ProTarget: a Danish Nationwide Clinical Trial on Targeted Cancer Treatment based on genomic profiling - a national, phase 2, prospective, multi-drug, non-randomized, open-label basket trial.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of trials indicate that treatment outcomes in cancer patients with metastatic disease are improved when targeted treatments are matched with druggable genomic alterations in individual patients (pts). An estimated 30-80% of advanced solid tumors harbor actionable genomic alterations. However, the efficacy of personalized cancer treatment is still scarcely investigated in larger, controlled trials due to the low frequency and heterogenous distribution of druggable alterations among different histologic tumor types. Therefore, the overall effect of targeted cancer treatment on clinical outcomes still needs investigation. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: ProTarget is a national, non-randomized, multi-drug, open-label, pan-cancer phase 2 trial aiming to investigate the anti-tumor activity and toxicity of currently 13 commercially available, EMA-approved targeted therapies outside the labeled indication for treatment of advanced malignant diseases, harboring specific actionable genomic alterations. The trial involves the Danish National Molecular Tumor Board for confirmation of drug-variant matches. Key inclusion criteria include a) measurable disease (RECIST v.1.1), b) ECOG performance status 0-2, and c) an actionable genomic alteration matching one of the study drugs. Key exclusion criteria include a) cancer type within the EMA-approved label of the selected drug, and b) genomic alterations known to confer drug resistance. Initial drug dose, schedule and dose modifications are according to the EMA-approved label. The primary endpoint is objective response or stable disease at 16 weeks. Pts are assigned to cohorts defined by the selected drug, genomic alteration, and tumor histology type. Cohorts are monitored according to a Simon's two-stage-based design. Response is assessed every 8 weeks for the first 24 weeks, then every 12 weeks. The trial is designed similar to the Dutch DRUP and the ASCO TAPUR trials and is a partner in the Nordic Precision Cancer Medicine Trial Network. In ProTarget, serial fresh tumor and liquid biopsies are mandatory and collected for extensive translational research including whole genome sequencing, array analysis, and RNA sequencing. DISCUSSION: The ProTarget trial will identify new predictive biomarkers for targeted treatments and provide new data and essential insights in molecular pathways involved in e.g., resistance mechanisms and thereby potentially evolve and expand the personalized cancer treatment strategy. PROTOCOL VERSION: 16, 09-MAY-2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04341181. Secondary Identifying No: ML41742. EudraCT No: 2019-004771-40.

Response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer: a comparison of survival times between FDG-PET/CT and CE-CT.

BACKGROUND: We compared overall survival for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients monitored with CE-CT, FDG-PET/CT or a combination of them in an observational setting. METHODS: Patients with biopsy-verified (recurrent or de novo) MBC (n = 300) who were treated at Odense university hospital (Denmark) and response monitored with FDG-PET/CT (n = 83), CE-CT (n = 144), or a combination of these (n = 73) were followed until 2019. Survival was compared between the scan groups, and were adjusted for clinico-histopathological variables representing potential confounders in a Cox proportional-hazard regression model. RESULTS: The study groups were mostly comparable regarding baseline characteristics, but liver metastases were reported more frequently in CE-CT group (38.9%) than in FDG-PET/CT group (19.3%) and combined group (24.7%). Median survival was 30.0 months for CE-CT group, 44.3 months for FDG-PET/CT group and 54.0 months for Combined group. Five-year survival rates were significantly higher for FDG-PET/CT group (41.9%) and combined group (43.3%), than for CE-CT group (15.8%). Using the CE-CT group as reference, the hazard ratio was 0.44 (95% CI: 0.29-0.68, P = 0.001) for the FDG-PET/CT group after adjusting for baseline characteristics. FDG-PET/CT detected the first progression 4.7 months earlier than CE-CT, leading to earlier treatment change. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center, observational study, patients with metastatic breast cancer who were response monitored with FDG-PET/CT alone or in combination with CE-CT had longer overall survival than patients monitored with CE-CT alone. Confirmation of these findings by further, preferably randomised clinical trials is warranted.

Management and outcomes after neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced breast cancer in older versus younger women.

AIM: This study examined treatment and survival among women with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) through comparative analyses of women ≥70 years and those <70 years. The primary endpoint was surgery with curative intention following neoadjuvant therapy. Secondary endpoints were 3-year disease free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), response rates, and adherence to treatment guidelines. METHODS: Patients diagnosed and treated for LABC between 2010 and 2019 at Odense University Hospital, Denmark, were eligible. Surgical information was dichotomized into surgery and no surgery for patients ≥70 years and <70 years, and treatment response was extracted from scan and pathology reports. Adherence to treatment guidelines was registered for the initiated neoadjuvant treatment, and 3-year OS and DFS were estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Log-rank-test. RESULTS: Of 210 women, 57/102 (55.9%) of those ≥70 years received surgery with curative intent compared with 103/108 (95.4%) of those <70 years. The main reason for omitting surgery was the patient's request. Fewer women ≥70 years received neoadjuvant therapy according to guidelines compared with their younger counterparts (63.7% versus 98.1%, p < 0.001), but treatment response for women who underwent surgery was similar in both groups. A non-significant difference in 3-year DFS and OS was observed between the groups. Three-year DFS was 80.5% and 73.3%, whereas 3-year OS was 89.6% and 88.7% for patients ≥70 years and <70 years, respectively. CONCLUSION: Among women with LABC, women ≥70 years were less likely to receive neoadjuvant therapy according to guidelines. Only half of the patients ≥70 years reached the goal of surgery with curative intent, with no difference in 3-year OS and DFS between age groups.

Effect of capecitabine as monotherapy for HER2 normal metastatic breast cancer.

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of capecitabine monotherapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) normal metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and PFS according to treatment line and estrogen receptor (ER) status. Patients who received capecitabine as monotherapy for HER2 normal MBC from 2010 to 2020 were included in this retrospective study. ER status, treatment line, number of treatments, and dates of progression and death were registered. PFS was defined from capecitabine initiation to progression or any cause of death, and OS until any cause of death. Among 162 patients receiving capecitabine, approx. 70% had ER-positive disease. They received a median of six cycles of capecitabine (range 2-45). The median PFS was 4.3 months, with no significant difference between treatment lines. When analyzing PFS according to ER status, a statistically significant difference was observed between those with ER-positive and ER-negative disease, with a median PFS of 5,3 months versus 2,5 months, respectively (p = 0.006). A similar trend was seen for overall survival, with a median OS of 14 months for all patients and 17.8 months versus 7.6 months for patients with ER-positive and ER-negative disease, respectively (p ≤ 0.0001). Patients with HER2 normal MBC receiving monotherapy capecitabine had a median PFS of 4.3 months, and a median OS of 14 months. PFS was consistent regardless of treatment line but differed significantly according to ER status.

Cost-effectiveness of 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT versus CE-CT for response monitoring in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a register-based comparative study.

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT compared to CE-CT for response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. The study included 300 biopsy-verified MBC patients treated at Odense University Hospital (Denmark). CE-CT was used in 144 patients, 83 patients underwent 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT, and 73 patients received a combination of both. Hospital resource-based costs (2007-2019) were adjusted to the 2019 level. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated by comparing average costs per patient and gained survival with CE-CT. During a median follow-up of 33.0 months, patients in the 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT group had more short admissions (median 6 vs. 2) and fewer overnight admissions (5 vs. 12) compared to the CE-CT group. The mean total cost per patient was €91,547 for CE-CT, €83,965 for 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT, and €165,784 for the combined group. The ICER for 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT compared to CE-CT was €-527/month, indicating gaining an extra month of survival at a lower cost (€527). 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT was more cost-effective in patients with favorable prognostic factors (oligometastatic or estrogen receptor-positive disease), while CE-CT was more cost-effective in poor prognosis patients (liver/lung metastases or performance status ≥ 2 at baseline). In conclusion, our study suggests that 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT is a cost-effective modality for response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer.

Clinical Impact of FDG-PET/CT Compared with CE-CT in Response Monitoring of Metastatic Breast Cancer.

We compared response categories and impacts on treatment decisions for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients that are response-monitored with contrast-enhanced computed-tomography (CE-CT) or fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT). A comparative diagnostic study was performed on MBC patients undergoing response monitoring by CE-CT (n = 34) or FDG-PET/CT (n = 31) at the Odense University Hospital (Denmark). The responses were assessed visually and allocated into categories of complete response (CR/CMR), partial response (PR/PMR), stable disease (SD/SMD), and progressive disease (PD/PMD). Response categories, clinical impact, and positive predictive values (PPV) were compared for follow-up scans. A total of 286 CE-CT and 189 FDG-PET/CT response monitoring scans were performed. Response categories were distributed into CR (3.8%), PR (8.4%), SD (70.6%), PD (15%), and others (2.1%) by CE-CT and into CMR (22.2%), PMR (23.8%), SMD (31.2%), PMD (18.5%), and others (4.4%) by FDG-PET/CT, revealing a significant difference between the groups (P < 0.001). PD and PMD caused changes of treatment in 79.1% and 60%, respectively (P = 0.083). PPV for CE-CT and FDG-PET/CT was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.72-0.97) and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.53-0.87), respectively (P = 0.17). FDG-PET/CT indicated regression of disease more frequently than CE-CT, while CE-CT indicated stable disease more often. FDG-PET/CT seems to be more sensitive than CE-CT for monitoring response in metastatic breast cancer.

[¹8F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET/computed tomography in breast cancer and gynecologic cancers: a literature review.

In this literature review, an update is provided on the role of [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET/computed tomography in different clinical settings of the 4 most frequent female-specific cancer types: breast, endometrial, ovarian, and cervical cancer. The most recent knowledge regarding primary diagnosis, staging, response evaluation, prognostic and predictive values, recurrence detection, and radiotherapy planning is evaluated, including, when clinically relevant, considerations with respect to the epidemiology, treatment, and course of the diseases.