Artificial intelligence for predictive biomarker discovery in immuno-oncology: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The widespread use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionised treatment of multiple cancer types. However, selecting patients who may benefit from ICI remains challenging. Artificial intelligence (AI) approaches allow exploitation of high-dimension oncological data in research and development of precision immuno-oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed original articles studying the ICI efficacy prediction in cancer patients across five data modalities: genomics (including genomics, transcriptomics, and epigenomics), radiomics, digital pathology (pathomics), and real-world and multimodality data. RESULTS: A total of 90 studies were included in this systematic review, with 80% published in 2021-2022. Among them, 37 studies included genomic, 20 radiomic, 8 pathomic, 20 real-world, and 5 multimodal data. Standard machine learning (ML) methods were used in 72% of studies, deep learning (DL) methods in 22%, and both in 6%. The most frequently studied cancer type was non-small-cell lung cancer (36%), followed by melanoma (16%), while 25% included pan-cancer studies. No prospective study design incorporated AI-based methodologies from the outset; rather, all implemented AI as a post hoc analysis. Novel biomarkers for ICI in radiomics and pathomics were identified using AI approaches, and molecular biomarkers have expanded past genomics into transcriptomics and epigenomics. Finally, complex algorithms and new types of AI-based markers, such as meta-biomarkers, are emerging by integrating multimodal/multi-omics data. CONCLUSION: AI-based methods have expanded the horizon for biomarker discovery, demonstrating the power of integrating multimodal data from existing datasets to discover new meta-biomarkers. While most of the included studies showed promise for AI-based prediction of benefit from immunotherapy, none provided high-level evidence for immediate practice change. A priori planned prospective trial designs are needed to cover all lifecycle steps of these software biomarkers, from development and validation to integration into clinical practice.

Efficacy of front-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer with germline BRCA1/2 mutation.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy of endocrine therapy in HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer could differ depending on the presence of BRCA1/2 germline mutation. METHODS: The ESME metastatic breast cancer platform (NCT03275311) is a French real world database. Multivariable models including a time-varying approach and landmark analyses assessed the association between time-dependent gBRCA status (categorised as gBRCAm, gBRCAwt (wild type), and untested), overall survival (OS), and first-line progression-free survival (PFS1). RESULTS: A total of 170 patients were gBRCAm carriers, 676 gBRCAwt, and 12,930 were untested at baseline. In the multivariable analysis, gBRCAm carriers overall had a lower OS compared to gBRCAwt (adjusted HR [95% CI] 1.26 [1.03-1.55]). gBRCAm patients treated with front-line endocrine therapy had lower adjusted OS (adjusted HR [95% CI] = 1.54 [1.03-2.32]) and PFS1 (adjusted HR [95% CI] 1.58 [1.17-2.12]) compared to gBRCAwt patients. However, for patients who received frontline chemotherapy, neither OS nor PFS1 differed between gBRCAm carriers and the other groups (HR versus gBRCAwt for OS: 1.12 [0.88-1.41], p = 0.350; PFS1: 1.09 [0.90-1.31], p = 0.379). CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of HR+/HER2- MBC patients treated in a pre-CDK4/6 inhibitors era, gBRCAm status was associated with a lower OS and lower PFS following first-line endocrine therapy, but not following first-line chemotherapy.

Risk-adapted modulation through de-intensification of cancer treatments: an ESMO classification.

BACKGROUND: The landscape of clinical trials testing risk-adapted modulations of cancer treatments is complex. Multiple trial designs, endpoints, and thresholds for non-inferiority have been used; however, no consensus or convention has ever been agreed to categorise biomarkers useful to inform the treatment intensity modulation of cancer treatments. METHODS: An expert subgroup under the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Precision Medicine Working Group shaped an international collaborative project to develop a classification system for biomarkers used in the cancer treatment de-intensification, based on a tiered approach. A group of disease-oriented clinical, translational, methodology and public health experts, and patients' representatives provided an analysis of the status quo, and scanned the horizon of ongoing clinical trials. The classification was developed through multiple rounds of expert revisions and inputs. RESULTS: The working group agreed on a univocal definition of treatment de-intensification. Evidence of reduction in the dose-density, intensity, or cumulative dose, including intermittent schedules or shorter treatment duration or deletion of segment(s) of the standard regimens, compound(s), or treatment modality must be demonstrated, to define a treatment de-intensification. De-intensified regimens must also portend a positive impact on toxicity, quality of life, health system burden, or financial toxicity. ESMO classification categorises the biomarkers for treatment modulation in three tiers, based on the level of evidence. Tier A includes biomarkers validated in prospective, randomised, non-inferiority clinical trials. The working group agreed that in non-inferiority clinical trials, boundaries are highly dependent upon the disease scenario and endpoint being studied and that the absolute differences in the outcomes are the most relevant measures, rather than relative differences. Biomarkers tested in single-arm studies with a threshold of non-inferiority are classified as Tier B. Tier C is when the validation occurs in prospective-retrospective quality cohort investigations. CONCLUSIONS: ESMO classification for the risk-guided intensity modulation of cancer treatments provides a set of evidence-based criteria to categorise biomarkers deemed to inform de-intensification of cancer treatments, in risk-defined patients. The classification aims at harmonising definitions on this matter, therefore offering a common language for all the relevant stakeholders, including clinicians, patients, decision-makers, and for clinical trials.

Overall survival in the OlympiA phase III trial of adjuvant olaparib in patients with germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 and high-risk, early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, double-blind OlympiA trial compared 1 year of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, olaparib, to matching placebo as adjuvant therapy for patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (gBRCA1/2pv) and high-risk, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, early breast cancer (EBC). The first pre-specified interim analysis (IA) previously demonstrated statistically significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS). The olaparib group had fewer deaths than the placebo group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance for overall survival (OS). We now report the pre-specified second IA of OS with updates of IDFS, DDFS, and safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One thousand eight hundred and thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo following (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy if indicated. Endocrine therapy was given concurrently with study medication for hormone receptor-positive cancers. Statistical significance for OS at this IA required P < 0.015. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the second IA of OS demonstrated significant improvement in the olaparib group relative to the placebo group [hazard ratio 0.68; 98.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.97; P = 0.009]. Four-year OS was 89.8% in the olaparib group and 86.4% in the placebo group (Δ 3.4%, 95% CI -0.1% to 6.8%). Four-year IDFS for the olaparib group versus placebo group was 82.7% versus 75.4% (Δ 7.3%, 95% CI 3.0% to 11.5%) and 4-year DDFS was 86.5% versus 79.1% (Δ 7.4%, 95% CI 3.6% to 11.3%), respectively. Subset analyses for OS, IDFS, and DDFS demonstrated benefit across major subgroups. No new safety signals were identified including no new cases of acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome. CONCLUSION: With 3.5 years of median follow-up, OlympiA demonstrates statistically significant improvement in OS with adjuvant olaparib compared with placebo for gBRCA1/2pv-associated EBC and maintained improvements in the previously reported, statistically significant endpoints of IDFS and DDFS with no new safety signals.

Breast Cancer Patients' Experience and Wishes Regarding Communication on Sexual Health: The BEROSE Study.

BEROSE is a single-center observational study, which aimed to determine the proportion of women with breast cancer who received information on sexual health from health professionals throughout their whole care pathway. A total of 318 women with all stages of breast cancer (30% metastatic) and at different time interval from diagnosis (up to 7 years) participated to the survey. Sixty-five percent of women reported that they had not received any information about sexual health over the whole care. Increased awareness among the healthcare professionals and particularly the oncology community is needed to discuss sexual health in women with breast cancer.

Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and brain metastases: exploratory final analysis of cohort 1 from KAMILLA, a single-arm phase IIIb clinical trial☆.

BACKGROUND: Patients with brain metastases (BM) from human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer represent a difficult-to-treat population. Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) has shown potential activity in this subset of patients in small clinical series. PATIENTS AND METHODS: KAMILLA is an ongoing, phase IIIb study of T-DM1 in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer with prior HER2-targeted therapy and chemotherapy. Patients received T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks (intravenously) until unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or disease progression. Tumor response and clinical outcomes in patients with baseline BM were evaluated in this post hoc, exploratory analysis. The main outcome measures were best overall response rate (complete response + partial response) and clinical benefit rate (complete response + partial response + stable disease lasting ≥6 months) by RECIST v1.1 criteria, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: Of 2002 treated patients, 398 had baseline BM. In 126 patients with measurable BM, the best overall response rate and clinical benefit rate were 21.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 14.6-29.6] and 42.9% (95% CI 34.1-52.0), respectively. A reduction in the sum of the major diameters of BM ≥30% occurred in 42.9% (95% CI 34.1-52.0), including 49.3% (95% CI 36.9-61.8) of 67 patients without prior radiotherapy to BM. In the 398 patients with baseline BM, median progression-free survival and overall survival were 5.5 (95% CI 5.3-5.6) months and 18.9 (95% CI 17.1-21.3) months, respectively. The adverse event profile was broadly similar in patients with and without baseline BM, although nervous system adverse events were more common in patients with [208 (52.3%)] versus without [701 (43.7%)] baseline BM. CONCLUSION: This exploratory analysis of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and BM enrolled in a prospective clinical trial shows that T-DM1 is active and well-tolerated in this population. T-DM1 should be explored further in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01702571.

OlympiAD final overall survival and tolerability results: Olaparib versus chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the OlympiAD study, olaparib was shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with a germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation (BRCAm) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We now report the planned final overall survival (OS) results, and describe the most common adverse events (AEs) to better understand olaparib tolerability in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: OlympiAD, a Phase III, randomized, controlled, open-label study (NCT02000622), enrolled patients with a germline BRCAm and HER2-negative mBC who had received ≤2 lines of chemotherapy for mBC. Patients were randomized to olaparib tablets (300 mg bid) or predeclared TPC (capecitabine, vinorelbine, or eribulin). OS and safety were secondary end points. RESULTS: A total of 205 patients were randomized to olaparib and 97 to TPC. At 64% data maturity, median OS was 19.3 months with olaparib versus 17.1 months with TPC (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66-1.23; P = 0.513); median follow-up was 25.3 and 26.3 months, respectively. HR for OS with olaparib versus TPC in prespecified subgroups were: prior chemotherapy for mBC [no (first-line setting): 0.51, 95% CI 0.29-0.90; yes (second/third-line): 1.13, 0.79-1.64]; receptor status (triple negative: 0.93, 0.62-1.43; hormone receptor positive: 0.86, 0.55-1.36); prior platinum (yes: 0.83, 0.49-1.45; no: 0.91, 0.64-1.33). Adverse events during olaparib treatment were generally low grade and manageable by supportive treatment or dose modification. There was a low rate of treatment discontinuation (4.9%), and the risk of developing anemia did not increase with extended olaparib exposure. CONCLUSIONS: While there was no statistically significant improvement in OS with olaparib compared to TPC, there was the possibility of meaningful OS benefit among patients who had not received chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Olaparib was generally well-tolerated, with no evidence of cumulative toxicity during extended exposure. Please see the article online for additional video content.

Differential impact of endocrine therapy and chemotherapy on quality of life of breast cancer survivors: a prospective patient-reported outcomes analysis.

BACKGROUND: In early breast cancer (BC), there has been a trend to escalate endocrine therapy (ET) and to de-escalate chemotherapy (CT). However, the impact of ET versus CT on the quality of life (QoL) of early BC patients is unknown. Here, we characterize the independent contribution of ET and CT on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 2 years after diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively collected PROs in 4262 eligible patients using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30/BR23 questionnaires inside CANTO trial (NCT01993498). The primary outcome was the C30 summary score (C30-SumSc) at 2 years after diagnosis. RESULTS: From eligible patients, 37.2% were premenopausal and 62.8% postmenopausal; 81.9% received ET and 52.8% CT. In the overall cohort, QoL worsened by 2 years after diagnosis in multiple functions and symptoms; exceptions included emotional function and future perspective, which improved over time. ET (Pint = 0.004), but not CT (Pint = 0.924), had a persistent negative impact on the C30-SumSc. In addition, ET negatively impacted role and social function, pain, insomnia, systemic therapy side-effects, breast symptoms and further limited emotional function and future perspective recovery. Although CT had no impact on the C30-SumSc at 2-years it was associated with deteriorated physical and cognitive function, dyspnea, financial difficulties, body image and breast symptoms. We found a differential effect of treatment by menopausal status; in premenopausal patients, CT, despite only a non-significant trend for deteriorated C30-SumSc (Pint = 0.100), was more frequently associated with QoL domains deterioration than ET, whereas in postmenopausal patients, ET was more frequently associated with QoL deterioration, namely using the C30-SumSc (Pint = 0.004). CONCLUSION(S): QoL deterioration persisted at 2 years after diagnosis with different trajectories by treatment received. ET, but not CT, had a major detrimental impact on C30-SumSc, especially in postmenopausal women. These findings highlight the need to properly select patients for adjuvant ET escalation.

Effects of neratinib on health-related quality of life in women with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer: longitudinal analyses from the randomized phase III ExteNET trial.

BACKGROUND: We report longitudinal health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data from the international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III ExteNET study, which demonstrated an invasive disease-free survival benefit of extended adjuvant therapy with neratinib over placebo in human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-positive early-stage breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women (N = 2840) with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer who had completed trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy were randomly assigned to neratinib 240 mg/day or placebo for 12 months. HRQoL was an exploratory end point. Patients completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) and EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires at baseline and months 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Changes from baseline were compared using analysis of covariance with no imputation for missing values. Sensitivity analyses used alternative methods. Changes in HRQoL scores were regarded as clinically meaningful if they exceeded previously reported important differences (IDs). RESULTS: Of the 2840 patients (intention-to-treat population), 2407 patients were evaluable for FACT-B (neratinib, N = 1171; placebo, N = 1236) and 2427 patients for EQ-5D (neratinib, N = 1186; placebo, N = 1241). Questionnaire completion rates exceeded 85%. Neratinib was associated with a decrease in global HRQoL scores at month 1 compared with placebo (adjusted mean differences: FACT-B total, -2.9 points; EQ-5D index, -0.02), after which between-group differences diminished at later time-points. Except for the FACT-B physical well-being (PWB) subscale at month 1; all between-group differences were less than reported IDs. The FACT-B breast cancer-specific subscale showed small improvements with neratinib at months 3-9, but all were less than IDs. Sensitivity analyses exploring missing data did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: Extended adjuvant neratinib was associated with a transient, reversible decrease in HRQoL during the first month of treatment, possibly linked to treatment-related diarrhea. With the exception of the PWB subscale at month 1, all neratinib-related HRQoL changes did not reach clinically meaningful thresholds. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00878709.

T-cell bispecific antibodies in node-positive breast cancer: novel therapeutic avenue for MHC class I loss variants.

BACKGROUND: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) represent a prognostic factor for survival in primary breast cancer (BC). Nonetheless, neoepitope load and TILs cytolytic activity are modest in BC, compromising the efficacy of immune-activating antibodies, which do not yet compete against immunogenic chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed by functional flow cytometry the immune dynamics of primary and metastatic axillary nodes [metastatic lymph nodes (mLN)] in early BC (EBC) after exposure to T-cell bispecific antibodies (TCB) bridging CD3ε and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) or Carcinoembryonic Antigen-Related Cell Adhesion Molecule 5 (CEACAM5), before and after chemotherapy. Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class I loss was assessed by whole exome sequencing and immunohistochemistry. One hundred primary BC, 64 surrounding 'healthy tissue' and 24 mLN-related parameters were analyzed. RESULTS: HLA loss of heterozygosity was observed in EBC, at a clonal and subclonal level and was associated with regulatory T cells and T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin-domain-3 expression restraining the immuno-stimulatory effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. TCB bridging CD3ε and HER2 or CEACAM5 could bypass major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I loss, partially rescuing T-cell functions in mLN. CONCLUSION: TCB should be developed in BC to circumvent low MHC/peptide complexes.

Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and standard anthracycline- and taxane-based chemotherapy for the neoadjuvant treatment of patients with HER2-positive localized breast cancer (BERENICE): a phase II, open-label, multicenter, multinational cardiac safety study.

Background: Anti-HER2 therapies are associated with a risk of increased cardiac toxicity, particularly when part of anthracycline-containing regimens. We report cardiac safety of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer. Patients and methods: BERENICE (NCT02132949) is a nonrandomized, phase II, open-label, multicenter, multinational study in patients with normal cardiac function. In the neoadjuvant period, cohort A patients received four cycles of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide, then 12 doses of standard paclitaxel plus four standard trastuzumab and pertuzumab cycles. Cohort B patients received four standard fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide cycles, then four docetaxel cycles with four standard trastuzumab and pertuzumab cycles. The primary end point was cardiac safety during neoadjuvant treatment, assessed by the incidence of New York Heart Association class III/IV heart failure and of left ventricular ejection fraction declines (≥10 percentage-points from baseline and to a value of <50%). The main efficacy end point was pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0/is ypN0). Results are descriptive. Results: Safety populations were 199 and 198 patients in cohorts A and B, respectively. Three patients [1.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31% to 4.34%] in cohort A experienced four New York Heart Association class III/IV heart failure events. Thirteen patients (6.5%; 95% CI 3.5% to 10.9%) in cohort A and four (2.0%; 95% CI 0.6% to 5.1%) in cohort B experienced at least one left ventricular ejection fraction decline. No new safety signals were identified. pCR rates were 61.8% and 60.7% in cohorts A and B, respectively. The highest pCR rates were in the HER2-enriched PAM50 subtype (75.0% and 73.7%, respectively). Conclusion: Treatment with pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and common anthracycline-containing regimens for the neoadjuvant treatment of early breast cancer resulted in cardiac and general safety profiles, and pCR rates, consistent with prior studies with pertuzumab. Clinical Trial Information: NCT02132949.

Modulation of Rb phosphorylation and antiproliferative response to palbociclib: the preoperative-palbociclib (POP) randomized clinical trial.

Background: The cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4)/6 inhibitor Palbociclib is a new standard treatment in hormone-receptor positive breast cancer patients. No predictive biomarkers have been identified and no pharmacodynamics has properly been described so far. Patients and methods: Patients with early-breast cancer were randomized 3 : 1 to oral palbociclib 125 mg daily for 14 days until the day before the surgery versus no treatment. Primary objective was antiproliferative response defined as a natural logarithm of Ki67 expression at day 15 below 1. Secondary end points were subgroups analyses and safety. Exploratory analyses included search for predictive biomarkers. Immunostainings (Ki67, RB, pRB, p16, pAKT, pER, pCDK2, CyclinD1), FISH (CCND1) and gene expression (GE) arrays were carried out at baseline and at surgery. In addition, activating PIK3CA and AKT1 mutations were assessed at baseline. Results: 74 patients were allocated to palbociclib and 26 to control. Most patients (93%) were hormone-receptor (HR)-positive, whereas 8% were HER2-positive. Palbociclib led to significantly more antiproliferative responses when compared with control (58% versus 12%, P < 0.001), and to a significantly higher Ki67 decrease (P < 0.001). In the HR-positive/HER2-negative subgroup, this antiproliferative effect was even more marked in the palbociclib arm when compared with control (70% versus 9%, P < 0.001). Palbociclib treatment led also to a significantly higher decrease from baseline in phospho-Rb when compared with control (P < 0.001). Among treated patients, changes in Ki67 correlated with changes in phospho-Rb (Spearman rank r = 0.41, P < 0.0001). GE analyses confirmed a major effect on proliferation and cell cycle genes. Among treated patients, CCNE2 expression was significantly more decreased in antiproliferative responders versus nonresponders (P = 0.006). Conclusion: Short-term preoperative palbociclib decreases Ki67 in early-breast cancer patients. Early decrease of Rb phosphorylation correlates with drug's effect on cell proliferation and could potentially identify patients with primary resistance. Clinical trial registration: NCT02008734.

Letrozole and palbociclib versus chemotherapy as neoadjuvant therapy of high-risk luminal breast cancer.

Background: Palbociclib is a CDK4/6 inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy and safety in combination with endocrine therapy in advanced luminal breast cancer (LBC). We evaluated the respective efficacy and safety of chemotherapy and letrozole-palbociclib (LETPAL) combination as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with high-risk LBC. Patients and methods: NeoPAL (UCBG10/4, NCT02400567) is a randomised, parallel, non-comparative phase II study. Patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative, Prosigna®-defined luminal B, or luminal A and node-positive, stage II-III breast cancer, not candidate for breast-conserving surgery, were randomly assigned to either letrozole (2.5 mg daily) and palbociclib (125 mg daily, 3 weeks/4) during 19 weeks, or to FEC100 (5FU 500 mg/m2, epirubicin 100 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2)×3 21-day courses followed by docetaxel 100 mg/m2×3 21-day courses. Primary end point was residual cancer burden (RCB 0-I rate). Secondary end points included clinical response, proliferation-based markers, and safety. Results: Overall, 106 patients were randomised [median Prosigna® ROR Score 71 (22-93)]. RCB 0-I was observed in four and eight patients in LETPAL [7.7% (95% CI 0.4-14.9)] and chemotherapy [15.7% (95% CI 5.7-25.7)] arms, respectively. Pathological complete response rates were 3.8% and 5.9%. Clinical response (75%) and breast-conserving surgery rates (69%) were similar in both arms. Preoperative Endocrine Prognostic Index 0 scores (breast cancer-specific survival) were observed in 17.6% and 8.0% of patients in LETPAL and chemotherapy arms, respectively. Safety profile was as expected, with 2 versus 17 serious adverse events (including 11 grade 4 serious AEs in the chemotherapy arm). Conclusion: LETPAL combination was associated with poor pathological response but encouraging clinical and biomarker responses in Prosigna®-defined high-risk LBC. Contemporary chemotherapy regimen was associated with poor pathological and biomarker responses, with a much less favourable safety profile. LETPAL combination might represent an alternative to chemotherapy in early high-risk LBC. Clinical Trial Number: NCT02400567.

[Mastectomy and immediate reconstruction: Indications, techniques and decision algorithm]. / Mastectomie avec reconstruction mammaire immédiate : indications et techniques, algorithme de décision d'une reconstruction immédiate.

Immediate breast reconstruction indications extend to infiltrating carcinomas, due to new matrix implant coverage techniques and the development of perforator flaps. These techniques allow adjuvant treatments. However, the decision of immediate reconstruction must be discussed with the oncological multidisciplinary team and the benefits/risks must also be evaluated in relation to the morphology of the patients and their co-morbidities. The chosen type of mastectomy: conventional or skin sparing and/or nipple sparing depends on the shape and volume of the breast, the localization of the tumor in the breast and the distance from the nipple areola complex (NAC). We describe an algorithm to allow, in the case of therapeutic mastectomy with or without adjuvant radiotherapy, an immediate reconstruction with implants or free or pedicled flaps.

A randomized adaptive phase II/III study of buparlisib, a pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, combined with paclitaxel for the treatment of HER2- advanced breast cancer (BELLE-4).

Background: Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway activation in preclinical models of breast cancer is associated with tumor growth and resistance to anticancer therapies, including paclitaxel. Effects of the pan-Class I PI3K inhibitor buparlisib (BKM120) appear synergistic with paclitaxel in preclinical and clinical models. Patients and methods: BELLE-4 was a 1:1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, adaptive phase II/III study investigating the combination of buparlisib or placebo with paclitaxel in women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer with no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were stratified by PI3K pathway activation and hormone receptor status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the full and PI3K pathway-activated populations. An adaptive interim analysis was planned following the phase II part of the study, after ≥125 PFS events had occurred in the full population, to decide whether the study would enter phase III (in the full or PI3K pathway-activated population) or be stopped for futility. Results: As of August 2014, 416 patients were randomized to receive buparlisib (207) or placebo (209) with paclitaxel. At adaptive interim analysis, there was no improvement in PFS with buparlisib versus placebo in the full (median PFS 8.0 versus 9.2 months, hazard ratio [HR] 1.18), or PI3K pathway-activated population (median PFS 9.1 versus 9.2 months, HR 1.17). The study met protocol-specified criteria for futility in both populations, and phase III was not initiated. Median duration of study treatment exposure was 3.5 months in the buparlisib arm versus 4.6 months in the placebo arm. The most frequent adverse events with buparlisib plus paclitaxel (≥40% of patients) were diarrhea, alopecia, rash, nausea, and hyperglycemia. Conclusions: Addition of buparlisib to paclitaxel did not improve PFS in the full or PI3K pathway-activated study population. Consequently, the trial was stopped for futility at the end of phase II.

New oral targeted therapies for metastatic breast cancer disrupt the traditional patients' management-A healthcare providers' view.

Although a cure still cannot be expected for metastatic breast cancer, thanks to progressive advances in treatments, life expectancy has been increasing over the past 15 years. This study aims to present the impact on the organisation of patients' management of newly released oral targeted therapies dedicated to metastatic breast cancer and the obstacles to their diffusion. Our work is based on the analysis of 40 semi-structured interviews, conducted with oncology healthcare professionals in three regions of France (2015-2016). It shows three main results. First, the prescription of an oral targeted therapy requires greater collaboration between healthcare professionals than traditional intravenous oncology drugs, which may be challenging. Second, there remain many barriers to the dissemination of oral targeted therapies. Third, taking an oral targeted therapy keeps the patient away from the hospital facility and asks for a strong therapeutic alliance. The management of oral targeted therapies is time-consuming for medical oncologists and disrupts the traditional care pathway. The multiplication of actors involved in patients' management reinforces the slowdown in the deployment and acceptance of therapeutic innovations. More players equal a higher risk of slowdown. Questioning and re-designing hospital organisation and management modalities towards this type of care are critical.

Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab or paclitaxel as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in a multicenter national observational study.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab combined with paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has led to mixed results in randomized trials, with an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) but no statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit. Real-life data could help in assessing the value of this combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study aimed to describe the outcome following first-line paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab in the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) database of MBC patients, established in 2014 by Unicancer. The primary and secondary end points were OS and PFS, respectively. RESULTS: From 2008 to 2013, 14 014 MBC patient files were identified, including 10 605 patients with a HER2-negative status. Of these, 3426 received paclitaxel and bevacizumab (2127) or paclitaxel (1299) as first-line chemotherapy. OS adjusted for major prognostic factors was significantly longer in the paclitaxel and bevacizumab group compared with paclitaxel [hazard ratio (HR) 0.672, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.601-0.752; median survival time 27.7 versus 19.8 months]. Results were consistent in all supportive analyses (using a propensity score for adjustment and as a matching factor for nested case-control analyses) and sensitivity analyses. Similar results were observed for the adjusted PFS, favoring the combination (HR 0.739, 95% CI 0.672-0.813; 8.1 versus 6.4 months). CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale, real-life setting, patients with HER2-negative MBC who received paclitaxel plus bevacizumab as first-line chemotherapy had a significantly better OS and PFS than those receiving paclitaxel. Despite robust methodology, real-life data are exposed to important potential biases, and therefore, results need to be treated with caution. Our data cannot therefore support extension of current use of bevacizumab in MBC.

A preoperative nomogram to predict the risk of synchronous distant metastases at diagnosis of primary breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The detection of synchronous metastases at primary diagnosis of breast cancer (BC) affects its initial management. A risk calculator that incorporates many factors to evaluate an individual's risk of harbouring synchronous metastases would be useful to adapt cancer management. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with primary diagnosis of BC were identified from three institutional databases sharing homogeneous work-up recommendations. A risk score for synchronous metastases was estimated and a nomogram was constructed using the first database. Its performance was assessed by receiver characteristic (ROC) analysis. The nomogram was externally validated in the two independent cohorts. RESULTS: A preoperative nomogram based on the clinical tumour size (P<0.001), clinical nodal status (P<0.001), oestrogen (P=0.17) and progesterone receptors (P=0.04) was developed. The nomogram accuracy was 87.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 84.45-90.2%). Overall, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 86.1% for the validation set from the Institut Curie-René Huguenin, and 63.8% for the MD Anderson validation set. The negative predictive value (NPV) was high in the three cohorts (97-99%). CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated a strong metastasis risk calculator that can evaluate with high accuracy an individual's risk of harbouring synchronous metastases at diagnosis of primary BC. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: A nomogram to predict synchronous metastases at diagnosis of breast cancer was developed and externally validated. This tool allows avoiding unnecessary expensive work-up.