Clinical outcome of patients with isolated central nervous system progression on first-line pertuzumab and trastuzumab treatment for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in a real-life cohort.

BACKGROUND: More than 10% of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) will develop Central Nervous System (CNS) metastases as first and isolated site of relapse on trastuzumab and pertuzumab first-line therapy. However, few clinical data are available to guide the best strategy in this setting. METHODS: Patients experiencing isolated CNS progression on trastuzumab and pertuzumab first-line therapy were retrospectively identified from the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) real-life database between 2008 and 2016. RESULTS: Among 995 patients treated with first-line trastuzumab and pertuzumab for HER2-positive mBC, 132 patients (13%) experienced isolated CNS progression with a median time of 12 months after mBC diagnosis. Twelves patients did not receive any treatment and were excluded from the analysis. Among the 120 patients considered, 76 (63%) received CNS-directed local therapy, 73 (60%) continued trastuzumab and pertuzumab, whereas 47 (39%) started another systemic treatment. After a median follow-up of 21 months, there was no difference in progression-free survival for patient who continued trastuzumab-pertuzumab or switched to another systemic treatment. In multivariate analysis, trastuzumab-pertuzumab continuation was associated with longer OS (HR 0,28 IC 95%: 0,14-0,54 p < 0,001). mOS was not reached (95% 37.6-NE) and was 23.2 months (95% CI 15.5-53.6) in patients who continued trastuzumab and pertuzumab therapy and in patients who switched for another systemic therapy, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this real-life cohort, trastuzumab-pertuzumab continuation after local treatment for isolated CNS progression did not negatively impact PFS and OS. Prospective trials and assessment of new strategies are warranted in this specific situation.

The predictive value of patient-reported outcomes on the impact of breast cancer treatment-related quality of life.

Purpose: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been widely used to measure breast cancer (BC) treatment outcomes. However, evidence is still limited on using routinely PROs to personalize treatment decision-making, including or not chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and radiotherapy. Using patient baseline PRO scores, we aimed to use PROs before treatment initiation to predict improvement or decline in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) due to treatment that they receive. Methods: In two French cancer sites, women with non-metastatic BC completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 and BREAST-Q questionnaires to assess their PROs at baseline and again at 6 months. The outcome measured was post-operative change in PROs with minimal important difference for QLQ-C30 domains. We performed multivariate ordinal logistic regression to estimate the incremental probability of post-operative PRO improvements and deteriorations depending upon treatment options and baseline HRQoL. Results: One hundred twenty-seven women completed questionnaires. Chemotherapy had significant negative impacts on Global health status (GHS) and on physical and social functioning. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy increased patient fatigue scores after adjusting for clinical factors (p< 0.01 and p< 0.05, respectively). The incremental probability of GHS deteriorations for chemotherapy was +0.3, +0.5, and +0.34 for patients with baseline GHS scores of 40, 70, and 100, respectively. This showed that different pre-treatment PROs might predict differential effects of chemotherapy on women change in HRQoL. Conclusion: Patients with different baseline PRO scores may experience dissimilar impacts from BC treatments on post-operative PROs in terms of improvements and deteriorations. Oncologists might decide to adapt the treatment option based on a given level of the negative impact. Future studies should concentrate on incorporating this information into routine clinical decision-making strategies to optimize the treatment benefit for patients.

Automatic Segmentation of Metastatic Breast Cancer Lesions on 18F-FDG PET/CT Longitudinal Acquisitions for Treatment Response Assessment.

Metastatic breast cancer patients receive lifelong medication and are regularly monitored for disease progression. The aim of this work was to (1) propose networks to segment breast cancer metastatic lesions on longitudinal whole-body PET/CT and (2) extract imaging biomarkers from the segmentations and evaluate their potential to determine treatment response. Baseline and follow-up PET/CT images of 60 patients from the EPICUREseinmeta study were used to train two deep-learning models to segment breast cancer metastatic lesions: One for baseline images and one for follow-up images. From the automatic segmentations, four imaging biomarkers were computed and evaluated: SULpeak, Total Lesion Glycolysis (TLG), PET Bone Index (PBI) and PET Liver Index (PLI). The first network obtained a mean Dice score of 0.66 on baseline acquisitions. The second network obtained a mean Dice score of 0.58 on follow-up acquisitions. SULpeak, with a 32% decrease between baseline and follow-up, was the biomarker best able to assess patients' response (sensitivity 87%, specificity 87%), followed by TLG (43% decrease, sensitivity 73%, specificity 81%) and PBI (8% decrease, sensitivity 69%, specificity 69%). Our networks constitute promising tools for the automatic segmentation of lesions in patients with metastatic breast cancer allowing treatment response assessment with several biomarkers.

Comparison of 4 Screening Methods for Detecting Fluoropyrimidine Toxicity Risk: Identification of the Most Effective, Cost-Efficient Method to Save Lives.

BACKGROUND: Fluoropyrimidines (FPs) carry around 20% risk of G3-5 toxicity and 0.2-1% risk of death, due to dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency. Several screening approaches exist for predicting toxicity, however there is ongoing debate over which method is best. This study compares 4 screening approaches. METHOD: 472 patients treated for colorectal, head-and-neck, breast, or pancreatic cancers, who had not been tested pre-treatment for FP toxicity risk, were screened using: DPYD genotyping (G); phenotyping via plasma Uracil (U); phenotyping via plasma-dihydrouracil/uracil ratio (UH2/U); and a Multi-Parametric Method (MPM) using genotype, phenotype, and epigenetic data. Performance was compared, particularly the inability to detect at-risk patients (false negatives). RESULTS: False negative rates for detecting G5 toxicity risk were 51.2%, 19.5%, 9.8% and 2.4%, for G, U, UH2/U and MPM, respectively. False negative rates for detecting G4-5 toxicity risk were 59.8%, 36.1%, 21.3% and 4.7%, respectively. MPM demonstrated significantly (p < 0.001) better prediction performance. CONCLUSION: MPM is the most effective method for limiting G4-5 toxicity. Its systematic implementation is cost-effective and significantly improves the risk-benefit ratio of FP-treatment. The use of MPM, rather than G or U testing, would avoid nearly 8,000 FP-related deaths per year globally (500 in France), and spare hundreds of thousands from G4 toxicity.

Survival Impact of Locoregional Treatment of the Primary Tumor in De Novo Metastatic Breast Cancers in a Large Multicentric Cohort Study: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Improvement in overall survival (OS) by locoregional treatment (LRT) of the primary tumor in de novo metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of LRT on OS in a large retrospective cohort of de novo MBC patients, with regard to immunohistochemical characteristics and pattern of metastatic dissemination. METHODS: We conducted a multicentric retrospective study of patients diagnosed with de novo MBC selected from the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics MBC database (NCT03275311) between 2008 and 2014. Overall, 4276 women were included in the study. LRT comprised either radiotherapy, surgery, or both. RESULTS: LRT was used in 40% of patients. Compared with no LRT, patients who received LRT were younger (p < 0.0001) and were more likely to have only one metastatic site (p < 0.0001) or bone-only metastases (p < 0.0001). LRT was associated with a significantly better OS based on landmark multivariate analysis at 1-year (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.76, p < 0.001). Similar results were observed in all sensitivity analyses, including propensity score matching. In subgroup analysis, LRT was associated with better OS in patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (61.6 vs. 45.9 months, p < 0.001) and HER2-positive tumors (77.2 vs. 52.6 months, p = 0.008), but not in triple-negative tumors (19 vs. 18.6 months, p = 0.54), and was also associated with a reduction in the risk of death in visceral metastatic patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LRT was associated with a significantly better OS in de novo MBC patients, including patients with visceral involvement at diagnosis; however, LRT did not impact OS in triple-negative MBC.

Cost of adverse events during treatment with everolimus plus exemestane or single-agent chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer in Western Europe.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment options for recurrent or progressive hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer include chemotherapy and everolimus plus exemestane (EVE + EXE). This study estimates the costs of managing adverse events (AEs) during EVE + EXE therapy and single-agent chemotherapy in Western Europe. METHODS: An economic model was developed to estimate the per patient cost of managing grade 3/4 AEs for patients who were treated with EVE + EXE or chemotherapies. AE rates for patients receiving EVE + EXE were collected from the phase III BOLERO-2 trial. AE rates for single-agent chemotherapy, capecitabine, docetaxel, or doxorubicin were collected from published clinical trial data. AEs with at least 2% prevalence for any of the treatments were included in the model. A literature search was conducted to obtain costs of managing each AE, which were then averaged across Western European countries (when available). Per patient costs for managing AEs among patients receiving different therapies were reported in 2012 euros (€). RESULTS: The EVE + EXE combination had the lowest average per patient cost of managing AEs (€730) compared to all chemotherapies during the first year of treatment (doxorubicin: €1230; capecitabine: €1721; docetaxel: €2390). The most costly adverse event among all patients treated with EVE + EXE was anemia (on average €152 per patient). The most costly adverse event among all patients treated with capecitabine, docetaxel, or doxorubicin was lymphocytopenia (€861 per patient), neutropenia (€821 per patient), and leukopenia (€382 per patient), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The current model estimates that AE management during the treatment of HR+ advanced breast cancer will cost one-half to one-third less for EVE + EXE patients than for chemotherapy patients. The consideration of AE costs could have important implications in the context of healthcare spending for advanced breast cancer treatment.

Assessment of circulating tumor cells and serum markers for progression-free survival prediction in metastatic breast cancer: a prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Circulating tumor cells (CTC) have been recently proposed as a new dynamic blood marker whose positivity at baseline is a prognostic factor and whose changes under treatment are correlated with progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic breast cancer patients. However, serum marker levels are also used for the same purpose, and no clear comparison has been reported to date. METHODS: The IC 2006-04 enrolled prospectively 267 metastatic breast cancer patients treated by first line chemotherapy and confirmed that CTC levels are an independent prognostic factor for PFS and overall survival (OS). A secondary pre-planned endpoint was to compare prospectively the positivity rates and the value of CTC (CellSearch®), of serum tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen 15.3 (CA 15-3), CYFRA 21-1), and of serum non-tumor markers (lactate deshydrogenase (LDH), alkaline phosphatase (ALP)) at baseline and under treatment for PFS prediction, independently from the other known prognostic factors, using univariate analyses and concordance indexes. RESULTS: A total of 90% of the patients had at least one elevated blood marker. Blood markers were correlated with poor performance status, high number of metastatic sites and with each other. In particular, CYFRA 21-1, a marker usually used in lung cancer, was elevated in 65% of patients. A total of 86% of patients had either CA 15-3 and/or CYFRA 21-1 elevated at baseline. Each serum marker was associated, when elevated at baseline, with a significantly shorter PFS. Serum marker changes during treatment, assessed either between baseline and week 3 or between baseline and weeks 6 to 9, were significantly associated with PFS, as reported for CTC. Concordance indexes comparison showed no clear superiority of any of the serum marker or CTC for PFS prediction. CONCLUSIONS: For the purpose of PFS prediction by measuring blood marker changes during treatment, currently available blood-derived markers (CTC and serum markers) had globally similar performances. Besides CEA and CA 15-3, CYFRA 21-1 is commonly elevated in metastatic breast cancer and has a strong prognostic value.