Navigating practical challenges in immunotherapy for metastatic triple negative breast cancer.

Immunotherapy has revolutionized cancer therapy and now represents a standard of care for many tumor types, including triple-negative breast cancer. Despite the positive results that have led to the approval of immunotherapy in both early- and advanced-stage triple-negative breast cancer, pivotal clinical trials cannot address the myriad questions arising in everyday clinical practice, often falling short in delivering all the information that clinicians require. In this manuscript, we aim to address some of these practical questions, with the purpose of providing clinicians with a guide for optimizing the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the management of breast cancer patients and identifying opportunities for future research to clarify unresolved questions.

PARP Inhibitors for Breast Cancer Treatment: A Review.

Importance: Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of patients with germline BRCA1/2-associated breast cancer, representing the first targeted therapy capable of improving outcomes in patients with hereditary tumors. However, resistance to PARP inhibitors occurs in almost all patients. Observations: This narrative review summarizes the biological rationale behind the use of PARP inhibitors in breast cancer, as well as the available evidence, recent progress, and potential future applications of these agents. Recent studies have shown that the benefit of PARP inhibitors extends beyond patients with germline BRCA1/2-associated metastatic breast cancer to patients with somatic BRCA1/2 variants and to those with germline PALB2 alterations. Moreover, these agents proved to be effective both in the metastatic and adjuvant settings. However, patients with metastatic breast cancer usually do not achieve the long-term benefit from PARP inhibitors observed in other tumor types. Mechanisms of resistance have been identified, but how to effectively target them is largely unknown. Ongoing research is investigating both novel therapeutics and new combination strategies to overcome resistance. PARP1-selective inhibitors, by sparing the hematological toxic effects induced by the PARP2 blockade, are promising agents to be combined with chemotherapy, antibody-drug conjugates, and other targeted therapies. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the efficacy of PARP inhibitors is well established, many questions persist. Future research should focus on identifying predictive biomarkers and therapeutic strategies to overcome resistance. Integrating well-designed translational efforts into all clinical studies is thereby crucial to laying the groundwork for future insights from ongoing research.

Management of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan-related nausea and vomiting in real-world practice.

Background: Nausea and vomiting are common side effects of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan (T-DXd), but guidelines for optimal management were not initially available. This retrospective single-center study aimed at evaluating the efficacy of two antiemetic regimens in patients receiving T-DXd. Methods: Data from metastatic breast cancer patients receiving T-DXd were collected. Two groups were defined: patients treated with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RA) ± dexamethasone (5-HT3-group) and patients treated with a fixed oral combination of netupitant (NK1RA) and palonosetron ± dexamethasone (NK1 group). Physicians preferentially offered the NK1 regimen to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting based on internal recommendations. Only nausea and vomiting during cycles 1 and 2 were considered. Comparisons of nausea and vomiting by the antiemetic prophylaxis group were assessed using chi-square. Results: A total of 53 patients were included in the analysis. At cycle 1, 72% and 28% of patients received the 5-HT3 and NK1 prophylaxis, respectively. Overall, 58% reported nausea, with no differences between groups (58% vs. 60%; p = 0.832), but with a trend for lower grade in the NK1 group (33.3% G1; 26.7% G2) compared to the 5-HT3 group (23.7% G1; 31.6% G2; 2.6% G3). Vomiting was reported by 21% and 0% of patients in the 5-HT3 and the NK1 group, respectively (p = 0.054). Among the 15 patients in the 5-HT3 group with nausea at cycle 1 who escalated to NK1 at cycle 2, nausea decreased from 100% to 53% (p = 0.022) and vomiting decreased from 47% to 13% (p = 0.046). Conclusions: The NK1 regimen improved vomiting control at cycle 1 and, when introduced at cycle 2, significantly improved both nausea and vomiting. The biased NK1 selection for higher-risk patients may have dampened the differences between groups at cycle 1. These findings support enhanced control of T-DXd-related nausea and vomiting with NK1RA.

Real-world use of multigene signatures in early breast cancer: differences to clinical trials.

PURPOSE: In Italy, Lombardy was the first region to reimburse multigene assays (MGAs) for patients otherwise candidates for chemotherapy. This is a real-world experience of MGAs usage in six referral cancer centers in Lombardy. METHODS: Among MGAs, Oncotype DX (RS) was used in 97% of cases. Consecutive patients tested with Oncotype DX from July 2020 to July 2022 were selected. The distribution of clinicopathologic features by RS groups (low RS: 0-25, high RS: 26-100) was assessed using chi-square and compared with those of the TAILORx and RxPONDER trials. RESULTS: Out of 1,098 patients identified, 73% had low RS. Grade and Ki67 were associated with RS (p < 0.001). In patients with both G3 and Ki67 > 30%, 39% had low RS, while in patients with both G1 and Ki67 < 20%, 7% had high RS. The proportion of low RS in node-positive patients was similar to that in RxPONDER (82% vs 83%), while node-negative patients with low RS were significantly less than in TAILORx (66% vs 86%, p < 0.001). The distribution of Grade was different from registration trials, with more G3 and fewer G1 (38% and 3%) than in TAILORx (18% and 27%) and RxPONDER (10% and 24%) (p < 0.001). Patients ≤ 50 years were overrepresented in this series (41%) than in TAILORx and RxPONDER (31% and 24%, respectively) (p < 0.001) and, among them, 42% were node positive. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world series, Oncotype DX was the test almost exclusively used. Despite reimbursement being linked to pre-test chemotherapy recommendation, almost 3/4 patients resulted in the low-RS group. The significant proportion of node-positive patients ≤ 50 years tested indicates that oncologists considered Oncotype DX informative also in this population.

Breast cancers with high proliferation and low ER-related signalling have poor prognosis and unique molecular features with implications for therapy.

BACKGROUND: Luminal breast cancers with high proliferation (MKShi) and low ER-related signalling (ERSlo) have a poor prognosis. We investigated treatment responses and molecular features of MKShi/ERSlo tumours to inform potential therapies. METHODS: Gene expression data from patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) without (MDACC, N = 199) or with pembrolizumab (I-SPY2, N = 40), or endocrine therapy (NET) without (POETIC, N = 172) or with palbociclib (NeoPalAna, N = 32) were analyzed to assess treatment response by MKS/ERS-subgroups. TCGA was used to assess the mutational landscape and biomarkers associated with palbociclib-resistance (Cyclin-E, RBsig, IRPR) and immunotherapy-response (TMB, TILs, T-cell inflamed) by MKS/ERS-subgroups. RESULTS: Compared to MKShi/ERShi tumours, MKShi/ERSlo tumours had higher pathological response rates to NAC (22% vs 8%, p = 0.06) but a higher recurrence risk (4-year metastasis-free survival 70% vs 94%, p = 0.01). MKShi/ERSlo tumours frequently harboured TP53 (34%) and PIK3CA (33%) mutations, and showed high expression of Cyclin-E, RBsig and IRPR, high TMB and elevated TIL and T-cell inflamed metagene expression. MKShi/ERSlo tumours retained high proliferation after NET with or without palbociclib but had higher pathological complete response rates when pembrolizumab was added to NAC (42% vs 21%, p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: MKShi/ERSlo tumours have dismal outcomes and are enriched in chemotherapy-sensitive but ET- and palbociclib-resistant tumours. Biomarker analysis and clinical data suggest a potential role for immunotherapy in this group.

Pan-cancer analysis of antibody-drug conjugate targets and putative predictors of treatment response.

BACKGROUND: Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are a rapidly expanding class of compounds in oncology. Our goal was to assess the expression of ADC targets and potential downstream determining factors of activity across pan-cancer and normal tissues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ADCs in clinical trials (n = 121) were identified through ClinicalTrials.gov, corresponding to 54 targets. Genes potentially implicated in treatment response were identified in the literature. Gene expression from The Cancer Genome Atlas (9000+ cancers of 31 cancer types), the Genotype-Tissue Expression database (n = 19,000 samples from 31 normal tissue types), and the TNMplot.com (n = 12,494 unmatched primary and metastatic samples) were used in this analysis. To compare relative expression across and within tumour types we used pooled normal tissues as reference. RESULTS: For most ADC targets, mRNA levels correlated with protein expression. Pan-cancer target expression distributions identified appealing cancer types for each ADC development. Co-expression of multiple targets was common and suggested opportunities for ADC combinations. Expression levels of genes potentially implicated in ADC response downstream of the target might provide additional information (e.g. TOP1 was highly expressed in many tumour types, including breast and lung cancers). Metastatic compared to primary tissues overexpressed some ADCs targets. Single sample "targetgram" plots were generated to visualise the expression of potentially competing ADC targets and resistance/sensitivity markers highlighting high inter-patient heterogeneity. Off-cancer target expression only partially explains adverse events, while expression of determinants of payload activity explained more of the observed toxicities. CONCLUSION: Our findings draw attention to new therapeutic opportunities for ADCs that can be tested in the clinic and our web platform (https://tnmplot.com) can assist in prioritising upcoming ADC targets for clinical development.

Oncotype DX results increase concordance in adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations for early-stage breast cancer.

Adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations for ER+/HER2- early-stage breast cancers (eBC) involve integrating prognostic and predictive information which rely on physician judgment; this can lead to discordant recommendations. In this study we aim to evaluate whether Oncotype DX improves confidence and agreement among oncologists in adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations. We randomly select 30 patients with ER+/HER2- eBC and recurrence score (RS) available from an institutional database. We ask 16 breast oncologists with varying years of clinical practice in Italy and the US to provide recommendation for the addition of chemotherapy to endocrine therapy and their degree of confidence in the recommendation twice; first, based on clinicopathologic features only (pre-RS), and then with RS result (post-RS). Pre-RS, the average rate of chemotherapy recommendation is 50.8% and is higher among junior (62% vs 44%; p < 0.001), but similar by country. Oncologists are uncertain in 39% of cases and recommendations are discordant in 27% of cases (interobserver agreement K 0.47). Post-RS, 30% of physicians change recommendation, uncertainty in recommendation decreases to 5.6%, and discordance decreases to 7% (interobserver agreement K 0.85). Interpretation of clinicopathologic features alone to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy results in 1 out of 4 discordant recommendations and relatively high physician uncertainty. Oncotype DX results decrease discordancy to 1 out of 15, and reduce physician uncertainty. Genomic assay results reduce subjectivity in adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations for ER +/HER2- eBC.

Tissue- and liquid biopsy-based biomarkers for immunotherapy in breast cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer therapy and now represent the mainstay of treatment for many tumor types, including triple-negative breast cancer and two agnostic registrations. However, despite impressive durable responses suggestive of an even curative potential in some cases, most patients receiving ICIs do not derive a substantial benefit, highlighting the need for more precise patient selection and stratification. The identification of predictive biomarkers of response to ICIs may play a pivotal role in optimizing the therapeutic use of such compounds. In this Review, we describe the current landscape of tissue and blood biomarkers that could serve as predictive factors for ICI treatment in breast cancer. The integration of these biomarkers in a "holistic" perspective aimed at developing comprehensive panels of multiple predictive factors will be a major step forward towards precision immune-oncology.

Multigene signatures for early breast cancer in clinical practice: A report of the Lombardy genomic assays for breast cancer working group.

The increasing understanding of breast cancer biology has provided the basis for the development of multigene signatures aimed to improve the capability of clinicians to assess patients' prognostication and risk stratification. Incorporating these tools in clinical practice has profoundly impacted on the decision-making process for the adjuvant therapy of patients with ER+/HER2- early breast cancer and the results from prospective adjuvant trials have strengthened the clinical utility of multigene signatures in this setting. In July 2019, Lombardy was the first Region in Italy to reimburse genomic testing for patients with ER+/HER2- early breast cancer. Three years later, a group of investigators from six referral Cancer Centers in Lombardy convened to debate the use of multigene signatures in clinical practice and share their own experience with the tests after reimbursement. Here, we reviewed relevant data on the role of multigene signatures in tailoring adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with ER+/HER2- early breast cancer and discussed about the optimal use of these assays in current clinical practice. As the treatment landscape of early breast cancer evolves and novel questions about the possible additional applications of multigene assays arise, we also provide our viewpoint on the potential implementation of the assays in the evolving scenario ER+/HER2- early breast cancer treatment.

Treatment landscape of triple-negative breast cancer - expanded options, evolving needs.

Tumour heterogeneity and a long-standing paucity of effective therapies other than chemotherapy have contributed to triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) being the subtype with the least favourable outcomes. In the past few years, advances in omics technologies have shed light on the relevance of the TNBC microenvironment heterogeneity, unveiling a close dynamic relationship with cancer cell features. An improved understanding of tumour-immune system co-evolution supports the need to adopt a more comprehensive view of TNBC as an ecosystem that encompasses the intrinsic and extrinsic features of cancer cells. This new appreciation of the biology of TNBC has already led to the development of novel targeted agents, including PARP inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates and immune-checkpoint inhibitors, which are revolutionizing the therapeutic landscape and providing new opportunities both for patients with early-stage TNBC and for those with advanced-stage disease. The current therapeutic scenario is only the tip of the iceberg, as hundreds of new compounds and combinations are in development. The translation of these experimental therapies into clinical benefit is a welcome and ongoing challenge. In this Review, we describe the current and upcoming therapeutic landscape of TNBC and discuss how an integrated view of the TNBC ecosystem can define different levels of risk and provide improved opportunities for tailoring treatment.

Personalized Risk-Benefit Ratio Adaptation of Breast Cancer Care at the Epicenter of COVID-19 Outbreak.

Northern Italy has been one of the European regions reporting the highest number of COVID-19 cases and deaths. The pandemic spread has challenged the National Health System, requiring reallocation of most of the available health care resources to treat COVID-19-positive patients, generating a competition with other health care needs, including cancer. Patients with cancer are at higher risk of developing critical illness after COVID-19 infection. Thus, mitigation strategies should be adopted to reduce the likelihood of infection in all patients with cancer. At the same time, suboptimal care and treatments may result in worse cancer-related outcome. In this article, we attempt to estimate the individual risk-benefit balance to define personalized strategies for optimal breast cancer management, avoiding as much as possible a general untailored approach. We discuss and report the strategies our Breast Unit adopted from the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak to ensure the continuum of the best possible cancer care for our patients while mitigating the risk of infection, despite limited health care resources. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Managing patients with breast cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak is challenging. The present work highlights the need to estimate the individual patient risk of infection, which depends on both epidemiological considerations and individual clinical characteristics. The management of patients with breast cancer should be adapted and personalized according to the balance between COVID-19-related risk and the expected benefit of treatments. This work also provides useful suggestions on the modality of patient triage, the conduct of clinical trials, the management of an oncologic team, and the approach to patients' and health workers' psychological distress.

Patterns of treatment and outcome with 500-mg fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: a real-life multicenter Italian experience.

BACKGROUND: Fulvestrant 500 mg (F500) is the most active endocrine single agent in hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Few data are available regarding the effectiveness of the drug in a real-world setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, multicenter cohort study aimed to describe the patterns of treatment and performance of F500 in a large population of unselected women with MBC, focusing on potential prognostic or predictive factors for disease outcome and response. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and clinical benefit rate. RESULTS: From January 2011 to December 2015, 490 consecutive patients treated with F500 were enrolled. Overall, three different cohorts were identified and analyzed: the first received F500 after progression from previous chemotherapy (CT) or endocrine therapy; the second received the drug for de novo metastatic disease; and the third was treated as maintenance following disease stabilization or a response from a previous CT line. Median overall survival (OS) in the whole population was 26.8 months, ranging from 32.4 in first line to 22.0 and 13.7 months in second line and subsequent lines, respectively. Both the presence of liver metastasis and the treatment line were significantly associated with a worse PFS, while only the presence of liver metastasis maintained its predictive role for OS in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of F500 was detected in patients treated both upon disease progression and as maintenance. The relevant endocrine sensitivity of 80% of patients included in the study could probably explain the good results observed in terms of outcome.

Vinflunine in Advanced Transitional Cell Cancer of the Urothelial Tract: A Potential Option for Maintenance Therapy? A Case Series.

INTRODUCTION: Vinflunine is a microtubule inhibitor approved in Europe as second-line treatment of advanced transitional cell cancer of the urothelium (TCCU). The inability to continue with a first-line platinum-based regimen beyond 6 cycles suggested investigating the use of vinflunine as switch maintenance therapy in patients with response or stable disease after first-line therapy. METHODS: Patients with advanced TCCU and documented disease control after 3-6 cycles of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy received vinflunine maintenance therapy within 6 weeks of the last cycle. Our analysis aimed to examine the performance of vinflunine in terms of activity and safety in such a patient population. RESULTS: 28 consecutive patients were studied. After a median follow-up of 25 months, vinflunine was associated with a median progression-free survival of 9 months (range 4 to > 16 months) and a disease control rate of 64%; median overall survival was not reached. Treatment was well tolerated, with no unexpected safety events. The most common adverse events of grade ≥ 3 were neutropenia (21%) and constipation (14%); no toxicity-related death occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that vinflunine may be a suitable maintenance treatment option for TCCU patients who received a maximum of 6 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy commonly used as first-line treatment.