. Additionally, by allowing the direct assessment of drug effect on the tumor, the neoadjuvant setting has become an attractive setting for the exploration of novel agents and the identification of predictive biomarkers. Neoadjuvant trial design has also evolved, using adaptive treatment approaches that enable treatment de-escalation or escalation based on response. However, despite multiple practice-changing neoadjuvant trials and the addition of various new agents to the neoadjuvant setting for early breast cancer, many key questions remain. For example, patient selection for neoadjuvant immunotherapy in TN breast cancer, de-escalation methods in HER2+ breast cancer, and the use of gene expression profiles to guide NAT recommendations in ER+ breast cancer. This article reviews the current approach for NAT in localized breast cancer as well as evolving NAT strategies, the key remaining challenges, and the ongoing work in the field.

Breast Cancer, Version 3.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The therapeutic options for patients with noninvasive or invasive breast cancer are complex and varied. These NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer include recommendations for clinical management of patients with carcinoma in situ, invasive breast cancer, Paget disease, phyllodes tumor, inflammatory breast cancer, and management of breast cancer during pregnancy. The content featured in this issue focuses on the recommendations for overall management of ductal carcinoma in situ and the workup and locoregional management of early stage invasive breast cancer. For the full version of the NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer, visit NCCN.org.

Final results of the double-blind placebo-controlled randomized phase 2 LOTUS trial of first-line ipatasertib plus paclitaxel for inoperable locally advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: In LOTUS (NCT02162719), adding the oral AKT inhibitor ipatasertib to first-line paclitaxel for locally advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (aTNBC) improved progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint), with an enhanced effect in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered tumors (FoundationOne next-generation sequencing [NGS] assay). We report final overall survival (OS) results. METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable previously untreated aTNBC. Patients were stratified by prior (neo)adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy-free interval, and tumor immunohistochemistry PTEN status, and were randomized 1:1 to paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15) plus ipatasertib 400 mg or placebo (days 1-21) every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. OS (intent-to-treat [ITT], immunohistochemistry PTEN-low, and PI3K/AKT pathway-activated [NGS PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered] populations) was a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 19.0 versus 16.0 months in the ipatasertib-paclitaxel versus placebo-paclitaxel arms, respectively. In the ITT population (n = 124), median OS was numerically longer with ipatasertib-paclitaxel than placebo-paclitaxel (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.50-1.28; median 25.8 vs 16.9 months, respectively; 1-year OS 83% vs 68%). Likewise, median OS favored ipatasertib-paclitaxel in the PTEN-low (n = 48; 23.1 vs 15.8 months; hazard ratio 0.83) and PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered (n = 42; 25.8 vs 22.1 months; hazard ratio 1.13) subgroups. The ipatasertib-paclitaxel safety profile was unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Final OS results show a numerical trend favoring ipatasertib-paclitaxel and median OS exceeding 2 years with ipatasertib-paclitaxel. Overall, results are consistent with the reported PFS benefit; interpretation within biomarker-defined subgroups is complicated by small sample sizes and TNBC heterogeneity.

A phase II study of efficacy, toxicity, and the potential impact of genomic alterations on response to eribulin mesylate in combination with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)+ metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: There are limited data on trastuzumab-pertuzumab (HP)-based treatments beyond the first-line, HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) setting. We conducted a phase II study of eribulin mesylate, which extends survival in MBC, with HP in patients with previously treated HER2+ MBC to evaluate efficacy, toxicity, and genomic alterations driving therapeutic response. METHODS: After a run-in phase for eribulin dosing, two cohorts were enrolled (Cohort A-no prior pertuzumab; Cohort B-prior pertuzumab). All patients received eribulin 1.4 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 with standard-dose HP on day 1 (21-day cycles). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Genomic characterization via whole exome sequencing (WES) was completed on tumor DNA and matched germline DNA from 19 patients. RESULTS: The six-patient run-in established a dose of eribulin 1.4 mg/m2 with HP. Cohorts A and B enrolled 17 and 7 patients, respectively. Accrual stopped early due to an evolving treatment landscape and slow enrollment. The ORR was 26.3% (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 9.2-51.2%) in Cohort A and 0% in Cohort B (95% CI 0-41.0%). WES revealed more frequent alterations in TP53 (p < 0.05, q > 0.05) in patients without clinical benefit (disease control for < 24 weeks) which was not significant after multiple hypothesis correction. CONCLUSION: Eribulin-HP had manageable toxicity and modest clinical activity in patients without prior pertuzumab exposure. This study provides a preliminary landscape of somatic alterations in this patient cohort. Our data add to the literature on how genomic alterations may predict for therapy response/resistance, as we work to individualize choices in a quickly evolving HER2+ MBC treatment landscape. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT01912963. Registered 24 July 2013.

Phase II trial of veliparib and temozolomide in metastatic breast cancer patients with and without BRCA1/2 mutations.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of poly-(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) 1 and 2 inhibitor veliparib and temozolomide in metastatic breast cancer patients with and without germline BRCA1/2 mutations. METHODS: In this single-arm phase II trial, patients with metastatic breast cancer received veliparib 30 to 40 mg twice daily on days 1 to 7 with concurrent temozolomide 150 mg/m2 on days 1 to 5 of a 28-day cycle. The primary cohort was unselected for BRCA mutation status, and an expansion cohort enrolled only BRCA1/2 carriers. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in each cohort. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), clinical benefit rate (CBR), and evaluation of safety and tolerability. RESULTS: In the primary cohort of 41 unselected patients, which included 9 BRCA mutation carriers, the ORR was 10% and clinical benefit rate at 4 months (CBR) was 27%. In the expansion cohort of 21 BRCA1/2 carriers, the ORR was 14% and CBR was 43%. Among all 30 BRCA1/2 carriers, the ORR was 23% versus 0% among non-carriers. In the subset of BRCA1/2 carriers, the ORR was 32% among platinum-naïve patients versus 9% among platinum-exposed patients. The median PFS was 3.3 months among BRCA1/2 carriers compared to 1.8 months among non-carriers (HR: 0.48, p = 0.006). A longer median PFS of 6.2 months was observed among BRCA1/2 carriers who had no prior platinum therapy. The most common grade 3 and 4 toxicities were thrombocytopenia (32%) and neutropenia (21%) that generally improved with dose modifications. CONCLUSION: Veliparib and temozolomide demonstrated clinical activity in platinum-naïve BRCA-associated metastatic breast cancer with manageable toxicity at doses of veliparib well below the single-agent active dose. Although the study did not meet its primary endpoint in unselected nor BRCA-associated breast cancer, this regimen was further evaluated in the BROCADE 2 study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01009788 (ClinicalTrials.gov), November 9, 2009.

Chemotherapy-related amenorrhea (CRA) after adjuvant ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) compared to paclitaxel in combination with trastuzumab (TH) (TBCRC033: ATEMPT Trial).

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-related amenorrhea (CRA) is a surrogate for ovarian toxicity and associated risk of infertility and premature menopause. Here, we compare CRA rate with paclitaxel (T)-trastuzumab (H) to that with ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). METHODS: Patients with T1N0 HER2 + early-stage breast cancer (eBC) enrolled on the ATEMPT trial and were randomized 3:1 to T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg IV every (q) 3 weeks (w) × 17 vs. T 80 mg/m2 with H IV qw × 12 (4 mg/kg load → 2 mg/kg), followed by H (6 mg/kg IV q3w × 13). Enrollees who self-reported as premenopausal were asked to complete menstrual surveys at baseline and every 6-12 months for 60 months. 18-month CRA (no periods reported during prior 6 months on 18-month survey) was the primary endpoint of this analysis. RESULTS: Of 512 ATEMPT enrollees, 123 who began protocol therapy and answered baseline and at least one follow-up menstrual survey were premenopausal at enrollment. 76 had menstrual data available at 18 months without having received a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist or undergone hysterectomy and/or oophorectomy. Median age was 45 (range 23-53) among 18 who had received TH and 46 (range 34-54) among 58 who had received T-DM1. The 18-month rate of CRA was 50% after TH and 24% after T-DM1 (p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Amenorrhea at 18 months was less likely in recipients of adjuvant T-DM1 than TH. Future studies are needed to understand how T-DM1 impacts risk of infertility and permanent menopause, and to assess amenorrhea rates when T-DM1 is administered after standard HER2-directed chemotherapy regimens.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Breast Cancer, Version 4.2021.

The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer include up-to-date guidelines for clinical management of patients with carcinoma in situ, invasive breast cancer, Paget disease, phyllodes tumor, inflammatory breast cancer, male breast cancer, and breast cancer during pregnancy. These guidelines are developed by a multidisciplinary panel of representatives from NCCN Member Institutions with breast cancer-focused expertise in the fields of medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, pathology, reconstructive surgery, and patient advocacy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the most recent updates to recommendations for adjuvant systemic therapy in patients with nonmetastatic, early-stage, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

The adjuvant use of capecitabine for residual disease following pre-operative chemotherapy for breast cancer: Challenges applying CREATE-X to a US population.

INTRODUCTION: The CREATE-X study, conducted in Japan and South Korea, established capecitabine as an adjuvant treatment option for patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have residual disease (RD) following neoadjuvant anthracycline or taxane-based chemotherapy. However, there are no reports on the tolerability and outcomes of adjuvant capecitabine in the US setting following publication of the CREATE-X data. METHODS: We retrospectively collected treatment and tolerability data from the medical records of the first 23 TNBC patients who received adjuvant capecitabine for RD post neoadjuvant chemotherapy at our institution. Disease-free survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The median starting dosage of capecitabine was 1871 mg/m2/day, most commonly divided into two daily doses on days 1-14 of each 21 day cycle. 34.8% of patients completed the treatment as prescribed. Side effects associated with treatment were common with 69.6% of patients experiencing hand-foot syndrome, 39.1% of patients experiencing diarrhea, and 13.0% of patients requiring hospitalization for side effects. Of 23 patients treated with adjuvant capecitabine, 34.8% completed the planned dose, 30.4% completed with dose reduction, and 34.8% discontinued early. At a median follow-up time of 14 months, the median disease-free survival was 22 months, with 30.4% of patients experiencing recurrence. CONCLUSION: Tolerability was poor overall compared to the CREATE-X cohort. Administering adjuvant capecitabine for TNBC patients with residual disease in the United States is challenging given differences in tolerability. More research is needed to understand how poor tolerability will affect the efficacy of this approach in the US population.

A Phase II Trial of Cabozantinib in Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer with Bone Metastases.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the antitumor activity of cabozantinib, a potent multireceptor oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer with bone metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this single-arm multicenter phase II study, patients received an initial starting dose of 100 mg, later reduced to 60 mg, per day. The primary endpoint was the bone scan response rate. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate by RECIST, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 52 women enrolled, 20 (38%) experienced a partial response on bone scan and 6 (12%) had stable disease. Prior to the first repeat bone scan at 12 weeks, 19 (35%) patients discontinued study treatment because of early clinical progression or unacceptable toxicity. RECIST evaluation based on best overall response by computed tomography revealed stable disease in extraosseous tissues in 26 patients (50%) but no complete or partial responses. In 25 patients with disease control on bone scan at 12 weeks, only 3 (12%) patients developed extraosseous progression. The median PFS was 4.3 months, and median OS was 19.6 months. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities were hypertension (10%), anorexia (6%), diarrhea (6%), fatigue (4%), and hypophosphatemia (4%). CONCLUSION: Bone scans improved in 38% of patients with metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and remained stable in an additional 12% for a minimum duration of 12 weeks on cabozantinib. Further investigations should assess the activity of cabozantinib in combination with other hormonal and other breast cancer therapies and determine whether bone scan responses correlate with meaningful antitumor effects. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT01441947 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Most patients with metastatic hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer have bone involvement, and many have bone-only disease, which is difficult to evaluate for response. This phase II single-arm study evaluated the clinical activity of the small molecule MET/RET/VEGFR2 inhibitor cabozantinib in patients with metastatic HR+ breast cancer with bone metastases. This study met its primary endpoint, and cabozantinib treatment resulted in a significant bone scan response rate correlating with improved survival. This is the first study to use bone scan response as a primary endpoint in breast cancer. The results support further study of cabozantinib in HR+ breast cancer.

A system for risk stratification and prioritization of breast cancer surgeries delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic: preparing for re-entry.

PURPOSE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, most breast surgery for benign and malignant conditions has been postponed, creating a backlog of patients who will need surgery. A fair and transparent system for assessing the risk of further delaying surgery for individual patients to prioritize surgical scheduling is needed. METHODS: Factors related to risk of delaying surgery for breast patients were identified. Scores were assigned to each factor, with higher scores indicating a greater risk from delaying surgery. REDCap and Microsoft Excel tools were designed to track and score delayed patients. RESULTS: Published data and multidisciplinary clinical judgement were used to assign risk scores based on patient and tumor factors, length of delay, and tumor response to preoperative therapy. Patients completing neoadjuvant chemotherapy were assigned the highest scores as their options for delaying surgery are most limited. Among patients receiving neoadjuvant endocrine therapy or no medical therapy, higher scores were assigned for low-estrogen receptor or high-genomic risk scores, higher grade, larger tumors, younger age and longer delay. High priority scores were assigned for progression during preoperative therapy. Low scores were assigned for re-excisions, atypical lesions and other benign indications. There was good agreement of the tool's ranking of sample patients with rankings by experienced clinicians. The tool generates risk-stratified patient lists by surgeon or institution to facilitate assignment of surgery dates. CONCLUSIONS: This tool generates a clinically consistent, risk-stratified priority list of breast surgical procedures delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic approach may facilitate surgical scheduling as conditions normalize.

Recommendations for prioritization, treatment, and triage of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. the COVID-19 pandemic breast cancer consortium.

The COVID-19 pandemic presents clinicians a unique set of challenges in managing breast cancer (BC) patients. As hospital resources and staff become more limited during the COVID-19 pandemic, it becomes critically important to define which BC patients require more urgent care and which patients can wait for treatment until the pandemic is over. In this Special Communication, we use expert opinion of representatives from multiple cancer care organizations to categorize BC patients into priority levels (A, B, C) for urgency of care across all specialties. Additionally, we provide treatment recommendations for each of these patient scenarios. Priority A patients have conditions that are immediately life threatening or symptomatic requiring urgent treatment. Priority B patients have conditions that do not require immediate treatment but should start treatment before the pandemic is over. Priority C patients have conditions that can be safely deferred until the pandemic is over. The implementation of these recommendations for patient triage, which are based on the highest level available evidence, must be adapted to current availability of hospital resources and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic in each region of the country. Additionally, the risk of disease progression and worse outcomes for patients need to be weighed against the risk of patient and staff exposure to SARS CoV-2 (virus associated with the COVID-19 pandemic). Physicians should use these recommendations to prioritize care for their BC patients and adapt treatment recommendations to the local context at their hospital.

Breast Cancer, Version 3.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Several new systemic therapy options have become available for patients with metastatic breast cancer, which have led to improvements in survival. In addition to patient and clinical factors, the treatment selection primarily depends on the tumor biology (hormone-receptor status and HER2-status). The NCCN Guidelines specific to the workup and treatment of patients with recurrent/stage IV breast cancer are discussed in this article.

The effect of scalp cooling on CIA-related quality of life in breast cancer patients: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA) remains a distressing adverse event of cancer treatment but may be prevented by scalp cooling. The effectiveness of scalp cooling, however, is dependent on the chemotherapy regimen with successful hair preservation (i.e., < 50% hair loss) in 41-59% of women on taxane-based therapies in comparison to 16-36% on anthracycline-based therapies. Despite the potential utility, use of scalp cooling has shown a more equivocal impact on quality of life (QoL). In this review, we aim to evaluate the use of scalp cooling for CIA and quantitative QoL measures. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases for clinical studies on scalp cooling to prevent CIA published before October 29, 2018 was performed. Clinical studies with 5 or more patients that reported on a quantitative QoL measure were included and graded according to a modified five-point scale from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. RESULTS: Studies meeting inclusion criteria included 4 randomized clinical trials (RCT), 8 cohort studies, and 1 cross-sectional study with 1282 unique patients. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30: 46%) and Breast Cancer Module (QLQ-BR23: 46%) represented the most commonly used QoL assessments. Overall, 4 (31%) of the 13 studies concluded that scalp cooling was associated with significant improvements in QoL measures; 8 (62%) determined that there was either non-significant or no improvements; and 1 (7.7%) provided a mixed conclusion. Although 2 (50%) RCT demonstrated that scalp cooling can effectively prevent CIA depending on the chemotherapy regimen, these studies did not show that successful hair preservation was associated with improved QoL measures. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that scalp cooling is not consistently associated with significant QoL improvements as assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30 and -BR23. Representing a critical limitation, more than one-third of the studies did not subcategorize QoL outcomes for successfully or unsuccessfully scalp-cooled patients but rather reported on QoL measures for all scalp-cooled patients in general. Failure to prevent hair loss in patients undergoing an expensive and potentially uncomfortable treatment likely contributes to decreased well-being, impacting the overall distribution of QoL measures in scalp cooling patients compared to controls. Future studies should incorporate validated QoL instruments specific to hair disease and classify QoL outcomes for scalp-cooled patients based on the degree of hair preservation.

Incidence of peripheral edema in patients receiving PI3K/mTOR/CDK4/6 inhibitors for metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated development of edema in patients receiving PI3K/mTOR/CDK4/6 targeted therapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: We reviewed medical records of 160 patients receiving targeted therapy with PI3K/mTOR/CDK4/6 inhibitors to treat MBC (n = 160; 185 treatment occurrences). Clinicopathologic data, treatment details, and edema incidence were recorded. RESULTS: Edema incidence was 43.1% (69/160) overall and 25.6% (41/160) in the upper extremity ipsilateral to the treated breast. In 185 therapy regimens administered, 6.8% of patients on a PI3K inhibitor, 8.8% of patients on an mTOR inhibitor, and 9.2% of patients on a CDK4/6 inhibitor experienced new onset or worsened preexisting upper extremity edema. Further, 9.1% of patients on a PI3K inhibitor, 18.8% of patients on an mTOR inhibitor, and 10.5% of patients on a CDK4/6 inhibitor experienced new onset or worsened preexisting edema elsewhere in the body. Multivariate logistic regression showed that, beyond the established breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) risk factors [axillary lymph node dissection (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.69, p = 0.020), regional lymph node irradiation (OR 6.47, p < 0.001), and body-mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 (OR 3.46, p = 0.006)], a relative decrease in serum albumin after 3 months of treatment increased risk of developing edema (OR 2.07, p = 0.062). Neither duration nor type of therapy were significant risk factors for edema. CONCLUSION: PI3K/mTOR/CDK4/6 inhibitors may influence the development of edema, which may cause or exacerbate progression of BCRL in patients with MBC. The varied incidence of edema between therapeutic regimens warrants vigilant monitoring of patients treated with these therapies, especially those at high risk of developing BCRL.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Breast Cancer, Version 3.2018.

These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight the updated recommendations for use of multigene assays to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic chemotherapy therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early-stage invasive breast cancer. This report summarizes these updates and discusses the rationale behind them.

Photodynamic therapy for solid tumors: A review of the literature.

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) utilizes a sensitizer agent and light to produce selective cell death. Dermatologists are familiar with PDT for the treatment of actinic keratoses and early nonmelanoma skin cancers, and recent studies have elucidated that PDT has resulted in improved morbidity and secondary outcomes for the treatment of various cancerous and precancerous solid tumors. Light source and dosimetry may be modified to selectively target tissue, and novel techniques such as fractionation, metronomic pulsation, continuous light delivery, and chemophototherapy are under investigation for further optimization of therapy. This article aims to review the expanding indications for PDT and demonstrate the potential of this modality to decrease morbidity and increase quality of life for patients. To illustrate these new indications, we provide a focused review of the latest literature on PDT for dermatologic and other solid tumors including gastrointestinal, peritoneal, lung, genitourinary, brain, breast, and head and neck. Data on efficacy, survival, and side effects vary across tumor types but support PDT for the treatment of numerous solid tumors. With new advances in PDT, indications for this therapeutic modality may expand.