Phase III study on efficacy of taxanes plus bevacizumab with or without capecitabine as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer.

Taxanes (T) plus bevacizumab (B) and taxanes plus capecitabine (X) showed better progression-free survival (PFS) compared to taxanes alone. Since life-threatening or highly symptomatic situations require polychemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC), combination of taxanes, capecitabine plus bevacizumab appears reasonable. TABEA (NCT01200212), a prospectively randomized, open-label, phase III trial compares taxanes (paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) i.v. d1,8,15 q22 or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) i.v. d1 q22) plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg i.v. d1 q22) with (TBX) or without capecitabine (TB, 1800 mg/m(2) daily d1-14 q22) as first-line therapy in MBC. Histologically confirmed HER2-negative, locally advanced or MBC patients with a chemotherapy indication and measurable or non-measurable target lesions (RECIST criteria) were included. Primary objective was PFS. Secondary objectives were response rate and duration, clinical benefit rate (complete response, partial response, stable disease ≥24 weeks), 3-year overall survival, PFS in patients ≥65 years, toxicity, and compliance. We assumed 10 and 13.3 months PFS for TB and TBX, respectively (HR = 0.75), requiring 432 patients and 386 events. Preplanned interim futility and safety analyses after 100 events in 202 patients showed no efficacy benefit and higher toxicity for TBX. Recruitment and therapy were stopped following advice from the IDMC. Final analysis revealed a HR 1.13 [95 %CI 0.806-1.59], P = 0.474, for PFS. Overall grade 3-4 adverse event (77.3 vs. 62.1 %, P = 0.014) and serious adverse event (40.0 vs. 30.2 %, P = 0.127) rates were higher for TBX after 26.1 months median follow-up, with six deaths for TBX versus 1 for TB. Adding capecitabine to TB cannot be recommended as first-line therapy in MBC.

Characteristics and Clinical Outcome of Breast Cancer Patients with Asymptomatic Brain Metastases.

Background: Brain metastases (BM) have become a major challenge in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Methods: The aim of this analysis was to characterize patients with asymptomatic BM (n = 580) in the overall cohort of 2589 patients with BM from our Brain Metastases in Breast Cancer Network Germany (BMBC) registry. Results: Compared to symptomatic patients, asymptomatic patients were slightly younger at diagnosis (median age: 55.5 vs. 57.0 years, p = 0.01), had a better performance status at diagnosis (Karnofsky index 80-100%: 68.4% vs. 57%, p < 0.001), a lower number of BM (>1 BM: 56% vs. 70%, p = 0.027), and a slightly smaller diameter of BM (median: 1.5 vs. 2.2 cm, p < 0.001). Asymptomatic patients were more likely to have extracranial metastases (86.7% vs. 81.5%, p = 0.003) but were less likely to have leptomeningeal metastasis (6.3% vs. 10.9%, p < 0.001). Asymptomatic patients underwent less intensive BM therapy but had a longer median overall survival (statistically significant for a cohort of HER2-positive patients) compared to symptomatic patients (10.4 vs. 6.9 months, p < 0.001). Conclusions: These analyses show a trend that asymptomatic patients have less severe metastatic brain disease and despite less intensive local BM therapy still have a better outcome (statistically significant for a cohort of HER2-positive patients) than patients who present with symptomatic BM, although a lead time bias of the earlier diagnosis cannot be ruled out. Our analysis is of clinical relevance in the context of potential trials examining the benefit of early detection and treatment of BM.

Prevalence of deleterious germline variants in risk genes including BRCA1/2 in consecutive ovarian cancer patients (AGO-TR-1).

BACKGROUND: Identification of families at risk for ovarian cancer offers the opportunity to consider prophylactic surgery thus reducing ovarian cancer mortality. So far, identification of potentially affected families in Germany was solely performed via family history and numbers of affected family members with breast or ovarian cancer. However, neither the prevalence of deleterious variants in BRCA1/2 in ovarian cancer in Germany nor the reliability of family history as trigger for genetic counselling has ever been evaluated. METHODS: Prospective counseling and germline testing of consecutive patients with primary diagnosis or with platinum-sensitive relapse of an invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. Testing included 25 candidate and established risk genes. Among these 25 genes, 16 genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, PMS2, PTEN, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, TP53) were defined as established cancer risk genes. A positive family history was defined as at least one relative with breast cancer or ovarian cancer or breast cancer in personal history. RESULTS: In total, we analyzed 523 patients: 281 patients with primary diagnosis of ovarian cancer and 242 patients with relapsed disease. Median age at primary diagnosis was 58 years (range 16-93) and 406 patients (77.6%) had a high-grade serous ovarian cancer. In total, 27.9% of the patients showed at least one deleterious variant in all 25 investigated genes and 26.4% in the defined 16 risk genes. Deleterious variants were most prevalent in the BRCA1 (15.5%), BRCA2 (5.5%), RAD51C (2.5%) and PALB2 (1.1%) genes. The prevalence of deleterious variants did not differ significantly between patients at primary diagnosis and relapse. The prevalence of deleterious variants in BRCA1/2 (and in all 16 risk genes) in patients <60 years was 30.2% (33.2%) versus 10.6% (18.9%) in patients ≥60 years. Family history was positive in 43% of all patients. Patients with a positive family history had a prevalence of deleterious variants of 31.6% (36.0%) versus 11.4% (17.6%) and histologic subtype of high grade serous ovarian cancer versus other showed a prevalence of deleterious variants of 23.2% (29.1%) and 10.2% (14.8%), respectively. Testing only for BRCA1/2 would miss in our series more than 5% of the patients with a deleterious variant in established risk genes. CONCLUSIONS: 26.4% of all patients harbor at least one deleterious variant in established risk genes. The threshold of 10% mutation rate which is accepted for reimbursement by health care providers in Germany was observed in all subgroups analyzed and neither age at primary diagnosis nor histo-type or family history sufficiently enough could identify a subgroup not eligible for genetic counselling and testing. Genetic testing should therefore be offered to every patient with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer and limiting testing to BRCA1/2 seems to be not sufficient.