Dissecting the immune infiltrate of primary luminal B-like breast carcinomas in relation to age.

The impact of aging on the immune landscape of luminal breast cancer (Lum-BC) is poorly characterized. Understanding the age-related dynamics of immune editing in Lum-BC is anticipated to improve the therapeutic benefit of immunotherapy in older patients. To this end, here we applied the 'multiple iterative labeling by antibody neo-deposition' (MILAN) technique, a spatially resolved single-cell multiplex immunohistochemistry method. We created tissue microarrays by sampling both the tumor center and invasive front of luminal breast tumors collected from a cohort of treatment-naïve patients enrolled in the prospective monocentric IMAGE (IMmune system and AGEing) study. Patients were subdivided into three nonoverlapping age categories (35-45 = 'young', n = 12; 55-65 = 'middle', n = 15; ≥70 = 'old', n = 26). Additionally, depending on localization and amount of cytotoxic T lymphocytes, the tumor immune types 'desert' (n = 22), 'excluded' (n = 19), and 'inflamed' (n = 12) were identified. For the MILAN technique we used 58 markers comprising phenotypic and functional markers allowing in-depth characterization of T and B lymphocytes (T&B-lym). These were compared between age groups and tumor immune types using Wilcoxon's test and Pearson's correlation. Cytometric analysis revealed a decline of the immune cell compartment with aging. T&B-lym were numerically less abundant in tumors from middle-aged and old compared to young patients, regardless of the geographical tumor zone. Likewise, desert-type tumors showed the smallest immune-cell compartment and were not represented in the group of young patients. Analysis of immune checkpoint molecules revealed a heterogeneous geographical pattern of expression, indicating higher numbers of PD-L1 and OX40-positive T&B-lym in young compared to old patients. Despite the numerical decline of immune infiltration, old patients retained higher expression levels of OX40 in T helper cells located near cancer cells, compared to middle-aged and young patients. Aging is associated with important numerical and functional changes of the immune landscape in Lum-BC. © 2024 The Author(s). The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Camizestrant, a next-generation oral SERD, versus fulvestrant in post-menopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (SERENA-2): a multi-dose, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to endocrine therapies in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer is challenging. We aimed to assess the next-generation oral selective oestrogen receptor degrader (SERD) and complete oestrogen receptor antagonist, camizestrant, versus the first-approved SERD, fulvestrant, in post-menopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer. METHODS: SERENA-2 is an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial that is being conducted at 74 study centres across Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and North America. Female patients aged 18 years or older who were post-menopausal with histologically or cytologically confirmed metastastic or locoregional oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group or WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and disease recurrence or progression on at least one line of endocrine therapy, and no more than one previous endocrine therapy in the advanced setting. Patients were initially randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive oral camizestrant once daily at 75 mg, 150 mg, or 300 mg (until the 300 mg group was closed), or fulvestrant intramuscularly at 500 mg (per label). Randomisation was managed through an interactive web-based system and stratified by previous treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors and presence of liver and/or lung metastases. The primary objective was to determine clinical efficacy of camizestrant versus fulvestrant at each dose level using the primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival, per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1), assessed by intention to treat in all randomly assigned patients (full analysis set). No formal statistical comparison for the efficacy analysis of the camizestrant 300 mg dose versus fulvestrant was to be performed. Safety analyses included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04214288, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between May 11, 2020, and Aug 10, 2021, 240 patients were randomly assigned to receive camizestrant 75 mg (n=74), 150 mg (n=73), 300 mg (n=20), or fulvestrant (n=73), and were included in the full analysis set. All patients received at least one dose of study drug. Median follow-up was 16·6 months (IQR 12·9-19·4) for the camizestrant 75 mg group, 16·3 months (12·9-18·3) for the camizestrant 150 mg group, and 14·7 months (12·7-20·1) for the fulvestrant 500 mg group. Median progression-free survival was 7·2 months (90% CI 3·7-10·9) with camizestrant 75 mg, 7·7 months (5·5-12·9) with camizestrant 150 mg, and 3·7 months (2·0-6·0) with fulvestrant. The hazard ratio for camizestrant 75 mg versus fulvestrant was 0·59 (90% CI 0·42-0·82; p=0·017), and the hazard ratio for camizestrant 150 mg versus fulvestrant was 0·64 (0·46-0·89; p=0·0090). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 39 (53%) of 74 patients in the camizestrant 75 mg group, 49 (67%) of 73 patients in the camizestrant 150 mg group, 14 (70%) of 20 patients in the camizestrant 300 mg group, and 13 (18%) of 73 patients in the fulvestrant group. No single grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event occurred in more than two (3%) patients in any group. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in six (8%) patients in the camizestrant 75 mg group, seven (10%) patients in the camizestrant 150 mg group, two (10%) patients in the camizestrant 300 mg group, and four (5%) patients in the fulvestrant group. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Camizestrant at 75 and 150 mg showed a significant benefit in progression-free survival versus fulvestrant. These results support further development of camizestrant for the treatment of oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Reporting on patient's body mass index (BMI) in recent clinical trials for patients with breast cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of patients with breast cancer and obesity is increasing. While the therapeutic landscape of breast cancer has been expanding, we lack knowledge about the potential differential efficacy of most drugs according to the body mass index (BMI). Here, we conducted a systematic review on recent clinical drug trials to document the dosing regimen of recent drugs, the reporting of BMI and the possible exclusion of patients according to BMI, other adiposity measurements and/or diabetes (leading comorbidity of obesity). We further explored whether treatment efficacy was evaluated according to BMI. METHODS: A search of Pubmed and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed to identify phase I-IV trials investigating novel systemic breast cancer treatments. Dosing regimens and exclusion based on BMI, adiposity measurements or diabetes, documentation of BMI and subgroup analyses according to BMI were assessed. RESULTS: 495 trials evaluating 26 different drugs were included. Most of the drugs (21/26, 81%) were given in a fixed dose independent of patient weight. BMI was an exclusion criterion in 3 out of 495 trials. Patients with diabetes, the leading comorbidity of obesity, were excluded in 67/495 trials (13.5%). Distribution of patients according to BMI was mentioned in 8% of the manuscripts, subgroup analysis was performed in 2 trials. No other measures of adiposity/body composition were mentioned in any of the trials. Retrospective analyses on the impact of BMI were performed in 6 trials. CONCLUSIONS: Patient adiposity is hardly considered as most novel drug treatments are given in a fixed dose. BMI is generally not reported in recent trials and few secondary analyses are performed. Given the prevalence of patients with obesity and the impact obesity can have on pharmacokinetics and cancer biology, more attention should be given by investigators and study sponsors to reporting patient's BMI and evaluating its impact on treatment efficacy and toxicity.

Aging-accumulated methylmalonic acid serum levels at breast cancer diagnosis are not associated with distant metastases.

PURPOSE: Recent evidence suggests that age-accumulated methylmalonic acid (MMA) promotes breast cancer progression in mice. This study aims to investigate the association between baseline serum MMA concentrations in patients with breast cancer and the development of subsequent distant metastases. METHODS: We included 32 patients with early Luminal B-like breast cancer (LumB, median age 62.4y) and 52 patients with early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC, median age 50.5y) who developed distant metastases within 5 years. They were matched to an equal number of early breast cancer patients (median age 62.2y for LumB and 50.5y for TNBC) who did not develop distant metastases with at least 5 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Baseline serum MMA levels at breast cancer diagnosis showed a positive correlation with age (P < 0.001) and a negative correlation with renal function and vitamin B12 (all P < 0.02), but no statistical association was found with BMI or tumor stage (P > 0.6). Between matched pairs, no significant difference was observed in MMA levels, after adjusting for kidney function and age (P = 0.19). Additionally, in a mouse model, a significant decline in MMA levels was observed in the tumor-bearing group compared to the group without tumors before and after tumor establishment or at identical times for the control group (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Baseline serum MMA levels in patients with breast cancer are not correlated with secondary distant metastasis. Evidence in the mouse model suggests that the presence of a tumor perturbates MMA levels.

Radium-223 in women with hormone receptor-positive bone-metastatic breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy: pooled analysis of two international, phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Most women with advanced breast cancer have skeletal metastases. Radium-223 is an alpha-emitting radionuclide that selectively targets areas of bone metastases. METHODS: Two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of radium-223 were conducted in women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), bone-predominant metastatic breast cancer. All patients received endocrine therapy (ET), as a single agent of the investigator's choice (Study A) or exemestane + everolimus (Study B). Patients were randomized to receive radium-223 (55 kBq/kg) or placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for six doses. Accrual was halted following unblinded interim analyses per protocol amendments, and both studies were terminated. We report pooled analyses of symptomatic skeletal event-free survival (SSE-FS; primary endpoint), radiologic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS; secondary), and time to bone alkaline phosphatase (ALP) progression (exploratory). RESULTS: In total, 382 patients were enrolled, and 196 SSE-FS events (70% planned total) were recorded. Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) and nominal p values for radium-223 + ET versus placebo + ET were: SSE-FS 0.809 (0.610-1.072), p = 0.1389; rPFS 0.956 (0.759-1.205), p = 0.7039; OS 0.889 (0.660-1.199), p = 0.4410; and time to bone ALP progression 0.593 (0.379-0.926), p = 0.0195. Radium-223- or placebo-related treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 50.3% versus 35.1% of patients (grade 3/4: 25.7% vs. 8.5%), with fractures/bone-associated events in 23.5% versus 23.9%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HR+ bone-metastatic breast cancer, numeric differences favoring radium-223 + ET over placebo + ET for the primary SSE-FS endpoint were suggestive of efficacy, in line with the primary outcome measure used in the underlying phase 2 studies. No similar evidence of efficacy was observed for secondary progression or survival endpoints. Adverse events were more frequent with radium-223 + ET versus placebo + ET, but the safety profile of the combination was consistent with the safety profiles of the component drugs. Clinical trial registration numbers Study A: NCT02258464, registered October 7, 2014. Study B: NCT02258451, registered October 7, 2014.

Abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer (monarchE): results from a preplanned interim analysis of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy previously showed a significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2; also known as ERBB2)-negative, node-positive, high-risk, early breast cancer. Here, we report updated results from an interim analysis to assess overall survival as well as invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival with additional follow-up. METHODS: In monarchE, an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at a high risk of recurrence with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were recruited from 603 sites including hospitals and academic and community centres in 38 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive web-based response system (block size of 4), stratified by previous chemotherapy, menopausal status, and region, to receive standard-of-care endocrine therapy of physician's choice for up to 10 years with or without abemaciclib 150 mg orally twice a day for 2 years (treatment period). All therapies were administered in an open-label manner without masking. High-risk disease was defined as either four or more positive axillary lymph nodes, or between one and three positive axillary lymph nodes and either grade 3 disease or tumour size of 5 cm or larger (cohort 1). A smaller group of patients were enrolled with between one and three positive axillary lymph nodes and Ki-67 of at least 20% as an additional risk feature (cohort 2). This was a prespecified overall survival interim analysis planned to occur 2 years after the primary outcome analysis for invasive disease-free survival. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all treated patients. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03155997, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between July 17, 2017, and Aug 12, 2019, 5637 patients were randomly assigned (5601 [99·4%] were women and 36 [0·6%] were men). 2808 were assigned to receive abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy and 2829 were assigned to receive endocrine therapy alone. At a median follow-up of 42 months (IQR 37-47), median invasive disease-free survival was not reached in either group and the invasive disease-free survival benefit previously reported was sustained: HR 0·664 (95% CI 0·578-0·762, nominal p<0·0001). At 4 years, the absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival between the groups was 6·4% (85·8% [95% CI 84·2-87·3] in the abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy group vs 79·4% [77·5-81·1] in the endocrine therapy alone group). 157 (5·6%) of 2808 patients in the abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy group died compared with 173 (6·1%) of 2829 patients in the endocrine therapy alone group (HR 0·929, 95% CI 0·748-1·153; p=0·50). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (in 548 [19·6%] of 2791 patients receiving abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy vs 24 [0·9%] of 2800 patients in the endocrine therapy alone group), leukopenia (318 [11·4%] vs 11 [0·4%]), and diarrhoea (218 [7·8%] vs six [0·2%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 433 (15·5%) of 2791 patients receiving abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy versus 256 (9·1%) of 2800 receiving endocrine therapy. There were two treatment-related deaths in the abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy group (diarrhoea and pneumonitis) and none in the endocrine therapy alone group. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant abemaciclib reduces the risk of recurrence. The benefit is sustained beyond the completion of treatment with an absolute increase at 4 years, further supporting the use of abemaciclib in patients with high-risk hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. Further follow-up is needed to establish whether overall survival can be improved with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy in these patients. FUNDING: Eli Lilly.

Circulating biomarkers at diagnosis correlate with distant metastases of early luminal-like breast cancer.

There is an urgent need for new and better biomarker modalities to estimate the risk of recurrence within the luminal-like breast cancer (BC) population. Molecular diagnostic tests used in the clinic lack accuracy in identifying patients with early luminal BC who are likely to develop metastases. This study provides proof of concept that various liquid biopsy read-outs could serve as valuable candidates to build a multi-modal biomarker model distinguishing, already at diagnosis, between early metastasizing and non-metastasizing patients. All these blood biomarkers (chemokines, microRNAs, leukemia inhibitory factor, osteopontin, and serum-induced functional myeloid signaling responses) can be measured in baseline plasma/serum samples and could be added to the existing prognostic factors to improve risk stratification and more patient-tailored treatment in early luminal BC.

AMEERA-4: a randomized, preoperative window-of-opportunity study of amcenestrant versus letrozole in early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Window-of-opportunity (WOO) studies provide insights into the clinical activity of new drugs in breast cancer. METHODS: AMEERA-4 (NCT04191382) was a WOO study undertaken to compare the pharmacodynamic effects of amcenestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader, with those of letrozole in postmenopausal women with newly diagnosed, operable estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2-) breast cancer. Women were randomized (1:1:1) to receive amcenestrant 400 mg, amcenestrant 200 mg, or letrozole 2.5 mg once daily for 14 days before breast surgery. The primary endpoint was change in Ki67 between baseline and Day 15 (i.e., day of surgery). RESULTS: Enrollment was stopped early because of slow recruitment, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The modified intent-to-treat population consisted of 95 study participants with baseline and post-treatment Ki67 values, whereas the safety population included 104 participants who had received at least one dose of study medication. Relative change from baseline in Ki67 was - 75.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] - 81.9 to - 67.9) for amcenestrant 400 mg, - 68.2% (- 75.7 to - 58.4) for amcenestrant 200 mg, and - 77.7% (- 83.4 to - 70.0) for letrozole (geometric least-squares mean [LSM] estimates). Absolute change in ER H-score from baseline (LSM estimate) was - 176.7 in the amcenestrant 400 mg arm, - 202.9 in the amcenestrant 200 mg arm, and - 32.5 in the letrozole arm. There were no Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Both amcenestrant and letrozole demonstrated antiproliferative activity in postmenopausal women with previously untreated, operable ER+/HER2- breast cancer and had good overall tolerability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04191382 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04191382 . Registered 9 December 2019.

XENERA-1: a randomised double-blind Phase II trial of xentuzumab in combination with everolimus and exemestane versus everolimus and exemestane in patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and non-visceral disease.

BACKGROUND: Xentuzumab is a humanised monoclonal antibody that binds to IGF-1 and IGF-2, neutralising their proliferative activity and restoring inhibition of AKT by everolimus. This study evaluated the addition of xentuzumab to everolimus and exemestane in patients with advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, Phase II study was undertaken in female patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease who had received prior endocrine therapy with or without CDK4/6 inhibitors. Patients received a weekly intravenous infusion of xentuzumab (1000 mg) or placebo in combination with everolimus (10 mg/day orally) and exemestane (25 mg/day orally). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were randomised and 101 were treated (n = 50 in the xentuzumab arm and n = 51 in the placebo arm). The trial was unblinded early due to high rates of discordance between independent and investigator assessment of PFS. Per independent assessment, median PFS was 12.7 (95% CI 6.8-29.3) months with xentuzumab and 11.0 (7.7-19.5) months with placebo (hazard ratio 1.19; 95% CI 0.55-2.59; p = 0.6534). Per investigator assessment, median PFS was 7.4 (6.8-9.7) months with xentuzumab and 9.2 (5.6-14.4) months with placebo (hazard ratio 1.23; 95% CI 0.69-2.20; p = 0.4800). Tolerability was similar between the arms, with diarrhoea (33.3-56.0%), fatigue (33.3-44.0%) and headache (21.6-40.0%) being the most common treatment-emergent adverse events. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 hyperglycaemia was similar between the xentuzumab (2.0%) and placebo (5.9%) arms. CONCLUSIONS: While this study demonstrated that xentuzumab could be safely combined with everolimus and exemestane in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease, there was no PFS benefit with the addition of xentuzumab. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03659136. Prospectively registered, September 6, 2018.

Overall Survival with Ribociclib plus Fulvestrant in Advanced Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In an earlier analysis of this phase 3 trial, ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a greater benefit with regard to progression-free survival than fulvestrant alone in postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer. Here we report the results of a protocol-specified second interim analysis of overall survival. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either ribociclib or placebo in addition to fulvestrant as first-line or second-line treatment. Survival was evaluated by means of a stratified log-rank test and summarized with the use of Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: This analysis was based on 275 deaths: 167 among 484 patients (34.5%) receiving ribociclib and 108 among 242 (44.6%) receiving placebo. Ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a significant overall survival benefit over placebo plus fulvestrant. The estimated overall survival at 42 months was 57.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52.0 to 63.2) in the ribociclib group and 45.9% (95% CI, 36.9 to 54.5) in the placebo group, for a 28% difference in the relative risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.92; P = 0.00455). The benefit was consistent across most subgroups. In a descriptive update, median progression-free survival among patients receiving first-line treatment was 33.6 months (95% CI, 27.1 to 41.3) in the ribociclib group and 19.2 months (95% CI, 14.9 to 23.6) in the placebo group. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a significant overall survival benefit over placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. (Funded by Novartis; MONALEESA-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02422615.).

Pan-Cancer Detection and Typing by Mining Patterns in Large Genome-Wide Cell-Free DNA Sequencing Datasets.

BACKGROUND: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis holds great promise for non-invasive cancer screening, diagnosis, and monitoring. We hypothesized that mining the patterns of cfDNA shallow whole-genome sequencing datasets from patients with cancer could improve cancer detection. METHODS: By applying unsupervised clustering and supervised machine learning on large cfDNA shallow whole-genome sequencing datasets from healthy individuals (n = 367) and patients with different hematological (n = 238) and solid malignancies (n = 320), we identified cfDNA signatures that enabled cancer detection and typing. RESULTS: Unsupervised clustering revealed cancer type-specific sub-grouping. Classification using a supervised machine learning model yielded accuracies of 96% and 65% in discriminating hematological and solid malignancies from healthy controls, respectively. The accuracy of disease type prediction was 85% and 70% for the hematological and solid cancers, respectively. The potential utility of managing a specific cancer was demonstrated by classifying benign from invasive and borderline adnexal masses with an area under the curve of 0.87 and 0.74, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This approach provides a generic analytical strategy for non-invasive pan-cancer detection and cancer type prediction.

Randomized CLIO/BGOG-ov10 trial of olaparib monotherapy versus physician's choice chemotherapy in relapsed ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Comparison of olaparib (OLA) monotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum-sensitive (PSOC) or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). METHODS: Patients with measurable disease and ≥ 1 prior line of chemotherapy (CT) were randomized 2:1 to OLA (300 mg tablets, BID) or physician's choice CT.: for PSOC: Carboplatin-Pegylated-Liposomal-Doxorubicin (PLD) or Carboplatin-Gemcitabine; for PROC: PLD, Topotecan, Paclitaxel or Gemcitabine. RESULTS: 160 patients (60 with PSOC and 100 with PROC) were randomized 2:1 to OLA (n = 107) or CT (n = 53). Baseline characteristics were similar between both arms. Overall objective response rate (ORR) for OLA and CT were similar (24.3% (26/107) and 28.3% (15/53), respectively). Clinical benefit rate (≥ 12 weeks) was similar with 54.2% (58/107) and 56.6% (30/53), respectively. In PSOC, ORR was 35.0% (14/40) and 65.0% (13/20) for OLA and CT (p = 0.053); in PROC, ORR was 17.9% (12/67) and 6.1% (2/33) for OLA and CT (p = 0.134). ORR in heavily pretreated PROC (>4 prior lines) was 22.9% (8/35) with OLA versus 0% (0/14) for CT. ORR of 35.7% (5/14) and 13.2% (7/53) was observed in BRCA-mutated and -wildtype PROC cases, respectively. Median PFS in PROC was not significantly different with 2.9 months (95% CI 2.8-5.1 in the OLA group versus 3.8 months (95% CI 3.0-6.4) in the CT group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11 [95% CI 0.72-1.78]; log-rank p = 0.600). CONCLUSION: OLA monotherapy showed overall an equal response rate in relapsed ovarian cancer compared with CT. In PROC, ORR and TFST tended to be higher with OLA than with CT. In heavily pretreated patients (four lines or more) with PROC disease, OLA treatment seemed to be more effective than CT.

ROSALINE: a phase II, neoadjuvant study targeting ROS1 in combination with endocrine therapy in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast.

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is the most common histologic subtype of breast cancer after invasive ductal carcinoma (i.e., no special type [NST]). ILC differs from NST in clinical presentation, site-specific metastases and response to conventional therapies. Loss of E-cadherin protein expression, due to alterations in its encoding gene CDH1, is the most frequent oncogenic event in ILC. Synthetic lethality approaches have shown promising antitumor effects of ROS1 inhibitors in models of E-cadherin-defective breast cancer in in vivo studies and provide the rationale for testing their clinical activity in patients with ILC. Entrectinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting TRK, ROS1 and ALK tyrosine kinases. Here, the authors present ROSALINE (NCT04551495), a phase II study testing neoadjuvant entrectinib and endocrine therapy in women with estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative early ILC.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women worldwide. Breast cancer is not a unique disease, but rather a heterogeneous disease, with different subtypes. Lobular breast cancer is the second most common histologic subtype of breast cancer after ductal breast cancer. Lobular breast cancer has some peculiar characteristics that make it a distinct entity in the context of breast cancer. Nevertheless, few clinical studies so far have focused specifically on this subtype. ROSALINE is a clinical study aimed to test entrectinib, a new drug that showed promising activity in preliminary research studies, in combination with endocrine therapy in women with lobular breast cancer before surgery. Trial Registration Number: NCT04551495 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Alpelisib plus fulvestrant in PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer after a CDK4/6 inhibitor (BYLieve): one cohort of a phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Alpelisib, a PI3Kα-selective inhibitor and degrader, plus fulvestrant showed efficacy in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, PIK3CA-mutated advanced breast cancer in SOLAR-1; limited data are available in the post-cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor setting. BYLieve aimed to assess alpelisib plus endocrine therapy in this setting in three cohorts defined by immediate previous treatment; here, we report results from cohort A. METHODS: This ongoing, phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-comparative study enrolled patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer with tumour PIK3CA mutation, following progression on or after previous therapy, including CDK4/6 inhibitors, from 114 study locations (cancer centres, medical centres, university hospitals, and hospitals) in 18 countries worldwide. Participants aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less, with no more than two previous anticancer treatments and no more than one previous chemotherapy regimen, were enrolled in three cohorts. In cohort A, patients must have had progression on or after a CDK4/6 inhibitor plus an aromatase inhibitor as the immediate previous treatment. Patients received oral alpelisib 300 mg/day (continuously) plus fulvestrant 500 mg intramuscularly on day 1 of each 28-day cycle and on day 15 of cycle 1. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive without disease progression at 6 months per local assessment using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, in patients with a centrally confirmed PIK3CA mutation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03056755. FINDINGS: Between Aug 14, 2017, and Dec 17, 2019 (data cutoff), 127 patients with at least 6 months' follow-up were enrolled into cohort A. 121 patients had a centrally confirmed PIK3CA mutation. At data cutoff, median follow-up was 11·7 months (IQR 8·5-15·9). 61 (50·4%; 95% CI 41·2-59·6) of 121 patients were alive without disease progression at 6 months. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were hyperglycaemia (36 [28%] of 127 patients), rash (12 [9%]), and rash maculopapular (12 [9%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 33 (26%) of 127 patients. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: BYLieve showed activity of alpelisib plus fulvestrant with manageable toxicity in patients with PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, after progression on a CDK4/6 inhibitor plus an aromatase inhibitor. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer in premenopausal women: subgroup analysis from the MONARCH 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In MONARCH 2, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS, 16.4 vs 9.3 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.553) and overall survival (OS, 46.7 vs 37.3 months; HR 0.757) compared with placebo plus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive (HR-positive), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-negative) advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients who were endocrine therapy (ET) resistant, regardless of menopausal status. Here, we report findings in the premenopausal subgroup of the MONARCH 2 trial. METHODS: The premenopausal subgroup included patients with natural menstrual bleeding who received a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist at least 4 weeks prior to study treatment start date and for the entire study duration. Of the 669 patients enrolled in the MONARCH 2 trial, 114 were premenopausal (abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, n = 72; placebo plus fulvestrant, n = 42), and were included in this analysis. The primary objective was investigator-assessed PFS and secondary objectives were OS, objective response rate, and safety and tolerability. Exploratory analyses included time to second disease progression (PFS2), time to chemotherapy (TTC), and chemotherapy-free survival (CFS). RESULTS: At the primary objective cutoff (February 14, 2017), median PFS was not reached for the abemaciclib plus fulvestrant arm versus 10.52 months for the placebo plus fulvestrant arm (HR 0.415; 95% CI 0.246-0.698). At the pre-specified OS interim cutoff (20-June-2019), median PFS was 28.6 months in the abemaciclib plus fulvestrant arm compared with 10.26 months in the placebo plus fulvestrant arm (HR 0.477; 95% CI 0.302-0.755). A numerical OS benefit was observed with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant compared to fulvestrant alone (HR 0.689; 95% CI 0.379-1.252, median, not reached vs 47.3 months). Improvements were also observed for the exploratory outcomes of PFS2 (HR 0.599), TTC (HR 0.674), and CFS (HR 0.642) with the addition of abemaciclib to fulvestrant. The safety profile was generally consistent with results disclosed previously. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the premenopausal subgroup in the MONARCH 2 trial were consistent with the improved clinical outcomes observed in the intent-to-treat population. The analysis provides support for the use of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (with ovarian suppression) as an effective treatment option for premenopausal patients with HR+, HER2- ABC who are ET-resistant. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02107703. Registered April 08, 2014- Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02107703 .

A phase Ib/II study of xentuzumab, an IGF-neutralising antibody, combined with exemestane and everolimus in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Xentuzumab-a humanised IgG1 monoclonal antibody-binds IGF-1 and IGF-2, inhibiting their growth-promoting signalling and suppressing AKT activation by everolimus. This phase Ib/II exploratory trial evaluated xentuzumab plus everolimus and exemestane in hormone receptor-positive, locally advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer (LA/MBC). METHODS: Patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative LA/MBC resistant to non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors were enrolled. Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane were determined in phase I (single-arm, dose-escalation). In phase II (open-label), patients were randomised 1:1 to the RP2D of xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane or everolimus/exemestane alone. Randomisation was stratified by the presence of visceral metastases. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: MTD was determined as xentuzumab 1000 mg weekly plus everolimus 10 mg/day and exemestane 25 mg/day. A total of 140 patients were enrolled in phase II (70 to each arm). Further recruitment was stopped following an unfavourable benefit-risk assessment by the internal Data Monitoring Committee appointed by the sponsor. Xentuzumab was discontinued; patients could receive everolimus/exemestane if clinically indicated. Median PFS was 7.3 months (95% CI 3.3-not calculable) in the xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane group and 5.6 months (3.7-9.1) in the everolimus/exemestane group (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.57-1.65; P = 0.9057). In a pre-specified subgroup of patients without visceral metastases at screening, xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane showed evidence of PFS benefit versus everolimus/exemestane (hazard ratio 0.21 [0.05-0.98]; P = 0.0293). Most common any-cause adverse events in phase II were diarrhoea (29 [41.4%] in the xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane group versus 20 [29.0%] in the everolimus/exemestane group), mucosal inflammation (27 [38.6%] versus 21 [30.4%]), stomatitis (24 [34.3%] versus 24 [34.8%]), and asthenia (21 [30.0%] versus 24 [34.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of xentuzumab to everolimus/exemestane did not improve PFS in the overall population, leading to early discontinuation of the trial. Evidence of PFS benefit was observed in patients without visceral metastases when treated with xentuzumab/everolimus/exemestane, leading to initiation of the phase II XENERA™-1 trial (NCT03659136). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02123823 . Prospectively registered, 8 March 2013.

Clinical behavior of recurrent hormone receptor-positive breast cancer by adjuvant endocrine therapy within the Breast International Group 1-98 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Endocrine therapy resistance is a major cause of distant recurrence (DR) in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. This study evaluated differences in survival after DR in patients treated with different adjuvant endocrine therapy regimens in the Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 trial. METHODS: BIG 1-98 compared 5 years of adjuvant treatment among 4 arms: tamoxifen (T), letrozole (L), tamoxifen followed by letrozole (TL), and letrozole followed by tamoxifen (LT). After a median follow-up of 8.1 years, 911 of 8010 patients (T, 302; L, 285; TL, 170; and LT, 154) had DR as the site of first recurrence. Univariate and multivariate Cox analyses were performed to determine features associated with post-DR survival. RESULTS: The median follow-up time after DR was 59 months (interquartile range, 29-88 months). Among all patients with DR, 38.1% were 65 years old or older at enrollment, 61.9% had tumors larger than 2 cm, and 69.7% were node positive. Neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 35.6% of the patients. There was no difference in post-DR survival by treatment arm (median survival, 20.8 months for T, 17.9 months for L, 17.3 months for TL, and 20.8 months for LT; P = .21). In multivariate analysis, older patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.59) and patients with tumors larger than 2 cm (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.00-1.41), 4 or more positive nodes (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05-1.64), progesterone receptor (PR)-negative tumors (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02-1.52), or shorter disease-free survival (DFS) had significantly worse post-DR survival. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with adjuvant T, L, or their sequences was not associated with differences in survival after DR. Significant differences in survival were observed by age, primary tumor size, nodal and PR status, and DFS, and this suggests that traditional baseline high-risk features remain prognostic in the metastatic setting.

Safety and impact of dose reductions on efficacy in the randomised MONALEESA-2, -3 and -7 trials in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This pooled analysis of MONALEESA trials evaluated the safety of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy (RIB + ET) with a focus on dose reductions in first-line patients. METHODS: In the dose reduction analysis, data were pooled from MONALEESA-2 (all patients), MONALEESA-3 (patients receiving treatment as first-line ET) and MONALEESA-7 (patients receiving combination therapy with an NSAI as initial ET). Efficacy was analysed by ribociclib relative dose intensity (DI). Safety was analysed in all patients in the trials (except those receiving tamoxifen in MONALEESA-7) and those with/without ≥1 ribociclib dose reduction. RESULTS: Of 818 women who received first-line RIB + ET, 41.8% required ≥1 dose reduction due to AEs (most commonly, neutropenia). Median RIB relative DI in patients without and with dose reductions was 99.3% and 65.6% in MONALEESA-2, 98.4% and 67.8% in MONALEESA-3 and 98·0% and 66·3% in MONALEESA-7. Median PFS was 24.8, 24.9 and 29.6 months for patients who received ≤71% (30th percentile), 72-96% (60th percentile) and 97-100% (90th percentile) RIB relative DI, respectively. No new safety signals emerged in the pooled safety analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides reassuring data showing that the clinical benefit of RIB is preserved when dose modifications are undertaken to manage AEs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: MONALEESA-2 (NCT01958021) first posted October 8, 2013; MONALEESA-3 (NCT02422615) first posted April 21, 2015; MONALEESA-7 (NCT02278120) first posted October 29, 2014.

The efficacy and safety of enzalutamide with trastuzumab in patients with HER2+ and androgen receptor-positive metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Androgen receptor (AR) expression occurs in up to 86% of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancers. In vitro, AR inhibitors enhance antitumor activity of trastuzumab, an anti-HER2 antibody, in trastuzumab-resistant HER2+ cell lines. This open-label, single-arm, phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide, an AR-signaling inhibitor, in patients with advanced HER2+ AR+ breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab. METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable or non-measurable evaluable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status ≤ 1, no history of brain metastases, and previously received ≥ 1 anti-HER2 regimen for advanced disease. Patients received 160 mg oral enzalutamide daily and 6 mg/kg intravenous trastuzumab every 21 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end point was clinical benefit rate at 24 weeks (CBR24); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 103 women were enrolled [median age 60 years (range 34-83)]; 62% had received ≥ 3 lines of prior anti-HER2 therapy. CBR24, comprising patients with confirmed partial responses (5%) and durable stable disease at 24 weeks (19%), was 24% in the efficacy evaluable set (n = 89). CBR24 did not seem related to AR-expression levels or hormone receptor status. Median PFS was 3.4 months (95% confidence interval 2.0-3.8). Overall, 97 (94%) patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), with fatigue most common (34%). Dyspnea (4%) and malignant neoplasm progression (3%) were the only TEAEs grade ≥ 3 reported in ≥ 3 patients. 22 patients (21%) reported serious TEAEs. Four patients (4%) experienced fatal, non-drug-related TEAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide plus trastuzumab was well tolerated, and a subset of patients in this heavily pretreated population had durable disease control. Determination of biomarkers is needed to identify patients most likely to benefit from this combination. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV NUMBER: NCT02091960.

Cumulative incidence of cardiovascular events under tamoxifen and letrozole alone and in sequence: a report from the BIG 1-98 trial.

BACKGROUND: Compared to tamoxifen, adjuvant treatment with aromatase inhibitors improves disease outcomes of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. In the international, randomized, double-blind BIG 1-98 trial, 8010 women were randomized to receive tamoxifen, letrozole, or sequential use of the agents for 5 years. With a focus on switching between agents, we investigated cardiovascular events over the entire 5-year treatment period. METHODS: Of the 6182 patients enrolled, 6144 started trial treatment and were included in this analysis. Adverse events occurring during study treatment until 30 days after cessation were considered. Eight cardiovascular event types were defined. Cumulative incidence of events were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, without consideration for competing events. Multivariable Cox models estimated hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pairwise comparisons of treatment arms. RESULTS: While on study treatment, 6.5% of patients (n = 397) had any cardiac events reported; for 2.4%, the event was grades 3-5, of which 11 (0.2%) were grade 5. Letrozole monotherapy was associated with higher risk of grade 1-5 ischemic heart disease (HR = 1.81; 95% CI, 1.06-3.08) compared with tamoxifen monotherapy. Patients assigned sequential tamoxifen →letrozole (HR = 1.59; 95% CI, 0.92-2.74) or sequential letrozole → tamoxifen (HR = 1.20; 95% CI, 0.68-2.14) showed a lesser degree of risk elevation. Patients assigned to tamoxifen-containing regimens had significantly higher risk of grade 1-5 thromboembolic events (tamoxifen monotherapy HR = 2.10; 95% CI, 1.42-3.12; tamoxifen → letrozole HR = 1.96; 95% CI, 1.32-2.92; letrozole → tamoxifen HR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.03-2.35) as compared with patients assigned letrozole alone. CONCLUSION: When initiating or switching between adjuvant endocrine treatments in postmenopausal patients, age and medical history, with special attention to prior cardiovascular events, should be balanced with expected benefit of the treatment.