First-line real-world treatment patterns and survival outcomes in women younger or older than 40 years with metastatic breast cancer in the real-life multicenter French ESME cohort.

AIM: To describe first-line treatment patterns, overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) in young women (<40) with metastatic breast cancer (mBC), as compared to women aged 40-69. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on adult women diagnosed with mBC (2008-2017) were extracted from the ESME mBC database (NCT03275311) which includes consecutive patients starting first-line metastatic treatment in one of the 18 French Comprehensive cancer centers. We reported first-line therapeutic strategy and prognostic factors of OS and rwPFS for women aged < 40 and 40-69. RESULTS: In total, 14,897 mBC women were included (1512 aged <40). HR+ /HER2- mBC was the most frequent subtype. First-line treatment differed between young patients and older ones for HR+ /HER2- and Triple Negative (TN) mBC. Median OS for women aged < 40 and 40-69, respectively, was 46.9 and 46.2 months for HR+ /HER2- mBC; 13.5 and 15.2 for TN mBC; and, 60.7 and 55.1 for HER2 + mBC. Median rwPFS under first line treatment was 11.6 and 11.9 months for HR+ /HER2- in women aged < 40 and 40-69, respectively; 5.5 and 5.9 for TN, and, 13.3 and 12.9 for HER2 + . Factors associated with shorter OS and rwPFS were similar for both women aged < 40 and 40-69 and included ≥ 3 metastatic sites, visceral metastases, and longer MFI, with time-varying effects observed for several prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: Young women presented more frequently with TN and HER2 + subtypes and aggressive mBC than women aged 40-69 did. Prognostic factors of OS and rwPFS were quite similar between age groups and mBC subtypes.

Early Locoregional Breast Surgery and Survival in de novo Metastatic Breast Cancer in the Multicenter National ESME Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the impact of local surgery performed during the year after MBC diagnosis on patients' outcomes from a large reallife cohort. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Locoregional treatment for patients with MBC at the time of diagnosis remains debated. METHODS: Women with newly diagnosed, de novo stage IV MBC and who started MBC treatment between January 2008 and December 2014 in one of the 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centers were included (NCT03275311). The impact of local surgery performed during the first year on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was evaluated by the Cox proportional hazards model in a 12 month-landmark analysis. RESULTS: Out of 16,703 patients in the ESME database, 1977 had stage IV MBC at diagnosis, were alive and progression-free at 12 months and eligible for this study. Among them, 530 (26.8%) had received primary breast cancer surgery within 12 months. A greater proportion of patients who received surgery had less than 3 metastatic sites than the no-surgery group (90.8% vs 78.2%, P < 0.0001). Surgery within 12 months was associated with treatment with chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapy (89.1% vs 69.6%, P < 0.0001) and locoregional radiotherapy (81.7% vs 32.5%, P < 0.0001). Multivariable analyses showed that surgery performed within 12 months was associated with longer OS and PFS (adjusted HR [95%CI] = 0.75 [0.61-0.92] and 0.72 [0.63-0.83], respectively), which were also affected by pattern and number of metastatic sites, histological subtype, and age. CONCLUSIONS: In the large ESME cohort, surgery within 1 year after de novo MBC diagnosis was associated with a significantly better OS and PFS.

Comparison of Management and Outcomes in ERBB2-Low vs ERBB2-Zero Metastatic Breast Cancer in France.

Importance: ERBB2-low (ie, ERBB2 immunohistochemistry score of 1+ or 2+ in the absence of ERBB2 gene amplification) breast cancer (BC) is a new entity, with emerging dedicated treatments. Little is known about its prognosis and response to conventional therapy compared with ERBB2-zero breast tumors (ie, those with an immunohistochemistry score of 0). Objective: To compare the outcomes for patients with ERBB2-low metastatic BC (MBC) with those of patients with ERBB2-zero MBC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted from the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics MBC platform and included patients with MBC treated between 2008 and 2016 in 18 French comprehensive cancer centers. The data analysis was conducted from July 16, 2020, to April 1, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was overall survival (OS), and the secondary outcome was progression-free survival under first-line treatments (PFS1). Results: The median (range) age was 60.0 (22.0-103.0) years. Among 15 054 patients with MBC, 4671 (31%) had ERBB2-low MBC and 10 383 (69%) had ERBB2-zero MBC. The proportion of ERBB2-low cancers was higher among patients with hormone receptor-positive MBC than those with hormone receptor-negative disease (4083 patients [33.0%] vs 588 patients [21.0%]). With a median follow-up of 49.5 months (95% CI, 48.6-50.4 months), the median OS of the ERBB2-low group was 38.0 months (95% CI, 36.4-40.5 months) compared with 33.9 months (95% CI, 32.9-34.9 months) for the ERBB2-zero group (P < .001). After adjustment for age, visceral metastases, number of metastatic sites, de novo disease, period of care, and hormone receptor status, patients with ERBB2-low MBC had slightly better OS compared with patients with ERBB2-zero MBC (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99; P = .02). In contrast, PFS1 did not differ by ERBB2 status (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.02; P = .45). No significant differences in OS and PFS1 were observed in multivariate analyses by hormone receptor status and types of frontline treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large cohort study, patients with ERBB2-low MBC had a slightly better OS than those with completely ERBB2-zero tumors, but identical PFS1, which could help guide treatment selection.

Survival and risk of COVID-19 after SARS-COV-2 vaccination in a series of 2391 cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are at high risk of severe or lethal COVID-19. The impact of SARS-COV-2 vaccination on the risk of developing COVID-19 was investigated in an exhaustive series of patients from a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: This is a study of the exhaustive population of 2391 cancer patients who were prescribed SARS-COV-2 vaccination until 09/21. Patient characteristics, documented SARS-COV-2 infection with RT-PCR, and survival were collected. The primary endpoint was the rate of COVID-19 after vaccination. Secondary endpoints included risk factors to develop COVID-19 after vaccination, with a comparison with the cohort of vaccinated health care workers (HCW), and risk factors for death. RESULTS: From January to September 2021, among 2391 patients with cancer under active treatment in whom a SARS-COV-2 vaccine was prescribed, 659 (28%), 1498 (63%) and 139 (6%) received 1, 2, and 3 doses, respectively. Ninety five patients received a single dose of vaccine after a previous COVID-19. Two thousand two hundred eighty five health care workers (HCW) received one (N = 17, 0.7%), 2-3 (N = 2026, 88.7%) vaccine doses and one dose after COVID-19 (N = 242, 10.6%). With a median follow-up of 142 and 199 days for patients and HCW, respectively. Thirty nine (1.6%) patients and 35 (1.5%) HCW developed COVID-19 after vaccination. Six of 39 cancer patients and no HCW died because ofCOVID-19 within 50 days after diagnosis. Independent risk factors for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients were age, single dose of vaccine without previous COVID-19 and anti-CD20 treatment in the last three months. Independent risk factors for death included metastatic disease, gender, cancer type, but also documented COVID-19 before vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving two or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine have reduced risk of COVID-19. The risk of death of vaccinated cancer patients presenting COVID-19 remains high. COVID-19 before vaccination is associated with an increased overall risk of death.

Efficacy of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) and lapatinib after dual HER2 inhibition with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in patient with metastatic breast cancer: Retrospective data from a French multicenter real-life cohort.

PURPOSE: Trastuzumab-emtansine (T-DM1), as well as lapatinib plus capecitabine were proven effective in two Phase III studies, following first-line trastuzumab plus a taxane. The introduction of dual HER2 blockade by trastuzumab and pertuzumab as first-line has positioned T-DM1 into second-line, and lapatinib plus capecitabine beyond, without formal evaluation of these strategies. METHODS: ESME Data Platform (NCT03275311) included individual data from all patients aged ≥18 years, in whom first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) was initiated between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2016 in one of the 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centers. The efficacy of T-DM1 and lapatinib plus capecitabine combination, following double blockade associating trastuzumab and pertuzumab were evaluated in this national real-life database. Eligibility criteria were: female, MBC, HER2+ tumor, first-line taxane-based chemotherapy and dual HER2-blockage by trastuzumab plus pertuzumab. Cohort A received second-line T-DM1, and Cohort B second-line T-DM1 and third or fourth-line lapatinib plus capecitabine. RESULTS: Cohort A comprised 233 patients, and Cohort B 47 patients. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.1 months in Cohort A and 4.6 months in Cohort B. Median overall survival were 36.7 months and 12.9 months, respectively. PFS was significantly dependent on the preceding treatment line's duration. In cohort A, HER2 expression status was a significant predictive factor of PFS. CONCLUSION: First-line trastuzumab plus pertuzumab do not markedly diminish T-DM1's efficacy in second-line. Similarly, sequential treatment with trastuzumab plus pertuzumab then T-DM1 does not noticeably modify the efficacy of lapatinib plus capecitabine.

Progression-free survival on endocrine therapy, before or after chemotherapy, in hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: A major question when treating HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is whether early introduction of chemotherapy (CT) increases endocrine resistance. We aimed to describe progression-free survival (PFS) under first endocrine therapy (ET) depending on whether given before or after CT in a large nationwide cohort, in the pre-CDK era. METHODS: The real-life retrospective ESME database includes all patients with MBC whose first-line treatment was initiated between 2008 and 2014 in one of the 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centres. Our primary objective was to compare PFS from start of first ET in patients with HR+/HER2- MBC who received ET or CT first. RESULTS: We identified 6293 patients who received at least one ET line during their first two therapeutic lines for MBC. As first-line therapy, 3832 (60.9%) received ET alone (ET1 1st group), whilst 2461 (39.1%) received CT, including 2024 patients (32.2%) with maintenance ET after CT (ET1 after CT group). Median PFS under first ET was 12.4 months (95% CI 11.9-13.1) in ET 1st group vs. 12.6 months in ET1 after CT group (95% CI 12.1-13.4), HR 0.96 (95% CI 0.90-1.01, P = 0.1277). CONCLUSIONS: PFS under first ET appears identical whether prescribed before or after chemotherapy. These data suggest chemotherapy does not promote endocrine resistance.

Aspects cliniques : Cancers HER2 et atteinte du système nerveux central, que faire en 2021 ?: Central nervous system metastases from HER2 positive breast cancers: what to do in 2021?

Metastatic breast cancer is the second most common cause of brain metastasis (BM), and this problem is particularly marked for the amplified HER2 subtype (HER2+), with a cumulative incidence reaching up to 49 % in the ER-/HER2+ subgroup. Literature review shows that therapeutic progress has been major since the marketing of systemic anti-HER2+ treatments, with life expectancies now relatively unaffected by brain development. The recommended treatments are, on the one hand, specific treatment for brain development and, on the other hand, appropriate systemic treatment. Regarding local treatments, we will always favor surgery when possible, especially for large metastases, and stereotaxic radiotherapy, possibly iterative. One should be wary of whole brain irradiation which has never been shown to improve overall survival, but which is clearly associated with more cognitive toxicities. All the systemic anti-HER2 treatments currently on the market have shown efficacy on BM from HER2+ breast cancer and must therefore be chosen above all on the basis of their potential activity on the systemic disease at the time of cerebral evolution. If BM evolution happen without concomitant systemic progression, and local treatment can control it, it is not recommended to change the current medical treatment. Finally, randomized clinical studies opened to patients with active brain disease are starting to be published. The first of them showed the benefit of the triple combination tucatinib-trastuzumab-capecitabine in this context.

Second primary cancers: a retrospective analysis of real world data using the enhanced medical research engine ConSoRe in a French comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Second primary cancers (SPC) account for 18% of all cancers. We used the enhanced medical/health data mining tool ConSoRe to search aggregated data, analyze electronic patient records (EPR), and better characterize patients with SPC. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used ConSoRe to identify EPRs from patients with SPC referred to the regional cancer center Leon Bérard from 1993 to 2017, and examined characteristics of patients with SPC, frequencies of first primary cancer (FPC) localization in the global population of patients with SPC, and time to SPC. Data set was extracted on January 1, 2018. RESULTS: Among 296,530 EPRs, we identified 157,187 patients with FPC, including 13,002 (8%) patients with SPC. Between 2000 and 2010, the rate of SPC was 34%, and 52% of SPC were identified in the last years (2010-2017). In men, main cancers were head and neck cancer, lymphoma, and prostate carcinoma accounting for 15.6%, 12.8%, and 10.5% of FPC, while the three most common SPC were head and neck cancer (13.2%), lung cancer (11.8%) and lymphoma (9.2%). In women, breast cancers, lymphoma, and skin cancers accounted for 48.8%, 8%, and 5.1% of first cancers, and for 31.1%, 7% and 6% of SPC. CONCLUSION: The data mining tool ConSoRe contributes to access to real world data, and to better characterize patients with SPC. Expanding such approach to any comprehensive center will allow a global overview of the follow-up of patients with cancer, and help to improve long-term management and adapt surveillance.

Palliative care delivery according to age in 12,000 women with metastatic breast cancer: Analysis in the multicentre ESME-MBC cohort 2008-2016.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) often require inpatient palliative care (IPC). However, mounting evidence suggests age-related disparities in palliative care delivery. This study aimed to assess the cumulative incidence function (CIF) of IPC delivery, as well as the influence of age. METHODS: The national ESME (Epidemio-Strategy-Medical-Economical)-MBC cohort includes consecutive MBC patients treated in 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centres. ICD-10 palliative care coding was used for IPC identification. RESULTS: Our analysis included 12,375 patients, 5093 (41.2%) of whom were aged 65 or over. The median follow-up was 41.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 40.5-42.5). The CIF of IPC was 10.3% (95% CI, 10.2-10.4) and 24.8% (95% CI, 24.7-24.8) at 2 and 8 years, respectively. At 2 years, among triple-negative patients, young patients (<65 yo) had a higher CIF of IPC than older patients after adjusting for cancer characteristics, centre and period (65+/<65: ß = -0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.01). Among other tumour sub-types, older patients received short-term IPC more frequently than young patients (65+/<65: ß = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03). At 8 years, outside large centres, IPC was delivered less frequently to older patients adjusted to cancer characteristics and period (65+/<65: ß = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.06 to -0.01). CONCLUSION: We found a relatively low CIF of IPC and that age influenced IPC delivery. Young triple-negative and older non-triple-negative patients needed more short-term IPCs. Older patients diagnosed outside large centres received less long-term IPC. These findings highlight the need for a wider implementation of IPC facilities and for more age-specific interventions.

Contemporary outcomes of metastatic breast cancer among 22,000 women from the multicentre ESME cohort 2008-2016.

AIM: Real-world data inform the outcome comparisons and help the development of new therapeutic strategies. To this end, we aimed to describe the full characteristics and outcomes in the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) cohort, a large national contemporary observational database of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: Women aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed MBC and who initiated MBC treatment between January 2008 and December 2016 in one of the 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centers (N = 22,109) were included. We assessed the full patients' characteristics, first-line treatments, overall survival (OS) and first-line progression-free survival, as well as updated prognostic factors in the whole cohort and among the 3 major subtypes: hormone receptor positive and HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-, n = 13,656), HER2-positive (HER2+, n = 4017) and triple-negative (n = 2963) tumours. RESULTS: The median OS of the whole cohort was 39.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 38.7-40.3). Five-year OS was 33.8%. OS differed significantly between the 3 subtypes (p < 0.0001) with a median OS of 43.3 (95% CI, 42.5-44.5) in HR+/HER2-; 50.1 (95% CI, 47.6-53.1) in HER2+; and 14.8 months (95% CI, 14.1-15.5) in triple-negative subgroups, respectively. Beyond performance status, the following variables had a constant significant negative prognostic impact on OS in the whole cohort and among subtypes: older age at diagnosis of metastases (except for the triple-negative subtype), metastasis-free interval between 6 and 24 months, presence of visceral metastases and number of metastatic sites ≥ 3. CONCLUSIONS: The ESME program represents a unique large-scale real-life cohort on MBC. This study highlights important situations of high medical need within MBC patients. DATABASE REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT032753.

Assessment of the efficacy of successive endocrine therapies in hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: a real-life multicentre national study.

BACKGROUND: For luminal metastatic breast cancer (MBC), endocrine therapy (ET) is the recommended initial treatment before chemotherapy. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of multiple ET lines in a real-life study. METHODS: The Breast Cancer Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) project analysed data from all patients with systemic treatment for MBC initiated between 2008 and 2014 in one of the 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centres. The primary end-point was the successive progression-free survival (PFS) evaluation. RESULTS: The ESME research programme included 9921 patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negative (HER2-) MBC. Before any chemotherapy, 4195 (43.4%), 1252 (29.8%) and 279 (6.6%) patients received one, two or three ET ± targeted therapy, respectively. The median PFS for first-, second- and third-line ET ± targeted therapy was 11.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.8-12.1), 5.8 (95% CI, 5.3-6.1) and 5.5 (95% CI, 4.6-6.3) months, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, time from diagnosis to metastatic recurrence (P < 0.0001), presence of symptoms at metastatic relapse (P = 0.01), number of metastatic sites (P = 0.0003) and their localisation (P < 0.0001) were prognostic factors for PFS1. Duration of previous PFS was the only prognostic factor for subsequent PFS (10% threshold). Ten percent of the patients showed long-term response to ET, with a total treatment duration before chemotherapy ≥43.6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Median PFS in our HR+/HER2- real-life cohort is similar to median first-line PFS reported in clinical trials, regardless of ET used as second- and third-line treatment. Despite the international consensus on early initiation of ET, the latter is not prescribed in most of the cases. Patients with a low tumour burden may achieve prolonged response on ET.

Feasibility of an exercise and nutritional intervention for weight management during adjuvant treatment for localized breast cancer: the PASAPAS randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Lack of physical activity (PA), weight gain, and overweight have been associated with increased risk of recurrence and mortality after breast cancer diagnosis. We evaluated the feasibility of implementing an individualized exercise program and nutritional counseling during adjuvant treatment of localized invasive breast cancer. METHODS: Sixty-one patients eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to receive a 6-month program of weekly aerobic exercises associated with nutritional counseling (n = 41) or usual care with nutritional counseling (n = 20, one withdrawal). The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients compliant with two weekly supervised sessions and their overall adherence (i.e., proportion of supervised and unsupervised sessions completed versus planned sessions). RESULTS: Ten percent of patients in the intervention group were compliant with the two weekly supervised sessions for 6 months, but the overall median adherence rate was 85% of supervised and non-supervised sessions completed. Non-adherence was mainly due to intrinsic reasons (medical, organizational, psychological barriers). Adherence was positively associated with education and baseline PA level and inversely associated with baseline weight and tumor grade. No statistically significant benefits were observed in the intervention group, even if overall PA level and body composition improved and anthropometrics were maintained over time (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was good adherence with the 6-month exercise program during adjuvant treatment for breast cancer, despite poor compliance to twice-weekly supervised sessions. This study highlights the need for flexible exercise modalities and innovative experimental design to reach patients who would most adhere and benefit from intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01331772. Registered 8 April 2011, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01331772?term=pasapas&rank=1.

UCBG 2-08: 5-year efficacy results from the UNICANCER-PACS08 randomised phase III trial of adjuvant treatment with FEC100 and then either docetaxel or ixabepilone in patients with early-stage, poor prognosis breast cancer.

PURPOSE: UNICANCER-PACS08 compared adjuvant FEC (5-FU; epirubicin; cyclophosphamide) then docetaxel to FEC then ixabepilone in poor prognosis early breast cancer (BC). We evaluated whether replacing docetaxel with ixabepilone would increase 5-year disease-free survival (DFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or oestrogen receptor (ER)+/progesterone receptor (PR)-/HER2- BC patients were randomised to receive standard FEC (3 cycles) followed by 3 cycles of either docetaxel (100 mg/m2) or ixabepilone (40 mg/m2). Radiotherapy was mandatory after conservative surgery; ER+ patients received endocrine therapy. RESULTS: Seven hundred sixty-two patients were enrolled between October 2007 and September 2010. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. Median follow-up was 66.7 months. Median DFS was not reached; 5-year DFS rate was 76% with docetaxel and 79% with ixabepilone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58-1.10; p = 0.175). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached; 5-year OS rate was 86% versus 84% (HR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.66-1.42; p = 0.897). TNBC patients treated with ixabepilone had a 23% lower risk of relapse compared to docetaxel (HR for DFS = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.53-1.11; p = 0.168). DFS was longer with ixabepilone than docetaxel in patients with grade II-III lymphocytic infiltration (HR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.29-1.05; p = 0.063). All patients experienced ≥1 adverse events (AEs): 75% reported grade III-IV AEs and two (<1%) had grade V AEs (both with neutropenia and infection receiving ixabepilone). CONCLUSION: After adjuvant FEC, ixabepilone was comparable to docetaxel for treating poor prognosis early BC patients. The benefit of ixabepilone in subgroups (patients with TNBC and grade II-III lymphocytic infiltration) requires further evaluation.

Optimal duration of adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk node-negative (N-) breast cancer patients: 6-year results of the prospective randomised multicentre phase III UNICANCER-PACS 05 trial (UCBG-0106).

PURPOSE: Optimal duration of adjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer remained to be investigated rigorously for the standard regimens in widespread use in North America (doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide, AC) and Europe (5-fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide, FEC). Whether six cycles of FEC 100 present an advantage, or not, compared with only four cycles was tested directly in a phase III prospective multicentre trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2002 and 2006, 1515 women between 18 and 65°years of age, with node negative N(-) high-risk early-stage breast cancer, were included in the study following breast surgery and axillary lymph node dissection or procedure by sentinel node technique. Inclusion in the study required tumour size T ≥ 1 cm and at least one of the high-risk factors: T > 2 cm, negative oestrogen receptor/progesterone receptor (ER- and PR-), Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR) grade II or III and age ≤ 35°years. Patients were randomly assigned to either six FEC 100 (Arm A) or four FEC 100 (Arm B). The trial was powered to detect an absolute difference ≥6% in disease-free survival (DFS) at 5°years. RESULTS: At 6.1°years median follow-up, with 91 (12%) events recorded in Arm A versus 106 (14%) in Arm B, no statistically significant risk increase was associated with four versus six FEC 100: DFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.18; CI 95% [0.89-1.56], P = .24) and overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.39; CI 95% [0.91-2.13], P = .12). CONCLUSION: Differences in chemotherapy duration did not induce notably different outcomes in our cohort of high-risk patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: NCT00055679, Agence National de Sécurité du Médicament (ANSM) - France.

Bevacizumab plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with HER2-negative inflammatory breast cancer (BEVERLY-1): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer improves progression-free survival and the proportion of patients achieving pathological complete response. In the BEVERLY-1 (UCBG-0802) trial we aimed to assess the addition of bevacizumab to neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with HER2-negative inflammatory breast cancer. METHODS: We did this phase 2, single-arm trial at 20 hospitals in France. We enrolled women aged 18 years or older who had non-metastatic HER2-negative inflammatory breast cancer. Patients underwent 3-week treatment cycles, receiving neoadjuvant intravenous fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2)), epirubicin (100 mg/m(2)), cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m(2)), and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) during cycles 1-4, then docetaxel (100 mg/m(2)) and bevacizumab during cycles 5-8. 2-4 weeks after surgery, patients received adjuvant radiotherapy, hormone therapy (if they had a hormone receptor-positive tumour), and adjuvant intravenous bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response in breast and axillary lymph nodes after neoadjuvant treatment, determined after centralised review in accordance with Sataloff classification and assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Our analysis of toxic effects included all patients who received at least one dose of bevacizumab. The trial is complete and follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00820547. FINDINGS: Between Jan 16, 2009, and Sept 8, 2010, we enrolled 101 patients, one of whom withdrew consent before treatment, leaving 100 patients in the primary endpoint analysis. After neoadjuvant therapy, 19 (19% [95% CI 12-28]; p=0·16) of 100 patients achieved a pathological complete response according to centralised review. The most frequent grade 3-4 events during the neoadjuvant phase were neutropenia (89 [89%] of 100 patients), febrile neutropenia (37 [37%]), and mucositis (23 [23%]) and during the adjuvant phase the most frequent grade 3-4 adverse event was proteinuria (5 [7%] of 75 patients). One (1%) patient died of thrombotic microangiopathy after cycle 1, which was thought to be related to bevacizumab. Two patients (3%) developed transitory heart failure. 48 (48%) patients had serious adverse events, the most frequent of which was febrile neutropenia (28 [28%]). INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that the addition of bevacizumab to neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy does not provide clinical benefit to patients with non-metastatic HER2-negative inflammatory breast cancer. Longer follow-up and correlative studies to identify patients who might benefit from bevacizumab are needed. FUNDING: Roche, La Ligue Nationale contre le Cancer, UNICANCER, and Chugai Pharma.

Phase III trial of sunitinib in combination with capecitabine versus capecitabine monotherapy for the treatment of patients with pretreated metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains an incurable illness in the majority of cases, despite major therapeutic advances. This may be related to the ability of breast tumors to induce neoangiogenesis, even in the face of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Sunitinib, an inhibitor of key molecules involved in neoangiogenesis, has an established role in the treatment of metastatic renal cell and other cancers and demonstrated activity in a phase II trial in MBC. We performed a randomized phase III trial comparing sunitinib plus capecitabine (2,000 mg/m2) with single-agent capecitabine (2,500 mg/m2) in patients with heavily pretreated MBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria included MBC, prior therapy with anthracyclines and taxanes, one or two prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease or early relapse after a taxane plus anthracycline adjuvant regimen, and adequate organ function and performance status. The primary end point was progression-free survival, for which the study had 90% power to detect a 50% improvement (from 4 to 6 months). RESULTS: A total of 442 patients were randomly assigned. Progression-free survival was not significantly different between the treatment arms, with medians of 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.5 to 6.0) for the sunitinib plus capecitabine arm and 5.9 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 7.6) for the capecitabine monotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.58; one-sided P = .941). There were no significant differences in response rate or overall survival. Toxicity, except for hand-foot syndrome, was more severe in the combination arm. CONCLUSION: The addition of sunitinib to capecitabine does not improve the clinical outcome of patients with MBC pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes.

Targeting FGFR with dovitinib (TKI258): preclinical and clinical data in breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1) and FGFR2 amplifications are observed in approximately 10% of breast cancers and are related to poor outcomes. We evaluated whether dovitinib (TKI258), an inhibitor of FGFR1, FGFR2, and FGFR3, presented antitumor activity in FGFR-amplified breast cancers. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Preclinical activity of dovitinib was evaluated in both breast cancer cell lines and an FGFR1-amplified xenograft model (HBCx2). Dovitinib was then evaluated in a phase II trial that included 4 groups of patients with human EGF receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer on the basis of FGFR1 amplification and hormone receptor (HR) status. FGFR1 amplification was assessed by silver in situ hybridization. Preplanned retrospective analyses assessed predictive value of FGFR1, FGFR2, and FGF3 amplifications by quantitative PCR (qPCR). RESULTS: Dovitinib monotherapy inhibits proliferation in FGFR1- and FGFR2-amplified, but not FGFR-normal, breast cancer cell lines. Dovitinib also inhibits tumor growth in FGFR1-amplified breast cancer xenografts. Eighty-one patients were enrolled in the trial. Unconfirmed response or stable disease for more than 6 months was observed in 5 (25%) and 1 (3%) patient(s) with FGFR1-amplified/HR-positive and FGFR1-nonamplified/HR-positive breast cancer. When qPCR-identified amplifications in FGFR1, FGFR2, or FGF3 were grouped to define an FGF pathway-amplified breast cancer in HR-positive patients, the mean reduction in target lesions was 21.1% compared with a 12.0% increase in patients who did not present with FGF pathway-amplified breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Dovitinib showed antitumor activity in FGFR-amplified breast cancer cell lines and may have activity in breast cancers with FGF pathway amplification.

mTOR inhibitors in advanced breast cancer: ready for prime time?

Current therapeutic approaches for advanced breast cancer frequently target receptors mediating cell survival and proliferation, such as the estrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2. Although these approaches are effective for many patients, treatment resistance is common. Therefore, new treatment approaches are needed for patients with advanced breast cancer. Mammalian target of rapamycin is a highly conserved serine-threonine kinase that acts as a major signaling hub that integrates and synergizes with cellular proliferation, survival, and/or motility signals mediated by estrogen receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2, and other receptor tyrosine kinases. Dysregulation of mammalian target of rapamycin signaling occurs in various tumor types, including breast cancer, and has been associated with cancer pathogenesis, disease progression, and treatment resistance. Recent clinical trials show that combined inhibition of mammalian target of rapamycin and estrogen receptor represents an effective strategy for treating hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer progressing on nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy, and data from ongoing trials combining mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-targeted therapy are awaited. This review focuses on the molecular rationale underlying strategies to enhance sensitivity to treatment in hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-positive advanced breast cancer, the clinical efficacy of such approaches, and future perspectives.

Can treatment with Cocculine improve the control of chemotherapy-induced emesis in early breast cancer patients? A randomized, multi-centered, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a major problem that seriously impairs the quality of life (QoL) in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy regimens. Complementary medicines, including homeopathy, are used by many patients with cancer, usually alongside with conventional treatment. A randomized, placebo-controlled Phase III study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of a complex homeopathic medicine, Cocculine, in the control of CINV in non-metastatic breast cancer patients treated by standard chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with non-metastatic breast cancer scheduled to receive 6 cycles of chemotherapy including at least three initial cycles of FAC 50, FEC 100 or TAC were randomized to receive standard anti-emetic treatment plus either a complex homeopathic remedy (Cocculine, registered in France for treatment of nausea and travel sickness) or the matching placebo (NCT00409071 clinicaltrials.gov). The primary endpoint was nausea score measured after the 1st chemotherapy course using the FLIE questionnaire (Functional Living Index for Emesis) with 5-day recall. Secondary endpoints were: vomiting measured by the FLIE score, nausea and vomiting measured by patient self-evaluation (EVA) and investigator recording (NCI-CTC AE V3.0) and treatment compliance. RESULTS: From September 2005 to January 2008, 431 patients were randomized: 214 to Cocculine (C) and 217 to placebo (P). Patient characteristics were well-balanced between the 2 arms. Overall, compliance to study treatments was excellent and similar between the 2 arms. A total of 205 patients (50.9%; 103 patients in the placebo and 102 in the homeopathy arms) had nausea FLIE scores > 6 indicative of no impact of nausea on quality of life during the 1st chemotherapy course. There was no difference between the 2 arms when primary endpoint analysis was performed by chemotherapy stratum; or in the subgroup of patients with susceptibility to nausea and vomiting before inclusion. In addition, nausea, vomiting and global emesis FLIE scores were not statistically different at any time between the two study arms. The frequencies of severe (Grade ≥ 2) nausea and vomiting were low in our study (nausea: P: 17.6% vs C: 15.7%, p=0.62; vomiting: P: 10.8% vs C: 12.0%, p=0.72 during the first course). CONCLUSION: This double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomised Phase III study showed that adding a complex homeopathic medicine (Cocculine) to standard anti-emetic prophylaxis does not improve the control of CINV in early breast cancer patients.

Multidisciplinarity and medical decision, impact for patients with cancer: sociological assessment of two tumour committees' organization.

PURPOSE: Medical practices in oncology are expected to be multidisciplinary, yet few articles studied how this may be concretely applied. In the present study, we evaluated the organization of two multidisciplinary committees, one for breast cancer and one for sarcoma, in a French Comprehensive Cancer Centre. METHODS: Both tumours were specifically chosen so as to emphasise substantial differences in relation with incidence, histological subtypes, management strategy, and scientific evidence. Between 2003 and 2004, 404 decision processes were observed, 210 for sarcoma (26 meetings) and 194 for breast cancer (10 meetings). The number of physicians who took part in the discussions and their medical specialties were systematically noted as well as the number of contradictory discussions, medical specialties represented in these contradictory discussions and the topics of contradiction. The last measured data was whether the final committee's decision was in conformity with the referent preferences or not. All these measures were related to the referent's medical speciality and working place, to the stage of the disease and to the disease management stage. RESULTS: Committees' specificities concerned their organization, referent's medical specialties, the number of participants in discussions and their medical specialties. Discussions in the sarcoma committee tended to be more multidisciplinary, involving more specialties. Initial strategy proposal for one patient was modified during the discussions for 86 patients out of 210 (41%) and for 62 out of 194 (32%) respectively for sarcoma and breast cancer. However, there was no significant difference in the rate of contradictory discussions between breast cancer and sarcoma committees (32% versus 41% respectively; P = 0.08). The rates of contradictory discussions were similar for localized cancers, local relapse and metastasis disease (37%, 41% and 34% respectively; P = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: The present study reports more than 30% of changes concerning strategy for patient with cancer due to multidisciplinary discussions. This indicates that, providing tumour committees are adapted to the pathologies' characteristics, they can promote a collective and multidisciplinary approach to oncology.