Daily Oral Ibandronate With Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Postmenopausal Women With Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer (BOOG 2006-04): Randomized Phase III TEAM-IIB Trial.

PURPOSE: For postmenopausal patients with breast cancer, previous subgroup analyses have shown a modest benefit from adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment. However, the efficacy of oral nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates such as ibandronate is unclear in this setting. TEAM-IIB investigates adjuvant ibandronate in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer. METHODS: TEAM-IIB is a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase III study. Postmenopausal women with stage I-III ER+ breast cancer and an indication for adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) were randomly assigned 1:1 to 5 years of ET with or without oral ibandronate 50 mg once daily for 3 years. Major ineligibility criteria were bilateral breast cancer, active gastroesophageal problems, and health conditions that might interfere with study treatment. Primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS), analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Between February 1, 2007, and May 27, 2014, 1,116 patients were enrolled, 565 to ET with ibandronate (ibandronate arm) and 551 to ET alone (control arm). Median follow-up was 8.5 years. DFS was not significantly different between the ibandronate and control arms (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.24; log-rank P = .811). Three years after random assignment, DFS was 94% in the ibandronate arm and 91% in the control arm. Five years after random assignment, this was 89% and 86%, respectively. In the ibandronate arm, 97/565 (17%) of patients stopped ibandronate early because of adverse events. Significantly more patients experienced GI issues, mainly dyspepsia, in the ibandronate arm than in the control arm (89 [16%] and 54 [10%], respectively; P < .003). Eleven patients in the ibandronate arm developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. CONCLUSION: In postmenopausal women with ER+ breast cancer, adjuvant ibandronate 50 mg once daily does not improve DFS and should not be recommended as part of standard treatment regimens.

Differential Survival and Therapy Benefit of Patients with Breast Cancer Are Characterized by Distinct Epithelial and Immune Cell Microenvironments.

PURPOSE: Extensive work in preclinical models has shown that microenvironmental cells influence many aspects of cancer cell behavior, including metastatic potential and their sensitivity to therapeutics. In the human setting, this behavior is mainly correlated with the presence of immune cells. Here, in addition to T cells, B cells, macrophages, and mast cells, we identified the relevance of nonimmune cell types for breast cancer survival and therapy benefit, including fibroblasts, myoepithelial cells, muscle cells, endothelial cells, and seven distinct epithelial cell types. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Using single-cell sequencing data, we generated reference profiles for all these cell types. We used these reference profiles in deconvolution algorithms to optimally detangle the cellular composition of more than 3,500 primary breast tumors of patients that were enrolled in the SCAN-B and MATADOR clinical trials, and for which bulk mRNA sequencing data were available. RESULTS: This large data set enables us to identify and subsequently validate the cellular composition of microenvironments that distinguish differential survival and treatment benefit for different treatment regimens in patients with primary breast cancer. In addition to immune cells, we have identified that survival and therapy benefit are characterized by various contributions of distinct epithelial cell types. CONCLUSIONS: From our study, we conclude that differential survival and therapy benefit of patients with breast cancer are characterized by distinct microenvironments that include specific populations of immune and epithelial cells.

Survival of patients with deficient mismatch repair metastatic colorectal cancer in the pre-immunotherapy era.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic colorectal cancer patients with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR mCRC) benefit from immunotherapy. Interpretation of the single-arm immunotherapy trials is complicated by insignificant survival data during systemic non-immunotherapy. We present survival data on a large, comprehensive cohort of dMMR mCRC patients, treated with or without systemic non-immunotherapy. METHODS: Two hundred and eighty-one dMMR mCRC patients (n = 54 from three prospective Phase 3 CAIRO trials; n = 227 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry). Overall survival was analysed from diagnosis of mCRC (OS), from initiation of first-line (OS1) and second-line (OS2) systemic treatment. Cox regression analysis examined prognostic factors. As comparison for OS 2746 MMR proficient mCRC patients were identified. RESULTS: Of 281 dMMR patients, 62% received first-line and 26% second-line treatment. Median OS was 16.0 months (13.8-19.6) with antitumour therapy and 2.5 months (1.8-3.5) in untreated patients. OS1 was 12.8 months (10.7-15.2) and OS2 6.2 months (5.4-8.9) in treated dMMR patients. Treated dMMR patients had a 7.6-month shorter median OS than pMMR patients. CONCLUSION: Available data from immunotherapy trials lack a control arm with standard systemic treatment. Given the poor outcome compared to the immunotherapy results, our data strongly suggest a survival benefit of immunotherapy in dMMR mCRC patients.

Tumor stage in patients operated for rectal cancer: a comparison of the pre-operative MR and the resection specimen, with specific attention to the effect of neo-adjuvant radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Evaluate the preoperative TN stage with MR and the postoperative stage with histology. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with rectal cancer (2002-2015) and a pre-operative MR were included. A chart review was done. Pathology reports were evaluated for the post-operative tumor stage. Down staging was defined as a lower disease stage in the resection specimen compared with the pre-operative MR. Upgrading ("progression") was defined as a higher disease stage in the resection specimen. The study was approved by ethical committee of the Zaans Medisch Centrum. RESULTS: From 176 out of 231 operated patients a pre-operative MR was available for evaluation. 142 patients (80.7%) underwent neo-adjuvant treatment; the remainder 19.3% underwent immediate surgery. Neo-adjuvant therapy resulted in significant down staging. However, almost 14% of patients had a higher TN stage as determined by the pre-operative MR. In patients who underwent immediate surgery the percentage with "progression" was 30%. The number of patients with stage 1 and 2 were higher in the group not treated with neo-adjuvant therapy. There was no significant difference in tumor stage as determined by histological examination of the resection specimen. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of the MR is not perfect. Underestimation as well as overestimation of the tumor occurred both in the patients treated with radiotherapy as well as those who underwent immediate operation. As such, MR results should be interpreted with caution when devising a treatment strategy.

Outcome of rectal cancer after radiotherapy with a long or short waiting period before surgery, a descriptive clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy and surgery have shown to improve local control and survival in rectal cancer. There are two applied schedules; radiotherapy with a long or short waiting period before surgery. The effect on survival and recurrence of both schedules was studied. METHODS: All consecutive patients with rectal cancer in the period 2002-2008 were included. Data were gathered on survival, tumour stage, co-morbidity score, and cause of death. The patients were divided in three groups: group 1 patients undergoing surgery without neo-adjuvant radiotherapy; group 2 patients undergoing radiotherapy followed by immediate surgery; and group 3 patients treated with (chemo) radiotherapy followed by a longer waiting period. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients with rectal cancer underwent surgery. Twenty two patients in group 1, 71 patients in group 2, and 20 in group 3. There was no difference in gender, time to recurrence, co-morbidity score, or causes of death. Fifty percent of patients died due to non-cancer related causes. Mean age in patients of group 3 was significantly lower than in groups 1 and 2 (P=0.02). There was a trend towards a lower tumour stage in the patients of group 3. Overall five year survival was 32% in group 1, 48% in group 2, and 35% in group 3. CONCLUSIONS: Neo-adjuvant radiotherapy seems to be of benefit in daily practice in patients with rectal cancer. A longer waiting period results in down-staging. Clinicians have to be aware that many patients will die due to other causes than those related to the rectal cancer.

Impact of age and comorbidity on survival in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with colorectal cancer are often excluded from clinical trials based on age or a poor performance score. However, 70% of colorectal cancer is diagnosed in patients over 65. Evaluation on the influence of age and comorbidity on survival and cause of death in a non-selected population. METHODS: Included were 621 consecutive patients with colorectal cancer. An extensive chart review was performed for 392 patients with colon cancer and 143 patients with rectal cancer. Analyses were performed separately for both groups. RESULTS: Median survival of colon cancer patients was 5.13 years, 131 patients (34.3%) died from tumour progression. Age and comorbidity were significant predictors for overall survival (P<0.001). Age was also a significant predictor of cause of death (P=0.001). In rectal cancer patients median survival was 4.67 years, 51 (35.7%) of patients died from tumour progression. Neither age nor comorbidity was significant predictors of survival. Age was a significant predictor of cause of death (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In colon cancer patient age and comorbidity predict survival. This represents possible bias or a reduced survival benefit of treatment, and is an indication that colon cancer is not the prognosis defining illness in the majority of patients. In rectal cancer patients neither age or comorbidity significantly impacted survival.

High Risk Stage 2 and Stage 3 Colon Cancer, Predictors of Recurrence and Effect of Adjuvant Therapy in a Nonselected Population.

Patients with stage 2 and stage 3 colon cancer often are treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. However, patients seen in daily practice have more comorbidity than those enrolled in clinical trials. This study aims to evaluate prognostic factors for recurrence and to ascertain the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy on recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients in a nonselected population. Furthermore, the impact of relative dose intensity (RDI) of adjuvant therapy on RFS is examined. Chart review was performed for 243 consecutive patients diagnosed and treated at a single center for stage 2 and stage 3 colon cancer from 2002 to 2008. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 66 patients. Median overall survival (OS) was 5.84 years and median RFS was 5.37 years. For stage 2 disease, patients treated with or without adjuvant therapy had a median RFS of 5.49 and 5.73, respectively (p = ns). For stage 3 disease, median RFS rates were 5.08 and 1.19, respectively (p = 0.084). Overall RDI of oxaliplatin based chemotherapy higher than median was associated with increased RFS (p = 0.045). In conclusion, adjuvant therapy did not significantly increase recurrence-free survival. This could be the result of comorbidity in patients. Relative dose intensity of oxaliplatin based therapy is associated with RFS.