NSABP FB-10: a phase Ib/II trial evaluating ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with neratinib in women with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported our phase Ib trial, testing the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of T-DM1 + neratinib in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients. Patients with ERBB2 amplification in ctDNA had deeper and more durable responses. This study extends these observations with in-depth analysis of molecular markers and mechanisms of resistance in additional patients. METHODS: Forty-nine HER2-positive patients (determined locally) who progressed on-treatment with trastuzumab + pertuzumab were enrolled in this phase Ib/II study. Mutations and HER2 amplifications were assessed in ctDNA before (C1D1) and on-treatment (C2D1) with the Guardant360 assay. Archived tissue (TP0) and study entry biopsies (TP1) were assayed for whole transcriptome, HER2 copy number, and mutations, with Ampli-Seq, and centrally for HER2 with CLIA assays. Patient responses were assessed with RECIST v1.1, and Molecular Response with the Guardant360 Response algorithm. RESULTS: The ORR in phase II was 7/22 (32%), which included all patients who had at least one dose of study therapy. In phase I, the ORR was 12/19 (63%), which included only patients who were considered evaluable, having received their first scan at 6 weeks. Central confirmation of HER2-positivity was found in 83% (30/36) of the TP0 samples. HER2-amplified ctDNA was found at C1D1 in 48% (20/42) of samples. Patients with ctHER2-amp versus non-amplified HER2 ctDNA determined in C1D1 ctDNA had a longer median progression-free survival (PFS): 480 days versus 60 days (P = 0.015). Molecular Response scores were significantly associated with both PFS (HR 0.28, 0.09-0.90, P = 0.033) and best response (P = 0.037). All five of the patients with ctHER2-amp at C1D1 who had undetectable ctDNA after study therapy had an objective response. Patients whose ctHER2-amp decreased on-treatment had better outcomes than patients whose ctHER2-amp remained unchanged. HER2 RNA levels show a correlation to HER2 CLIA IHC status and were significantly higher in patients with clinically documented responses compared to patients with progressive disease (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The following biomarkers were associated with better outcomes for patients treated with T-DM1 + neratinib: (1) ctHER2-amp (C1D1) or in TP1; (2) Molecular Response scores; (3) loss of detectable ctDNA; (4) RNA levels of HER2; and (5) on-treatment loss of detectable ctHER2-amp. HER2 transcriptional and IHC/FISH status identify HER2-low cases (IHC 1+ or IHC 2+ and FISH negative) in these heavily anti-HER2 treated patients. Due to the small number of patients and samples in this study, the associations we have shown are for hypothesis generation only and remain to be validated in future studies. Clinical Trials registration NCT02236000.

Validation of the PREDICT Prognostication Tool in US Patients With Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: PREDICT is an online prognostication tool derived from breast cancer registry information on approximately 6,000 women treated in the United Kingdom that estimates the postsurgical treatment benefit of surgery alone, chemotherapy, trastuzumab, endocrine therapy, and/or adjuvant bisphosphonates in early-stage breast cancer. Our aim was to validate the PREDICT algorithm in predicting 5- and 10-year overall survival (OS) probabilities using real-world outcomes among US patients with breast cancer. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed including women diagnosed with unilateral breast cancer in 2004 through 2012. Women with primary unilateral invasive breast cancer were included. Patients with bilateral or metastatic breast cancer, no breast surgery, or missing critical clinical information were excluded. Prognostic scores from PREDICT were calculated and external validity was approached by assessing statistical discrimination through area under time-dependent receiver-operator curves (AUC) and comparing the predicted survival to the observed OS in relevant subgroups. RESULTS: We included 708,652 women, with a median age of 58 years. Most patients were White (85.4%), non-Hispanic (88.4%), and diagnosed with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (79.6%). Approximately 50% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy, 67% received adjuvant endocrine therapy, 60% underwent a partial mastectomy, and 59% had 1 to 5 axillary sentinel nodes removed. Median follow-up time was 97.7 months. The population's 5- and 10-year OS were 89.7% and 78.7%, respectively. Estimated 5- and 10-year median survival with PREDICT were 88.3% and 73.8%, and an AUC of 0.77 and 0.76, respectively. PREDICT performed most poorly in patients with high Charlson-Deyo comorbidity scores (2-3), where PREDICT overestimated OS. Sensitivity analysis by year of diagnosis and HER2 status showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: In this prognostic study utilizing the National Cancer Database, the PREDICT tool accurately predicted 5- and 10-year OS in a contemporary and diverse population of US patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer.

Social Determinants of Health and Racial Disparities in Cardiac Events in Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities have been reported for breast cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes. The determinants of racial disparities in CVD outcomes are not yet fully understood. We aimed to examine the impact of individual and neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDOH) on the racial disparities in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; consisting of heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, atrial fibrillation, and ischemic stroke) among female patients with breast cancer. METHODS: This 10-year longitudinal retrospective study was based on a cancer informatics platform with electronic medical record supplementation. We included women aged ≥18 years diagnosed with breast cancer. SDOH were obtained from LexisNexis, and consisted of the domains of social and community context, neighborhood and built environment, education access and quality, and economic stability. Race-agnostic (overall data with race as a feature) and race-specific machine learning models were developed to account for and rank the SDOH impact in 2-year MACE. RESULTS: We included 4,309 patients (765 non-Hispanic Black [NHB]; 3,321 non-Hispanic white). In the race-agnostic model (C-index, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.78-0.80), the 5 most important adverse SDOH variables were neighborhood median household income (SHapley Additive exPlanations [SHAP] score [SS], 0.07), neighborhood crime index (SS = 0.06), number of transportation properties in the household (SS = 0.05), neighborhood burglary index (SS = 0.04), and neighborhood median home values (SS = 0.03). Race was not significantly associated with MACE when adverse SDOH were included as covariates (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.91-1.64). NHB patients were more likely to have unfavorable SDOH conditions for 8 of the 10 most important SDOH variables for the MACE prediction. CONCLUSIONS: Neighborhood and built environment variables are the most important SDOH predictors for 2-year MACE, and NHB patients were more likely to have unfavorable SDOH conditions. This finding reinforces that race is a social construct.

Adjuvant Therapy in Breast Cancer Patients With Microscopic Residual Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical resection is the gold standard for early-stage breast cancer. Positive surgical margins are associated with poor outcome. Endocrine therapy (ET) is recommended as primary systemic treatment for hormone receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer after surgery. We hypothesized that chemoenocrine therapy (CET) would not be associated with improved survival relative to ET for patients with positive margins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for pathologic stage I HR + HER2-breast cancer patients treated with partial mastectomy and adjuvant whole-breast irradiation between 2004 and 2017. The adjuvant treatment approaches to positive surgical margins were investigated and compared. Overall survival was compared between systemic treatment groups using multivariable cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Among 228,453 patients, a positive surgical margin (microscopic residual disease, R1) was identified in 3561 (1.6%) patients. Compared with complete resections, positive margin was associated with inferior overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.276, P = 0.003). Among the R1 patients, 78.7% received ET only, 11.7% received CET, 1.2% received chemotherapy only, and 8.5% received no systemic therapy. After controlling for patient, facility, and tumor characteristics, ET provided greatest survival benefit (relative to no therapy, HR = 0.378, P < 0.001) followed by CET (HR = 0.446, P = 0.020). Compared with ET alone, CET is not associated with additional overall survival benefit (HR = 1.179, P = 0.595). CONCLUSIONS: CET appeared not to be associated with an improved overall survival in early stage HR + HER2-breast cancer with microscopic residual disease relative to ET. Positive surgical margins therefore are probably not a relevant clinical factor for adjuvant chemotherapy decision-making.

Modeling the COVID Pandemic: Do Delays in Surgery Justify Using Stereotactic Radiation to Treat Low-Risk Early Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer?

INTRODUCTION: It was suggested that stereotactic radiation (SBRT) is an "alternative if no surgical capacity is available" for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to compare the oncologic outcomes of delayed surgical resection and early SBRT among operable patients with early stage lung cancer. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with cT1aN0M0 NSCLC who underwent surgery or SBRT (2010-2016) with no comorbidity. Patients with any comorbidities or age >80 were excluded. The outcome of interest was overall survival. Delays in surgical care were modeled using different times from diagnosis to surgery. A 1:1 propensity match was performed and survival was analyzed using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 6720 healthy cT1aN0M0 NSCLC patients, 6008 (89.4%) received surgery and 712 (10.6%) received SBRT. Among surgery patients, time to surgery >30 d was associated with inferior survival (HR > 1.4, P ≤ 0.013) compared with patients receiving surgery ≤14 d. Relative to SBRT, surgery demonstrated superior survival at all time points evaluated: 0-30 d, 31-60 d, 61-90 d, and >90 d (all P < 0.001). Among a propensity-matched cohort of 256 pairs of patients, delayed surgery (>90 d) remained association with better overall survival relative to early SBRT (5-year survival 76.9% versus 32.3%, HR = 0.266, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although longer time to surgery is associated with inferior survival among surgery patients, delayed surgery is superior to early SBRT. Surgical resection should remain the standard of care to treat operable early stage lung cancer despite delays imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

A comparison of local therapy alone with local plus systemic therapy for stage I pT1aN0M0 HER2+ breast cancer: A National Cancer Database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Small invasive breast cancers (BCs) with tumor sizes ≤5 mm (T1a) are associated with an excellent prognosis without systemic therapy. Although HER2 overexpression (HER2+) is associated with a higher risk of recurrence and poorer clinical outcomes, in the absence of HER2 directed therapy, it remains unclear whether adjuvant systemic therapy is necessary in node-negative patients diagnosed with HER2+ invasive BCs ≤5 mm (pT1aN0M0). METHODS: The National Cancer Database was searched to identify patients diagnosed with HER2+ pT1aN0M0 BCs from 2004 to 2017. The cohort was stratified by treatment status: local therapy alone or local plus adjuvant systemic therapy. A 1:1 propensity match was performed. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed using stratified multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 8948 patients found, 4026 (45.0%) underwent surgery alone, and 4922 (55.0%) received surgery plus systemic therapy. Patients with either moderately differentiated (odds ratio [OR], 2.053; P < .001) or poorly/undifferentiated tumors (OR, 3.780; P < .001) or with the presence of lymphovascular invasion (OR, 3.351; P < .001) were more likely to have received systemic therapy. Propensity matching generated 1162 pairs of patients who were hormone receptor positive (HR+) and 748 pairs who were hormone receptor negative (HR-). Propensity matching effectively reduced selection bias between study groups. In the matched cohort, the addition of systemic therapy was not associated with superior OS (hazard ratio for HR+, 1.613; P = .107, and hazard ratio for HR- 1.319; P = .369) compared with patients who received local therapy alone. CONCLUSIONS: In pT1aN0M0 HER2+ BC, the addition of adjuvant systemic therapy after surgical excision was not associated with improved OS compared with local therapy alone.

Systemic Therapies Following Progression on First-line CDK4/6-inhibitor Treatment: Analysis of Real-world Data.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic hormone receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (Her2-) breast cancer remains a significant cause of cancer-related mortality. First-line treatment with endocrine therapy (ET) with a cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) has largely become the standard systemic therapy. Following progression, no prospective randomized data exist to help guide second-line treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used a nationwide electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database, specifically analyzing 1210 patients with HR+/Her2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who were treated in the first-line setting with a CDK4/6i from the years 2015-2020. The aim of this study was to assess what therapies were given after first-line progression on CDK4/6i and to observe treatment patterns over time. Determination of second-line treatment efficacy, specifically assessing real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) was performed. RESULTS: A total of 839 patients received a documented second-line therapy after progression on first-line CDK4/6i treatment. Chemotherapy was chosen for 29.7% of patients, and the use of chemotherapy decreased over time. Three hundred two (36.0%) of patients continued a CDK4/6i. Data were adjusted for age, race, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, stage at breast cancer diagnosis, and insurance payer type. Continuation of the CDK4/6i was associated with improved rwPFS (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.43-0.53, P < .0001) and OS (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.26-0.35, P < .0001) compared to chemotherapy. A majority of these patients continued the same CDK4/6i in the second-line setting, as was given in the first-line setting. CONCLUSION: While prospective data are needed, analysis of real-world data suggests a survival benefit for continuation of a CDK4/6i beyond frontline progression for patients with HR+/Her2- MBC.

Adjuvant trastuzumab with or without chemotherapy in stage 1 pT1N0 HER2+ breast cancer: a National Cancer Database analysis.

PURPOSE: Approximately 20% of all breast cancers (BC) are HER2 amplified. In the APT trial, weekly paclitaxel/trastuzumab in node negative HER2+ BC with tumors < 3 cm was associated with a 7-year invasive disease-free survival of 93%. However, this was in the context of a non-randomized trial, and for pT1N0 HER2+ BC it remains unclear whether HER2 monotherapy would provide similar clinical outcomes to chemo-HER2 therapy. We hypothesized that adjuvant chemo-HER2 therapy would be associated with a modestly improved overall survival compared to HER2 monotherapy in patients with tumors < 2 cm. METHODS: In the National Cancer Database (2004-2017), patients with a primary diagnosis of pT1N0M0 HER2+ BC, were separated into two groups: (i) HER2 monotherapy, i.e., trastuzumab, and (ii) chemo-HER2 therapy. A 3:1 propensity match was performed to balance patient selection bias between the two different cohorts. Long-term overall survival (OS) was compared between both groups. RESULTS: A total of 23,281 patients met the criteria. 22,268 (96.7%) received chemo-HER2 therapy and 1013 (4.4%) received HER2 monotherapy. Propensity match identified 1995 patients who received chemo-HER2 therapy, and 666 who received HER2 monotherapy. After matching, adjuvant chemo-HER2 therapy was associated with a modest survival advantage over HER2 monotherapy (5-year OS 94.1% vs. 90.6%, P = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: Even though there is a modest OS advantage favoring adjuvant chemo-HER2 therapy in patients with pT1N0 HER2+ BC, HER2 monotherapy was associated with 5-year OS > 90%. Therefore, in select patients who have contraindications for cytotoxic chemotherapy, or decline adjuvant chemotherapy altogether, adjuvant trastuzumab monotherapy appears to be a reasonable alternative.

Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy as an Alternative to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Among Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer Patients: Pathologic and Surgical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) is considered more effective in downstaging hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer than neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET), particularly in node-positive disease. This study compared breast and axillary response and survival after NCT and NET in HR+ breast cancer. METHODS: Based on American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z1031 criteria, women age 50 years or older with cT2-4 HR+ breast cancer who underwent NET or NCT and surgery were identified in the National Cancer Database 2010-2016. Chi-square and logistic regression analysis determined differences between the NCT and NET groups and therapy response, including downstaging and pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0/is and ypN0). RESULTS: Of 19,829 patients, 14,025 (70.7%) received NCT and 5804 (29.3%) received NET. The NET patients were older (mean age, 68.9 vs. 60.3; P < 0.001) and had greater comorbidity (1+ Charlson-Deyo score, 21% vs. 16%; P < 0.001). Therapy achieved T downstaging (any) for 58% of the patients with NCT versus 40.5% of the patients with NET, and in-breast pCR was achieved for 9.3% of the NCT versus 1.3% of the NET patients (P < 0.001). Approximately half of the mastectomy procedures could have been potentially avoided for the patients with in-breast pCR (53.6% of the NCT and 43.8% of the NET patients). For the cN+ patients, N downstaging (any) was 29% for the NCT patients versus 18.3% for the NET patients (P < 0.001), and nodal pCR was achieved for 20.3% of the NCT versus 13.5% of the NET patients (P < 0.001). Among those with nodal pCR, axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) still was performed for 56% of the patients after NCT and 45% of the patients after NET. CONCLUSIONS: Although the response rates after NCT were higher, NET achieved both T and N downstaging and pCR. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy can be used to de-escalate surgery for patients who cannot tolerate NCT or when chemotherapy may not be effective based on genomic testing.

Novel HER2-targeted therapies for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) is overexpressed in approximately 20% of all breast cancers. Before the development of HER2-directed monoclonal antibodies, HER2-positive breast cancer was associated with a rather poor prognosis. With the advent of monoclonal HER2-targeting antibodies (trastuzumab and pertuzumab) and antibody-drug conjugates (trastuzumab emtansine [T-DM1] and trastuzumab deruxtecan), clinical outcomes for HER2-positive breast cancer have dramatically changed, and a greater proportion of patients in the nonmetastatic setting are cured. However, in the metastatic setting, resistance to anti-HER2 treatments still remains a major therapeutic challenge, underscoring the importance of developing novel HER2-directed therapies. Over the last year, there has been a dramatic shift in the current treatment paradigms for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, with recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals of trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS-8201), neratinib, and tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine. The authors summarize recent phase 3 data with novel HER2-targeted therapies as well as phase 1 and 2 data with other novel HER2-targeting agents.

Real-world clinical outcomes and toxicity in metastatic breast cancer patients treated with palbociclib and endocrine therapy.

PURPOSE: Real-world data are critical to demonstrate the reproducibility of evidence and external generalizability of randomized clinical trials. Palbociclib is an oral small-molecule inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 that has been shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) when combined with letrozole or fulvestrant in phase 3 clinical trials. We evaluated real-world outcomes in metastatic breast cancer patients who received palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Records of patients with advanced hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer treated with palbociclib at the Cleveland Clinic health system from February, 2015 to December, 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary end point was PFS. RESULTS: In this cohort, 411 women were included. The median age and follow-up times were 53.5 years and 10.2 months, respectively. The median PFS for palbociclib plus letrozole was 15.1 months for patients treated in first line, 10.5 months in second line, and 4.2 months in third line and beyond. For patients who received fulvestrant plus palbociclib, the median PFS in first, second, and third line and beyond were 11.6, 12.3, and 6.4 months, respectively. The most common adverse events were hematologic, with grade 3-4 neutropenia occurring in 58% of patients. Thirty-one (8%) patients permanently discontinued palbociclib due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HR-positive advanced breast cancer, the estimated PFS in patients treated with fulvestrant and palbociclib was comparable to a previously reported phase 3 trial. However, the median PFS with letrozole and palbociclib was shorter than previously reported data from phase 2 and 3 trials. Palbociclib toxicity was very manageable, with a low drug discontinuation rate.

Impact of tissue-based genomic profiling on clinical decision making in the management of patients with metastatic breast cancer at academic centers.

BACKGROUND: Genomic profiling can identify targetable mutations; however, the impact of tissue-based genomic profiling on clinical decision making for patients with metastatic breast cancer has not been well characterized. METHODS: Patients with stage IV breast cancer who had undergone genomic profiling between 7/2013 and 3/2015 were identified at three academic cancer centers. Genomic analysis was determined to have impacted clinical decision if (A) a patient was enrolled onto a genotype-matched clinical trial or (B) prescribed off-label an FDA-approved therapy targeting an identified mutation. The frequency of mutated genes was determined. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients with stage IV breast cancer were identified. Median age was 46 (25-75). Fifty-three patients (45%) had ER-positive/HER2-negative disease, 50 (43%) had ER-negative/HER2-negative disease, and 14 (12%) had ER-any/HER2-positive disease. Median number of previous therapies received prior to genomic profiling was 2 (range 0-15), and median follow-up after testing was obtained after 5.8 months (range 0-24.4 months). Commercial reports indicated that 85 (73%) patients had at least one mutation targetable by an FDA-approved medication, and 112 (96%) patients had at least one clinical trial available; however, clinical management was only affected in 11 patients (9%). The most frequent mutations observed were those in TP53, FGF, PI3KCA, MYC, ZNF, FGFR, CCND, ARID1A, GATA3, and MAP; frequencies of these mutations varied by clinical subtype. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor genomic profiling affected clinical management in a minority of patients with metastatic breast cancer, thus these data do not support the routine use of genomic profiling outside of a clinical trial.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 1st through 3rd line sequential targeted therapy in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the United States.

PURPOSE: Based on available phase III trial data, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of different treatment strategies that can be used in patients with newly diagnosed HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We constructed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of four different HER2 targeted treatment sequences in patients with HER2-positive mBC treated in the U.S. The model followed patients weekly over their remaining life expectancies. Health states considered were progression-free survival (PFS) 1st to 3rd lines, and death. Transitional probabilities were based on published phase III trials. Cost data (2015 US dollars) were captured from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) drug payment table and physician fee schedule. Health utility data were extracted from published studies. The outcomes considered were PFS, OS, costs, QALYs, the incremental cost per QALY gained ratio, and the net monetary benefit. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the uncertainty around key model parameters and their joint impact on the base-case results. RESULTS: The combination of trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and docetaxel (THP) as first-line therapy, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) as second-line therapy, and lapatinib/capecitabine third-line resulted in 1.81 QALYs, at a cost of $335,231.35. The combination of trastuzumab/docetaxel as first line without subsequent T-DM1 or pertuzumab yielded 1.41 QALYs, at a cost of $175,240.69. The least clinically effective sequence (1.27 QALYs), but most cost-effective at a total cost of $149,250.19, was trastuzumab/docetaxel as first-line therapy, T-DM1 as second-line therapy, and trastuzumab/lapatinib as third-line therapy. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that THP as first-line therapy, followed by T-DM1 as second-line therapy, would require at least a 50 % reduction in the total drug acquisition cost for it to be considered a cost-effective strategy.

Retrospective study of the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab/pertuzumab (TCH-P) in nonmetastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pertuzumab is FDA approved in the preoperative setting in combination with trastuzumab and chemotherapy, in women with nonmetastatic HER2 + breast cancer. The TRYPHAENA trial (n = 77) reported a pathologic complete response rate (pCR), i.e., ypT0ypN0, of 52 % in patients treated with neoadjuvant (docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, & pertuzumab) TCH-P. Aside from this study, there is limited information regarding the safety and efficacy of TCH-P in the neoadjuvant setting. Our goal was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant TCH-P in a non-clinical trial setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cancer data registry was utilized to identify patients with HER2 + nonmetastatic breast cancer that received neoadjuvant TCH-P. pCR was defined as the absence of invasive or noninvasive cancer in breast and lymph nodes, i.e., ypT0ypN0. RESULTS: 70 patients with a median age of 52 years met our inclusion criteria. Clinical staging was I-8.5 %; II-68.5 %; and III-22.8 %. 60 % of patients had hormone receptor (HR)-positive tumors. 23 % (16/71) of patients required dose reduction for rash, diarrhea, neuropathy, or thrombocytopenia. Overall, no patients developed grade 3-4 left ventricular systolic dysfunction(LVSD); an asymptomatic reduction in LVEF of >10 % was observed in three patients. The overall observed pCR rate was 53 %. As expected, the pCR rate was higher in patients with HR-negative breast cancer than for patients with HR+ disease: 69 % (20/29) vs. 42 % (17/41), respectively. The axillary downstaging rate was approximately 53 % (19/36). CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant TCH-P, in a nonclinical trial setting, was associated with a pCR rate of 53 % similar the reported rate in TRYPHAENA. Toxicity was manageable, with no patients experiencing symptomatic heart failure.

Clinical outcomes in breast cancer patients with HIV/AIDS: a retrospective study.

The purpose of the study is to describe what is the presentation of breast cancer in women with HIV, their tolerance to therapy, the most common complications of treatment and their outcomes. Retrospective chart review of patients with HIV diagnosed with breast cancer between January 1, 1989 and December 31, 2013 at the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital (UM/JMH) 47 females and 1 male were included in the analysis. The median age of diagnosis was 46 years (IQR 41-52) and 64% of the women were premenopausal. Median CD4(+) count was 330 cells/µL (IQR 131-589 cells/µL). 41% had AIDS at time of diagnosis. 94% of patients presented with locoregional disease and 6% with late stage breast cancer. 52% had ER(+) tumors. 6% had HER-2/neu tumor expression and 21 % had triple negative disease. The 5 year PFS was 50% (95% CI 34-64%), the 5 year OS was 44% (95% CI 29-58%), and the Breast cancer-specific survival was 57% (95% CI 40-70%). Death was attributed to breast cancer in 22 patients, AIDS progression in 6 patients, other medical condition in 1, and for 4, the cause was unknown. Serious adverse events were documented in 46% of patients treated with chemotherapy. Targeted therapy was well tolerated. Patients with HIV/AIDS and breast cancer pose a major challenge for oncologists. Surgery, radiation, and endocrine therapy are well tolerated. Standard dose chemotherapy can have life-threatening side effects which can be managed with growth factor support and antimicrobial prophylaxis. All cancer therapy can be given while continuing with antiviral therapy at full dose.

A review of systematic reviews of the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer.

Breast cancer is a global health concern. In fact, breast cancer is the primary cause of death among women worldwide and constitutes the most expensive malignancy to treat. As health care resources are finite, decisions regarding the adoption and coverage of breast cancer treatments are increasingly being based on "value for money," i.e., cost-effectiveness. As the evidence about the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer treatments is abundant, therefore difficult to navigate, systematic reviews of published systematic reviews offer the advantage of bringing together the results of separate systematic reviews in a single report. As a consequence, this paper presents an overview of systematic reviews of the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer to inform policy and reimbursement decision-making. A systematic review was conducted of published systematic reviews documenting cost-effectiveness analyses of breast cancer treatments from 2000 to 2014. Systematic reviews identified through a literature search of health and economic databases were independently assessed against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Systematic reviews of original evaluations were included only if they targeted breast cancer patients and specific breast cancer treatments (hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy only), documented incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and were reported in the English language. The search strategy used a combination of these key words: "breast cancer," "systematic review/meta-analysis," and "cost-effectiveness/economics." Data were extracted using predefined extraction forms and qualitatively appraised using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool. The literature search resulted in 511 bibliographic records, of which ten met our inclusion criteria. Five reviews were conducted in the early-stage breast cancer setting and five reviews in the metastatic setting. In early-stage breast cancer, evidence about trastuzumab value differed by age. Trastuzumab was cost-effective only in women with HER2-positive breast cancer younger than 65 years and over a life-time horizon. The cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer yielded conflicting results. The same conclusions were reached in comparisons between vinorelbine and taxanes. In both early stage and advanced/metastatic breast cancer, newer aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have proved cost-effective compared to older treatments. This overview of systematic reviews shows that there is heterogeneity in the evidence concerning the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer. The cost-effectiveness of these treatments depends not only on the comparators but the context, i.e., adjuvant or metastatic setting, subtype of patient population, and perspective adopted. Decisions involving the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer treatments could be made easier and more transparent by better harmonizing the reporting of economic evaluations assessing the value of these treatments.