Expert consensus to optimize the treatment of elderly patients with luminal metastatic breast cancer.

Most patients diagnosed with luminal metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who are seen in oncology consultations are elderly. MBC in elderly patients is characterized by a higher percentage of hormone receptor (HR) expression and a lower expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). The decision regarding which treatment to administer to these patients is complex due to the lack of solid evidence to support the decision-making process. The objective of this paper is to review the scientific evidence on the treatment of elderly patients with luminal MBC. For this purpose, the Oncogeriatrics Section of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), the Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group (GEICAM) and the SOLTI Group appointed a group of experts who have worked together to establish consensus recommendations to optimize the treatment of this population. It was concluded that the chronological age of the patient alone should not guide therapeutic decisions and that a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) should be performed whenever possible before establishing treatment. Treatment selection for the elderly population should consider the patient's baseline status, the expected benefit and toxicity of each treatment, and the impact of treatment toxicity on the patient's quality of life and functionality.

A retrospective, multicenter study of the efficacy of lapatinib plus trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients previously treated with trastuzumab, lapatinib, or both: the Trastyvere study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lapatinib (L) and trastuzumab (T) combination in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients previously treated with T and/or L. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, post-authorized, multicenter study including patients with HER2-positive MBC or locally advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated with the combination of L-T. Concomitant endocrine therapy, as well as brain metastasis and/or prior exposure to L, were allowed. RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen patients from 14 institutions were included. The median age was 59.8 years. The median number of prior T regimens in the advanced setting was 3 and 73 patients had received a prior L regimen. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 34.8% (95% CI 26.1-43.5). Among other efficacy endpoints, the overall response rate was 21.7%, and median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 3.9 and 21.6 months, respectively. Heavily pretreated and ≥ 3 metastatic organ patients showed lower CBR and PFS than patients with a low number of previous regimens and < 3 metastatic organs. Moreover, CBR did not significantly change in L-pretreated compared with L-naïve patients (31.5% versus 40.5% for L-pretreated versus L-naïve). Grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 19 patients (16.5%). CONCLUSION: The combination of L-T is an effective and well-tolerated regimen in heavily pretreated patients and remains active among patients progressing on prior L-based therapy. Our study suggests that the L-T regimen is a safe and active chemotherapy-free option for MBC patients previously treated with T and/or L.