Olaparib Addition to Maintenance Bevacizumab Therapy in Ovarian Carcinoma With BRCA-Like Genomic Aberrations.

Importance: Testing for homologous recombination deficiency is required for the optimal treatment of high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer. The search for accurate biomarkers is ongoing. Objective: To investigate whether progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer treated with maintenance olaparib or placebo differed between patients with a tumor BRCA-like genomic profile and patients without a tumor BRCA-like profile. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a secondary analysis of the PAOLA-1 randomized clinical trial that compared olaparib plus bevacizumab with placebo plus bevacizumab as maintenance treatment in patients with advanced high-grade ovarian cancer after a good response to first-line platinum with taxane chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, irrespective of germline or tumor BRCA1/2 mutation status. All patients with available tumor DNA were included in the analysis. The current analysis tested for an interaction between BRCA-like status and olaparib treatment on survival outcomes. The original trial was conducted between July 2015 and September 2017; at the time of data extraction for analysis in March 2022, a median follow-up of 54.1 months (IQR, 28.5-62.2 months) and a total follow-up time of 21 711 months was available, with 336 PFS and 245 OS events. Exposures: Tumor homologous recombination deficiency was assessed using the BRCA-like copy number aberration profile classifier. Myriad MyChoice CDx was previously measured. The trial was randomized between the olaparib and bevacizumab and placebo plus bevacizumab groups. Main Outcomes and Measures: This secondary analysis assessed hazard ratios (HRs) of olaparib vs placebo among biomarker strata and tested for interaction between BRCA-like status and olaparib treatment on PFS and OS, using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: A total of 469 patients (median age, 60 [range 26-80] years) were included in this study. The patient cohort consisted of women with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics stage III (76%) high-grade serous (95%) ovarian cancer who had no evaluable disease or complete remission at initial or interval debulking surgery (76%). Thirty-one percent of the tumor samples (n = 138) harbored a pathogenic BRCA mutation, and BRCA-like classification was performed for 442 patients. Patients with a BRCA-like tumor had a longer PFS after olaparib treatment than after placebo (36.4 vs 18.6 months; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.65; P < .001). No association of olaparib with PFS was found in patients with a non-BRCA-like tumor (17.6 vs 16.6 months; HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.68-1.51; P = .93). The interaction was significant (P = .004), and HRs and P values (for interaction) were similar in the relevant subgroups, OS, and multivariable analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of the PAOLA-1 randomized clinical trial, patients with a BRCA-like tumor, but not those with a non-BRCA-like tumor, had a significantly longer survival after olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment than placebo plus bevacizumab treatment. Thus, the BRCA1-like classifier could be used as a biomarker for olaparib plus bevacizumab as a maintenance treatment.

Single-agent metronomic versus weekly oral vinorelbine as first-line chemotherapy in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: The randomized Tempo Breast study.

INTRODUCTION: Single-agent oral vinorelbine is a standard of care for hormone receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) that has progressed on endocrine therapy. Metronomic administration may offer a better balance of efficacy and safety than standard regimens, but data from previous trials are scarce. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase II trial, patients were randomized to oral vinorelbine administered on a metronomic (50 mg three times weekly) or weekly (60 mg/m2 in cycle 1, increasing to 80 mg/m2 if well tolerated) schedule. Treatment was continued until disease progression or intolerance. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR, the proportion of patients with a best overall confirmed response of CR, PR, or stable disease lasting 6 months or more). RESULTS: One-hundred sixty-three patients were randomized and treated. The DCR was 63.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 52.0-73.8) with metronomic vinorelbine and 72.8% (95% CI: 61.8-82.1) with weekly vinorelbine. Weekly vinorelbine was also associated with longer progression-free survival (5.6 vs 4.0 months) and overall survival (26.7 vs 22.3 months) than metronomic vinorelbine, but was associated with more adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized phase II trial, single-agent metronomic oral vinorelbine was effective and well tolerated as first-line chemotherapy for patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative ABC. Formal comparisons are not done in this phase II study and one can simply observe that confidence intervals of all endpoints overlap. When deciding for a chemotherapy after failure of endocrine therapy and CDK 4/6 inhibitors, oral vinorelbine might be an option to be given with either schedule. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT 2014-003860-19.

How to break bad news and how to learn this skill: results from an international North-Eastern German Society for Gynecological Oncology (NOGGO) survey among physicians and medical students with 1089 participants

BACKGROUND: Delivering bad news to patients is one of the most challenging tasks in medical practice. Despite its great relevance to patients, relatives, and medical staff, there is a paucity of data pertaining to training, experience, expectations, and preferences of physicians and medical students on breaking bad news. METHODS: We conducted an international survey in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria using an online questionnaire among physicians and medical students. RESULTS: A total of 786 physicians and 303 medical students completed the survey. Physicians stated that 32.7% deliver bad news several times a week and 45.2% several times a month. Difficulties controlling their emotions (35.1%) and remaining professional (43.4%) were the greatest challenges for physicians. Delivering bad news is associated with feelings of anxiety, both among experienced physicians (median of 3.8 out of 10.0) and medical students (median of 5.3). Conveying bad news is a burden to physicians and consequently has a substantial impact on their job satisfaction. All participants reported the need for more communication training concerning this subject. Only 49.5% of medical students and 67.3% of physicians mentioned having learned adequate communication skills. Our data demonstrate that communication training decreases the level of anxiety and increases the feeling of self-confidence towards breaking bad news. Preferred educational tools were seminars with simulation (students: 71.4%, physicians: 49.5%), observing more senior faculty (students: 57.4%, physicians: 55.1%), and supervision and feedback sessions (students: 36.3%, physicians: 45.7%). The largest barriers regarding education on communication were limited time (students: 77.0%, physicians: 74.9%) and missing awareness of supervisors (students: 60.6%, physicians: 41.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed a great need for systematic training and education in breaking bad news among physicians and medical students. Hospitals, medical schools, and postgraduate training programs are strongly encouraged to fill this gap, and improve sustainable doctor-patient communication to overcome the psychological burden for physicians.

Updated Austrian treatment algorithm for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

Approximately 15% of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients have neither hormone receptors expression nor HER2 overexpression and/or HER2/neu gene amplification. This subtype of breast cancer is known as Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC), and carries a significantly elevated risk of local and distant recurrence. In comparison with other breast cancer subtypes, there is a higher rate of visceral and brain metastases. The majority of metastases of TNBC are diagnosed within three years after initial breast cancer diagnosis. While there have been major advances in hormone-receptor- positive and in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive disease over the past two decades, only limited improvements in outcomes for patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) have been observed. A group of Austrian breast cancer specialists therefore convened an expert meeting to establish a comprehensive clinical risk-benefit profile of available mTNBC therapies and discuss the role sacituzumab govitecan may play in the treatment algorithm of the triple-negative breast cancer patients.

Atezolizumab Combined With Bevacizumab and Platinum-Based Therapy for Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian Cancer: Placebo-Controlled Randomized Phase III ATALANTE/ENGOT-ov29 Trial.

PURPOSE: Platinum-based doublets with concurrent and maintenance bevacizumab are standard therapy for ovarian cancer (OC) relapsing after a platinum-free interval (PFI) >6 months. Immunotherapy may be synergistic with bevacizumab and chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ATALANTE/ENGOT-ov29 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02891824), a placebo-controlled double-blinded randomized phase III trial, enrolled patients with recurrent epithelial OC, one to two previous chemotherapy lines, and PFI >6 months. Eligible patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to atezolizumab (1,200 mg once every 3 weeks or equivalent) or placebo for up to 24 months, combined with bevacizumab and six cycles of chemotherapy doublet, stratified by PFI, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen. Coprimary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-positive populations (alpha .025 for each population). RESULTS: Between September 2016 and October 2019, 614 patients were randomly assigned: 410 to atezolizumab and 204 to placebo. Only 38% had PD-L1-positive tumors. After 3 years' median follow-up, the PFS difference between atezolizumab and placebo did not reach statistical significance in the ITT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99; P = .041; median 13.5 v 11.3 months, respectively) or PD-L1-positive (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.16; P = .30; median 15.2 v 13.1 months, respectively) populations. The immature overall survival (OS) HR was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.01; median 35.5 v 30.6 months with atezolizumab v placebo, respectively). Global health-related quality of life did not differ between treatment arms. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 88% of atezolizumab-treated and 87% of placebo-treated patients; grade ≥3 AEs typical of immunotherapy were more common with atezolizumab (13% v 8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: ATALANTE/ENGOT-ov29 did not meet its coprimary PFS objectives in the ITT or PD-L1-positive populations. OS follow-up continues. Further research on biopsy samples is warranted to decipher the immunologic landscape of late-relapsing OC.

Endometrial Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG, DKG and DKH (S3-Level, AWMF Registry Number 032/034-OL, September 2022). Part 1 with Recommendations on the Epidemiology, Screening, Diagnosis and Hereditary Factors of Endometrial Cancer, Geriatric Assessment and Supply Structures.

Summary The S3-guideline on endometrial cancer, first published in April 2018, was reviewed in its entirety between April 2020 and January 2022 and updated. The review was carried out at the request of German Cancer Aid as part of the Oncology Guidelines Program and the lead coordinators were the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG), the Gynecology Oncology Working Group (AGO) of the German Cancer Society (DKG) and the German Cancer Aid (DKH). The guideline update was based on a systematic search and assessment of the literature published between 2016 and 2020. All statements, recommendations and background texts were reviewed and either confirmed or amended. New statements and recommendations were included where necessary. Aim The use of evidence-based risk-adapted therapies to treat women with endometrial cancer of low risk prevents unnecessarily radical surgery and avoids non-beneficial adjuvant radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy. For women with endometrial cancer and a high risk of recurrence, the guideline defines the optimum level of radical surgery and indicates whether chemotherapy and/or adjuvant radiation therapy is necessary. This should improve the survival rates and quality of life of these patients. The S3-guideline on endometrial cancer and the quality indicators based on the guideline aim to provide the basis for the work of certified gynecological cancer centers. Methods The guideline was first compiled in 2018 in accordance with the requirements for S3-level guidelines and was updated in 2022. The update included an adaptation of the source guidelines identified using the German Instrument for Methodological Guideline Appraisal (DELBI). The update also used evidence reviews which were created based on selected literature obtained from systematic searches in selected literature databases using the PICO process. The Clinical Guidelines Service Group was tasked with carrying out a systematic search and assessment of the literature. Their results were used by interdisciplinary working groups as a basis for developing suggestions for recommendations and statements which were then modified during structured online consensus conferences and/or additionally amended online using the DELPHI process to achieve a consensus. Recommendations Part 1 of this short version of the guideline provides recommendations on epidemiology, screening, diagnosis, and hereditary factors. The epidemiology of endometrial cancer and the risk factors for developing endometrial cancer are presented. The options for screening and the methods used to diagnose endometrial cancer are outlined. Recommendations are given for the prevention, diagnosis, and therapy of hereditary forms of endometrial cancer. The use of geriatric assessment is considered and existing structures of care are presented.

Homologous Recombination Repair Gene Mutations to Predict Olaparib Plus Bevacizumab Efficacy in the First-Line Ovarian Cancer PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 Trial.

PURPOSE: The PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial of maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab for newly diagnosed advanced high-grade ovarian cancer demonstrated a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit over placebo plus bevacizumab, particularly in patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors. We explored whether mutations in non-BRCA1 or BRCA2 homologous recombination repair (non-BRCA HRRm) genes predicted benefit from olaparib plus bevacizumab in PAOLA-1. METHODS: Eight hundred and six patients were randomly assigned (2:1). Tumors were analyzed using the Myriad MyChoice HRD Plus assay to assess non-BRCA HRRm and HRD status; HRD was based on a genomic instability score (GIS) of ≥ 42. In this exploratory analysis, PFS was assessed in patients harboring deleterious mutations using six non-BRCA HRR gene panels, three devised for this analysis and three previously published. RESULTS: The non-BRCA HRRm prevalence ranged from 30 of 806 (3.7%) to 79 of 806 (9.8%) depending on the gene panel used, whereas 152 of 806 (18.9%) had non-BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation HRD-positive tumors. The majority of tumors harboring non-BRCA HRRm had a low median GIS; however, a GIS of > 42 was observed for tumors with mutations in five HRR genes (BLM, BRIP1, RAD51C, PALB2, and RAD51D). Rates of gene-specific biallelic loss were variable (0% to 100%) in non-BRCA HRRm tumors relative to BRCA1-mutated (99%) or BRCA2-mutated (86%) tumors. Across all gene panels tested, hazard ratios for PFS (95% CI) ranged from 0.92 (0.51 to 1.73) to 1.83 (0.76 to 5.43). CONCLUSION: Acknowledging limitations of small subgroup sizes, non-BRCA HRRm gene panels were not predictive of PFS benefit with maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in PAOLA-1, irrespective of the gene panel tested. Current gene panels exploring HRRm should not be considered a substitute for HRD determined by BRCA mutation status and genomic instability testing in first-line high-grade ovarian cancer.

Sarcoma of the Uterus. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S2k-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/074, April 2021).

Purpose This is an official guideline, published and coordinated by the Germany Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, DGGG). Because of their rarity and heterogeneous histopathology, uterine sarcomas are challenging in terms of their clinical management and therefore require a multidisciplinary approach. To our knowledge, there are currently no binding evidence-based recommendations for the appropriate management of this heterogeneous group of tumors. Methods This S2k guideline was first published in 2015. The update published here is once again the result of the consensus of a representative interdisciplinary committee of experts who were commissioned by the Guidelines Committee of the DGGG to carry out a systematic search of the literature on uterine sarcomas. Members of the participating professional societies achieved a formal consensus after a structured consensus process. Recommendations 1.1 Epidemiology, classification, staging of uterine sarcomas. 1.2 Symptoms, general diagnostic workup, general pathology or genetic predisposition to uterine sarcomas. 2. Management of leiomyosarcomas. 3. Management of low-grade endometrial stromal sarcomas. 4. Management of high-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma and undifferentiated uterine sarcomas. 5. Management of adenosarcomas. 6. Rhabdomyosarcomas of the uterus in children and adolescents. 7. Follow-up of uterine sarcomas. 8. Management of morcellated uterine sarcomas. 9. Information provided to patients.

Austrian treatment algorithms in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: a 2022 update.

In the past 12 months a plethora of relevant novel data for the treatment of metastatic HER2 positive breast cancer were published. To bring this new evidence into a clinical perspective, a group of Austrian breast cancer specialists updated their previously published treatment algorithm for those patients. For this consensus paper a total of eight scenarios were developed in which treatment strategies appropriate for specific patient profiles were evaluated. Consensus was established by detailed discussions of each scenario and by reaching full consensus.

Assessing the impact of antiemetic guideline compliance on prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: Results of the nausea/emesis registry in oncology (NERO).

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based antiemetic guidelines offer predominantly consistent recommendations for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis. However, studies suggest that adherence to these recommendations is suboptimal. We explored inconsistencies between clinical practice and guideline-recommended treatment with a registry evaluating the effect of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis (GCCP) on patient outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, non-interventional, multicentre study. The primary objective was to assess the overall (Days 1-5) complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue use) rates in patients who received GCCP or guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis (GICP) using diaries for 5 days following chemotherapy. Cycle 1 results are presented in patients who received either (1) anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC) highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), non-AC HEC or carboplatin, with GCCP for all these groups consisting of prophylaxis with an NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), 5-HT3RA and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy or (2) moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), with GCCP consisting of a 5-HT3RA and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy as per MASCC/ESMO 2016 guidelines, in place at the time of the study. RESULTS: 1,089 patients were part of the cycle 1 efficacy evaluation. Overall GCCP was 23%. CR rates were significantly higher (P < 0.05) in patients receiving GCCP (62.2%) versus GICP (52.6%) in the overall population, as well as in the subsets of patients receiving AC/non-AC HEC (60.2% versus 47.8%), MEC (73.8% versus 57.8%) and in those non-naïve to the chemotherapy received (65.9% versus 53.8%). No impact on daily living due to CINV (FLIE assessment) was observed in 43.4% patients receiving GCCP versus 28.5% GICP (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Consistent with prior studies, GCCP was very low; a significant benefit of almost 10% improved prevention of CINV was observed with GCCP. As per MASCC/ESMO guidelines, such an absolute difference should be practice changing. Comprehensive multifaceted strategies are needed to achieve better adherence to antiemetic guidelines.

Driver gene mutations in micro-invasive cervical squamous cancers have no prognostic significance.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of somatic gene mutations in different stages of cervical carcinogenesis placing special emphasis on micro-invasive pT1a cervical squamous cell cancers (SCC). METHODS: Micro-dissected samples of 32 micro-invasive pT1a and 55 ≥ pT1b SCC were evaluated by next generation sequencing of 50 cancer genes (cancer hot spot panel). RESULTS: At primary diagnosis, 8/32 (25%) pT1a SCC, 10/28 (36%) pT1b SCC and 15/27 (56%) pT2/3 SCC carried somatic gene mutations. The most commonly affected gene was the PIK3CA gene in hot spot regions E545K and E453K in 5/8 (62%) pT1a SCC, 7/15 (70%) pT1b SCC and 10/15 (66%) pT2/3 SCC followed by FBXW7 (n = 4), KRAS and RB1 (n = 2 each). ERBB2, APC, ATM, MLP gene mutations occurred only once. Solitary activating oncogenic somatic mutations dominated over tumor suppressor mutation in 88% pT1a, 80% pT1b and 60% pT2/3 SCC. Concomitant mutations involved typically an activating oncogenic mutation and an inactivating tumor-suppressor gene mutation. All patients with pT1a SCC are alive without evidence of disease after surgical treatment, independent of mutational status or lympho-vascular space invasion. CONCLUSIONS: Activating oncogenic gene mutations, in particular in the PIK3CA gene, occur early in cervical carcinogenesis. Although driver gene mutations bestow tumor cells with a growth advantage, early detection and complete removal of all cancer cells - with or without somatic gene mutations - are essential for cure. In contrast to advanced inoperable SCC, where PIK3CA driver gene mutations carry an adverse prognosis, the mutational status in surgically treated micro-invasive SCC is prognostically irrelevant.

Updated Austrian treatment algorithm in HER2+ metastatic breast cancer.

A group of Austrian breast cancer specialists met in December 2020 to establish a comprehensive clinical benefit-risk profile of available HER2-targeted therapies based on recent data and to develop an updated treatment algorithm by consensus over several months in 2021. A total of four scenarios were developed in which treatment strategies appropriate for specific patient profiles were evaluated. Consensus was established by detailed discussions of each scenario and by reaching full consensus.

Persistence of ctDNA in Patients with Breast Cancer During Neoadjuvant Treatment Is a Significant Predictor of Poor Tumor Response.

PURPOSE: Accurate response assessment during neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST) poses a clinical challenge. Therefore, a minimally invasive assessment of tumor response based on cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) may be beneficial to guide treatment decisions. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We profiled 93 genes in tissue from 193 patients with early breast cancer. Patient-specific assays were designed for 145 patients to track ctDNA during NST in plasma. ctDNA presence and levels were correlated with complete pathological response (pCR) and residual cancer burden (RCB) as well as clinicopathologic characteristics of the tumor to identify potential proxies for ctDNA release. RESULTS: At baseline, ctDNA could be detected in 63/145 (43.4%) patients and persisted in 25/63 (39.7%) patients at mid-therapy (MT) and 15/63 (23.8%) patients at the end of treatment. ctDNA detection at MT was significantly associated with higher RCB (OR = 0.062; 95% CI, 0.01-0.48; P = 0.0077). Of 31 patients with detectable ctDNA at MT, 30 patients (96.8%) were nonresponders (RCB II, n = 8; RCB III, n = 22) and only one patient responded to the treatment (RCB I). Considering all 145 patients with baseline (BL) plasma, none of the patients with RCB 0 and only 6.7% of patients with RCB I had ctDNA detectable at MT, whereas 30.6% and 29.6% of patients with RCB II/III, respectively, had a positive ctDNA result. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results demonstrate that the detection and persistence of ctDNA at MT may have the potential to negatively predict response to neoadjuvant treatment and identify patients who will not achieve pCR or be classified with RCB II/III.

Capecitabine in combination with bendamustine in pretreated women with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: results of a phase II trial (AGMT MBC-6).

BACKGROUND: Bendamustine, a medication approved for the treatment of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, has already shown anticancer activity in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Here, we present the results of a phase II trial of bendamustine in combination with capecitabine in pre-treated patients with MBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: AGMT MBC-6 is a multicentre, open-label, single-arm phase II study in HER2-negative MBC. All patients were pre-treated with anthracyclines and/or taxans and had measurable disease. Patients received per os 1000 mg/m2 capecitabine twice daily on days 1 to 14 in combination with 80 mg/m2 bendamustine intravenously on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle for a maximum of eight cycles, followed by a capecitabine maintenance therapy. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: From September 2013 to May 2015, 40 patients were recruited in eight Austrian centres. The median age was 60 years (range 29-77). Twenty-five per cent of patients had triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and 93% showed visceral involvement. With 17 partial and one complete remission, ORR was 46%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.1-10.7]. The most common non-haematological adverse events (AEs) of grade 3 were hand-foot syndrome (13%), fatigue (10%), nausea (8%), and dyspnoea (8%). One grade 4 non-haematological AE (hepatic failure) and three grade 4 haematological AEs (neutropenia) were observed. One patient died of restrictive cardiomyopathy, in which a relationship to capecitabine cannot be excluded, but seems unlikely. CONCLUSION: The combination of capecitabine and bendamustine shows promising efficacy and moderate toxicity. Further evaluation of this drug combination is warranted.The clinical trial AGMT MBC-6 was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, (https://clinicaltrials.gov/; identifier: NCT01891227).

Conventional versus reverse sequence of neoadjuvant epirubicin/cyclophosphamide and docetaxel: sequencing results from ABCSG-34.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative chemotherapy containing anthracyclines and taxanes is well established in early-stage breast cancer. Previous studies have suggested that the chemotherapy sequence may matter but definitive evidence is missing. ABCSG trial 34 evaluated the activity of the MUC1 vaccine tecemotide when added to neoadjuvant treatment; the study provided the opportunity for the second randomisation to compare two different anthracycline/taxane sequences. METHODS: HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer patients were recruited to this randomised multicentre Phase 2 study. Patients in the chemotherapy cohort (n = 311) were additionally randomised to a conventional or reversed sequence of epirubicin/cyclophosphamide and docetaxel. Residual cancer burden (RCB) with/without tecemotide was defined as primary study endpoint; RCB in the two chemotherapy groups was a key secondary endpoint. RESULTS: No significant differences in terms of RCB 0/I (40.1% vs. 37.2%; P = 0.61) or pathologic complete response (pCR) rates (24.3% vs. 25%, P = 0.89) were observed between conventional or reverse chemotherapy sequence. No new safety signals were reported, and upfront docetaxel did not result in decreased rates of treatment delay or discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Upfront docetaxel did not improve chemotherapy activity or tolerability; these results suggest that upfront neoadjuvant treatment with anthracyclines remains a valid option.

Decrease in gynecological cancer diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic: an Austrian perspective.

BACKGROUND: On March 16, 2020, the federal government of Austria declared a nationwide lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the lockdown, screening examinations and routine checkups have been restricted to prevent the spread of the virus and to increase the hospitals' bed capacity across the country. This resulted in a severe decline of patient referrals to the hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the rate of newly diagnosed gynecological and breast cancers in Austria. METHODS: Data of 2077 patients from 18 centers in Austria with newly diagnosed gynecological or breast cancer between January and May 2019 and January and May 2020 were collected. Clinical parameters, including symptoms, performance status, co-morbidities, and referral status, were compared between the time before and after the COVID-19 outbreak. RESULTS: Our results showed a slight increase of newly diagnosed cancers in January and February 2020 as compared with 2019 (+2 and +35%, respectively) and a strong decline in newly diagnosed tumors since the lockdown: -24% in March 2020 versus March 2019, -49% in April 2020 versus April 2019, -49% in May 2020 versus May 2019. Two-thirds of patients diagnosed during the pandemic presented with tumor-specific symptoms compared with less than 50% before the pandemic (p<0.001). Moreover, almost 50% of patients in 2020 had no co-morbidities compared with 35% in 2019 (p<0.001). Patients, who already had a malignant disease, were rarely diagnosed with a new cancer in 2020 as compared with 2019 (11% vs 6%; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The lockdown led to a decreased number of newly diagnosed gynecological and breast cancers. The decreased accessibility of the medical services and postponed diagnosis of potentially curable cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic may be a step backwards in our healthcare system and might impair cancer treatment outcomes. Therefore, new strategies to manage early cancer detection are needed to optimize cancer care in a time of pandemic in the future.

Atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab and chemotherapy versus bevacizumab and chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer - a randomized phase III trial (AGO-OVAR 2.29/ENGOT-ov34).

BACKGROUND: Improvement in clinical outcomes of patients with platinum-resistant disease is an unmet medical need and trials in this population are urgently needed. Checkpoint-inhibitors have already shown activity in multiple other tumor entities and ovarian cancer, especially in the combination with anti-angiogenic treatment. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To test if the activity of non-platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab could be improved by the addition of atezolizumab. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: The addition of atezolizumab to standard non-platinum combination of chemotherapy and bevacizumab improves median overall survival from 15 to 20 months. TRIAL DESIGN: Patients are randomized to chemotherapy (paclitaxel weekly or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin) + bevacizumab + placebo vs chemotherapy + bevacizumab + atezolizumab. Stratification factors are: number of prior lines, planned type of chemotherapy, prior use of bevacizumab, and tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer with up to three prior therapies and a treatment-free interval after platinum of less than 6 months. Patients with three prior lines of chemotherapy are eligible irrespective of the platinum free-interval. A de novo tumor tissue sample biopsy for determination of PD-L1 status prior to randomization for stratification is mandatory. Major exclusion criteria consider bevacizumab-specific and immunotherapy-specific criteria. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: Overall survival and progression-free survival are co-primary endpoints. SAMPLE SIZE: It is planned to randomize 664 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03353831.

The EndoPredict score predicts response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and neoendocrine therapy in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer patients from the ABCSG-34 trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NaCT) and neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) can reduce pre-operative tumour burden in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early-stage breast cancer. This prospective translational study assessed the ability of a 12-gene molecular score (MS; EndoPredict®) to predict response to NaCT or NET within the ABCSG-34 trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative samples from patients in the ABCSG-34 randomized phase II trial were selected and EndoPredict testing was performed to generate a 12-gene MS. ABCSG-34 patients were assigned to receive either NaCT or NET based on menopausal status, HR expression, grade and Ki67. Response was measured by residual cancer burden (RCB). RESULTS: Patients selected for NaCT generally had high-risk disease by 12-gene MS (125/134), while slightly more patients treated with NET had low-risk disease (44/83). Low-risk NaCT-treated and high-risk NET-treated tumours responded poorly (NPV 100% [95% CI 66.4%-100%] and NPV 92.3% [95% CI 79.1%-98.4%], respectively]. The 12-gene MS significantly predicted treatment response for NaCT (AUC 0.736 [95% CI 0.63-0.84]) and NET (AUC 0.726 [95% CI 0.60-0.85]). CONCLUSIONS: The 12-gene MS predicted RCB after treatment with neoadjuvant therapies for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer. Tumours with low MS were unlikely to benefit from NaCT, whereas a high MS predicted resistance to NET. This additional biologic information can aid personalized treatment selection in daily practice and builds a strong rationale to use EndoPredict in biomarker-driven studies in the neoadjuvant setting.

Publisher Correction: Inference of transcription factor binding from cell-free DNA enables tumor subtype prediction and early detection.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Efficacy and safety of the therapeutic cancer vaccine tecemotide (L-BLP25) in early breast cancer: Results from a prospective, randomised, neoadjuvant phase II study (ABCSG 34).

BACKGROUND: Immune-based strategies represent a promising approach in breast cancer (BC) treatment. The glycoprotein mucin-1 (MUC-1) is overexpressed in more than 90% of BC patients, and is targeted by the cancer vaccine tecemotide. We have investigated the efficacy and safety of tecemotide when added to neoadjuvant standard-of-care (SoC) treatment in early BC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 400 patients with HER2-early BC were recruited into this prospective, multicentre, randomised 2-arm academic phase II trial. Patients received preoperative SoC treatment (chemotherapy or endocrine therapy) with or without tecemotide. Postmenopausal women with oestrogen receptor (ER)+++, or ER++ and Ki67 < 14%, and G1,2 tumours ('luminal A' tumours) received 6 months of letrozole. Postmenopausal patients with triple-negative, ER-/+/++ and Ki67 ≥ 14%, and with G3 tumours, as well as premenopausal patients, received four cycles of epirubicin/cyclophosphamide plus four cycles of docetaxel. Primary end-point was residual cancer burden (RCB; 0/I versus II/III) at surgery. Secondary end-points included pathological complete response (pCR), safety, and quality of life. FINDINGS: We observed no significant difference in RCB 0/I rates between patients with (36.4%) and without (31.9%) tecemotide in the overall study population (p = 0.40) nor in endocrine and chemotherapy-treated subgroups (25.0% versus 13.3%, p = 0.17; 39.6% versus 37.8%, p = 0.75, respectively). The addition of tecemotide did not affect overall pCR rates (22.5% versus 17.4%, p = 0.23), MUC-1 expression, or tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes content. Tecemotide did not increase toxicity when compared to SoC therapy alone. INTERPRETATION: Neoadjuvant tecemotide is safe, but does not improve RCB or pCR rates in patients receiving standard neoadjuvant therapy.