Real world study of sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for pre-treated patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) remain limited. This is the first study to assess the real-world safety and efficacy of sacituzumab govitecan (SG) in the UK. METHODS: Data was retrospectively collected from 16 tertiary UK cancer centres. Pts had a diagnosis of mTNBC, received at least two prior lines of treatment (with at least one being in the metastatic setting) and received at least one dose of SG. RESULTS: 132 pts were included. Median age was 56 years (28-91). All patients were ECOG performance status (PS) 0-3 (PS0; 39, PS1; 76, PS2; 16, PS3;1). 75% (99/132) of pts had visceral metastases including 18% (24/132) of pts with CNS disease. Median PFS (mPFS) was 5.2 months (95% CI 4.5-6.6) with a median OS (mOS) of 8.7 months (95% CI 6.8-NA). The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (all grade; 82%, G3/4; 14%), neutropenia (all grade; 55%, G3/4; 29%), diarrhoea (all grade; 58%, G3/4, 15%), and nausea (all grade; 38%, G3/4; 3%). SG dose reduction was required in 54% of pts. CONCLUSION: This study supports significant anti-tumour activity in heavily pre-treated pts with mTNBC. Toxicity data aligns with clinical trial experience.

Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Adults With Cancer: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To guide clinicians, adults with cancer, caregivers, researchers, and oncology institutions on the medical use of cannabis and cannabinoids, including synthetic cannabinoids and herbal cannabis derivatives; single, purified cannabinoids; combinations of cannabis ingredients; and full-spectrum cannabis. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and cohort studies on the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids when used by adults with cancer. Outcomes of interest included antineoplastic effects, cancer treatment toxicity, symptoms, and quality of life. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to January 27, 2023. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The evidence base consisted of 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies (four RCTs and one cohort study). The certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low. RECOMMENDATIONS: Cannabis and/or cannabinoid access and use by adults with cancer has outpaced the science supporting their clinical use. This guideline provides strategies for open, nonjudgmental communication between clinicians and adults with cancer about the use of cannabis and/or cannabinoids. Clinicians should recommend against using cannabis or cannabinoids as a cancer-directed treatment unless within the context of a clinical trial. Cannabis and/or cannabinoids may improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens. Whether cannabis and/or cannabinoids can improve other supportive care outcomes remains uncertain. This guideline also highlights the critical need for more cannabis and/or cannabinoid research.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Aromatase inhibition plus/minus Src inhibitor saracatinib (AZD0530) in advanced breast cancer therapy (ARISTACAT): a randomised phase II study.

PURPOSE: The development of oestrogen resistance is a major challenge in managing hormone-sensitive metastatic breast cancer. Saracatinib (AZD0530), an oral Src kinase inhibitor, prevents oestrogen resistance in animal models and reduces osteoclast activity. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of saracatinib addition to aromatase inhibitors (AI) in patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: This phase II multicentre double-blinded randomised trial allocated post-menopausal women to AI with either saracatinib or placebo (1:1 ratio). Patients were stratified into an "AI-sensitive/naïve" group who received anastrozole and "prior-AI" group who received exemestane. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and toxicity. RESULTS: 140 patients were randomised from 20 UK centres to saracatinib/AI (n = 69) or placebo/AI (n = 71). Saracatinib was not associated with an improved PFS (3.7 months v. 5.6 months placebo/AI) and did not reduce likelihood of bony progression. There was no benefit in OS or ORR. Effects were consistent in "AI-sensitive/naive" and "prior-AI" sub-groups. Saracatinib was well tolerated with dose reductions in 16% and the main side effects were gastrointestinal, hypophosphatemia and rash. CONCLUSION: Saracatinib did not improve outcomes in post-menopausal women with metastatic breast cancer. There was no observed beneficial effect on bone metastases. CRUKE/11/023, ISRCTN23804370.

Do animal models of brain tumors replicate human peritumoral edema? a systematic literature search.

INTRODUCTION: Brain tumors cause morbidity and mortality in part through peritumoral brain edema. The current main treatment for peritumoral brain edema are corticosteroids. Due to the increased recognition of their side-effect profile, there is growing interest in finding alternatives to steroids but there is little formal study of animal models of peritumoral brain edema. This study aims to summarize the available literature. METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken of 5 literature databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed and the Cochrane Library). The generic strategy was to search for various terms associated with "brain tumors", "brain edema" and "animal models". RESULTS: We identified 603 reports, of which 112 were identified as relevant for full text analysis that studied 114 peritumoral brain edema animal models. We found significant heterogeneity in the species and strain of tumor-bearing animals, tumor implantation method and edema assessment. Most models did not produce appreciable brain edema and did not test for observable manifestations thereof. CONCLUSION: No animal model currently exists that enable the investigation of novel candidates for the treatment of peritumoral brain edema. With current interest in alternative treatments for peritumoral brain edema, there is an unmet need for clinically relevant animal models.

A phase IB and randomised phase IIA trial of CApecitabine plus Radium-223 (Xofigo™) in breast cancer patients with BONe metastases: CARBON trial results.

Background: Approximately 70% of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) develop bone metastases. Despite advances in systemic treatment options and the use of bone targeted agents in the management of bone metastases to reduce skeletal morbidity, there remains an unmet need for further treatment options. Radium-223 (Ra223) is an alpha-emitting radiopharmaceutical that is preferentially taken up into bone at sites of increased osteoblastic activity where it emits high-energy, short-range alpha-particles that could provide a targeted anti-tumour effect on bone metastases. Here we evaluate the safety, feasibility and efficacy findings of the combination of Ra223 with capecitabine chemotherapy in patients with MBC with bone involvement. Methods: CARBON is a multi-centre, open-label phase IB/IIA study evaluating the combination of Ra223 (55 kBq/kg day 1 given on 6 weekly schedule) and capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 bd days 4-17 every 21 days) in patients with bone metastases from MBC (± other disease sites). Other eligibility criteria included ECOG performance status 0-2, ≤2 lines of chemotherapy for MBC and current bisphosphonate or denosumab use for ≥ 6 weeks. The phase IB part of the trial (6 patients) was conducted to provide preliminary feasibility and safety of capecitabine + Ra223. Thereafter, 28 patients were randomised (2:1) to capecitabine + Ra223 or capecitabine alone to further characterise the safety profile and evaluate efficacy, the primary efficacy endpoint being the bone turnover marker (urinary n-telopeptide of type I collagen) change from baseline to end of cycle 5 and secondary endpoints of time to first symptomatic skeletal event, and disease progression at extra-skeletal and bone disease. Results: In addition to bone metastases, 10/23 [44%] and 13/23 [57%] capecitabine + Ra223 and 2/11 [18%] and 9/11 [82%] capecitabine alone patients had soft tissue and visceral disease sites respectively. More capecitabine + Ra223 patients had received prior chemotherapy for MBC: 11/23 [48%] vs 2/11 [18%]. The analysis populations comprise 34 patients (23 capecitabine + Ra223, 11 capecitabine); 2 patients randomised to capecitabine + Ra223 received capecitabine alone and are included in the capecitabine arm. Median number of cycles received was 8.5 in capecitabine + Ra223 (range 3-12) and 12 in the capecitabine arm (range 1-12). 94/95 prescribed Ra223 cycles were administered. No dose limiting toxicities were seen in phase IB and no patients developed grade ≥ III diarrhoea. Gastrointestinal, haematological and palmer-planter erthyrodysesthesia adverse events were similar in both arms. Although formal statistical comparisons were not made, changes in bone turnover markers, the times to extra-skeletal progression and bone disease progression, and the frequency of symptomatic skeletal events were similar across the two treatment arms. Conclusion: Capecitabine + Ra223 at the planned dose was safe and feasible in MBC patients with bone metastases. However, no efficacy signals were seen that might suggest greater efficacy of the combination over capecitabine alone clinically or biochemically.

Timelines to initiate a phase III trial across the globe: a sub-analysis of the APHINITY trial.

Background: Geographic location and national income may influence access to innovation in healthcare. We aimed to study if geographical location and national income influenced the timelines to activate the global phase III APHINITY trial, evaluating adjuvant pertuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. Methods: Time from regulatory authority (RA) submission to approval (RAA), time to Ethics Committee/Institutional Review Board (EC/IRB) approval, time from study approval by EC/IRB to first randomised patient and from first to last randomised patient were collected. Analyses were conducted grouping countries by geographical region or economic income classification. Results: Forty-one countries (of 42) had data available regarding all relevant timelines. No statistical difference was observed between the time to RAA and geographical region (p = 0.47), although there was a trend to longer time to RAA in upper middle-income economies (p = 0.07). Except for time from first to last patient randomised, there was wide variation in timelines overall and within geographical regions and economic income groups. Conclusions: Geographical location and income classification did not appear to be the major drivers influencing time for clinical trial activation. Wide variability in activation timelines within geographical regions and income groups exists and is worthy of further investigation.

Fulvestrant plus capivasertib versus placebo after relapse or progression on an aromatase inhibitor in metastatic, oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (FAKTION): overall survival, updated progression-free survival, and expanded biomarker analysis from a randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Capivasertib, an AKT inhibitor, added to fulvestrant, was previously reported to improve progression-free survival in women with aromatase inhibitor-resistant oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The benefit appeared to be independent of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT/phosphatase and tensin homologue (PTEN) pathway alteration status of tumours, as ascertained using assays available at the time. Here, we report updated progression-free survival and overall survival results, and a prespecified examination of the effect of PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway alterations identified by an expanded genetic testing panel on treatment outcomes. METHODS: This randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial recruited postmenopausal adult women aged at least 18 years with ER-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic or locally advanced inoperable breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who had relapsed or progressed on an aromatase inhibitor, from across 19 hospitals in the UK. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (day 1) every 28 days (plus a 500 mg loading dose on day 15 of cycle 1) with either capivasertib 400 mg or matching placebo, orally twice daily on an intermittent weekly schedule of 4 days on and 3 days off, starting on cycle 1 day 15. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment was allocated by an interactive web-response system using a minimisation method (with a 20% random element) and the following minimisation factors: measurable or non-measurable disease, primary or secondary aromatase inhibitor resistance, PIK3CA status, and PTEN status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints shown in this Article were overall survival and safety in the intention-to-treat population, and the effect of tumour PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway status identified by an expanded testing panel that included next-generation sequencing assays. Recruitment is complete. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01992952. FINDINGS: Between March 16, 2015, and March 6, 2018, 183 participants were screened for eligibility and 140 (77%) were randomly assigned to receive fulvestrant plus capivasertib (n=69) or fulvestrant plus placebo (n=71). Median follow-up at the data cut-off of Nov 25, 2021, was 58·5 months (IQR 45·9-64·1) for participants treated with fulvestrant plus capivasertib and 62·3 months (IQR 62·1-70·3) for fulvestrant plus placebo. Updated median progression-free survival was 10·3 months (95% CI 5·0-13·4) in the group receiving fulvestrant plus capivasertib compared with 4·8 months (3·1-7·9) for fulvestrant plus placebo (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·56 [95% CI 0·38-0·81]; two-sided p=0·0023). Median overall survival in the capivasertib versus placebo groups was 29·3 months (95% CI 23·7-39·0) versus 23·4 months (18·7-32·7; adjusted HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·45-0·97]; two-sided p=0·035). The expanded biomarker panel identified an expanded pathway-altered subgroup that contained 76 participants (54% of the intention-to-treat population). Median progression-free survival in the expanded pathway-altered subgroup for participants receiving capivasertib (n=39) was 12·8 months (95% CI 6·6-18·8) compared with 4·6 months (2·8-7·9) in the placebo group (n=37; adjusted HR 0·44 [95% CI 0·26-0·72]; two-sided p=0·0014). Median overall survival for the expanded pathway-altered subgroup receiving capivasertib was 38·9 months (95% CI 23·3-50·7) compared with 20·0 months (14·8-31·4) for those receiving placebo (adjusted HR 0·46 [95% CI 0·27-0·79]; two-sided p=0·0047). By contrast, there were no statistically significant differences in progression-free or overall survival in the expanded pathway non-altered subgroup treated with capivasertib (n=30) versus placebo (n=34). One additional serious adverse event (pneumonia) in the capivasertib group had occurred subsequent to the primary analysis. One death, due to atypical pulmonary infection, was assessed as possibly related to capivasertib treatment. INTERPRETATION: Updated FAKTION data showed that capivasertib addition to fulvestrant extends the survival of participants with aromatase inhibitor-resistant ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The expanded biomarker testing suggested that capivasertib predominantly benefits patients with PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway-altered tumours. Phase 3 data are needed to substantiate the results, including in patients with previous CDK4/6 inhibitor exposure who were not included in the FAKTION trial. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Cancer Research UK.

Treatment With Etirinotecan Pegol for Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer and Brain Metastases: Final Results From the Phase 3 ATTAIN Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with breast cancer and brain metastases (BM) have a poor prognosis and high clinical need for novel treatments; however, historically, studies have often excluded these patients. Although the BEACON study did not meet its primary end point, treatment with etirinotecan pegol vs chemotherapy of the physician's choice for patients with advanced breast cancer demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) for the prespecified patient subgroup with preexisting, pretreated, and nonprogressive BM. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes in patients with BM treated with etirinotecan pegol vs chemotherapy of the physician's choice in a confirmatory trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial (ATTAIN) in patients with metastatic breast cancer and a history of stable pretreated BM who experienced disease progression while receiving chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. The trial took place at 47 sites in 10 countries, and patients were enrolled between March 7, 2017, and November 6, 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive etirinotecan pegol, 145 mg/m2, every 21 days or chemotherapy (eribulin, ixabepilone, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, docetaxel, or nab-paclitaxel). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was OS. Key secondary end points included progression-free survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and the clinical benefit rate. Results: A total of 178 female patients (9 [5.1%] Asian, 8 [4.5%] Black or African American, and 123 [69.1] White individuals) were randomized to receive treatment with etirinotecan pegol (92 [51.7%]; median [range] age, 53 [27-79] years) or chemotherapy (86 [48.3%]; median [range] age, 52 [24-77] years). Median OS was similar in both groups (etirinotecan pegol, 7.8 months; chemotherapy, 7.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.61-1.33; P = .60). Median progression-free survival for non-central nervous system metastases per blinded independent central review for etirinotecan pegol vs chemotherapy was 2.8 and 1.9 months (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.45-1.16; P = .18) and 3.9 vs 3.3 months, respectively, for central nervous system metastases (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.33-1.05; P = .07). Safety profiles between the groups were largely comparable. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of the ATTAIN randomized clinical trial found no statistically significant difference in outcomes between treatment with etirinotecan pegol and chemotherapy in patients with BM. However, this study represents one of the largest published trials dedicated to patients with breast cancer and BM and may help to inform further research. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02915744.

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19. METHODS: The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (anti-spike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6-77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3-214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030-27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996-43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41-1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996-30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826-64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90-2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37-14·32) and 15·90 (12·92-19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24-16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90-9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group). INTERPRETATION: Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research.

Neoadjuvant Intravenous Oncolytic Vaccinia Virus Therapy Promotes Anticancer Immunity in Patients.

Improving the chances of curing patients with cancer who have had surgery to remove metastatic sites of disease is a priority area for cancer research. Pexa-Vec (Pexastimogene Devacirepvec; JX-594, TG6006) is a principally immunotherapeutic oncolytic virus that has reached late-phase clinical trials. We report the results of a single-center, nonrandomized biological end point study (trial registration: EudraCT number 2012-000704-15), which builds on the success of the presurgical intravenous delivery of oncolytic viruses to tumors. Nine patients with either colorectal cancer liver metastases or metastatic melanoma were treated with a single intravenous infusion of Pexa-Vec ahead of planned surgical resection of the metastases. Grade 3 and 4 Pexa-Vec-associated side effects were lymphopaenia and neutropaenia. Pexa-Vec was peripherally carried in plasma and was not associated with peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Upon surgical resection, Pexa-Vec was found in the majority of analyzed tumors. Pexa-Vec therapy associated with IFNα secretion, chemokine induction, and resulted in transient innate and long-lived adaptive anticancer immunity. In the 2 patients with significant and complete tumor necrosis, a reduction in the peripheral T-cell receptor diversity was observed at the time of surgery. These results support the development of presurgical oncolytic vaccinia virus-based therapies to stimulate anticancer immunity and increase the chances to cure patients with cancer.

Persistence of immunogenicity after seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK: Three month analyses of the COV-BOOST trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the persistence of immunogenicity three months after third dose boosters. METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose. The analysis was conducted using all randomised participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve during the study. RESULTS: Amongst the 2883 participants randomised, there were 2422 SARS-CoV-2 naïve participants until D84 visit included in the analysis with median age of 70 (IQR: 30-94) years. In the participants who had two initial doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd), schedules using mRNA vaccines as third dose have the highest anti-spike IgG at D84 (e.g. geometric mean concentration of 8674 ELU/ml (95% CI: 7461-10,085) following ChAd/ChAd/BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT)). However, in people who had two initial doses of BNT there was no significant difference at D84 in people given ChAd versus BNT (geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.78, 1.15). Also, people given Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) as a third dose had significantly higher anti-spike IgG at D84 than BNT (GMR of 1.20, 95%CI: 1.01,1.43). Responses at D84 between people who received BNT (15 µg) or BNT (30 µg) after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT were similar, with anti-spike IgG GMRs of half-BNT (15 µg) versus BNT (30 µg) ranging between 0.74-0.86. The decay rate of cellular responses were similar between all the vaccine schedules and doses. CONCLUSIONS: 84 days after a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine the decay rates of humoral response were different between vaccines. Adenoviral vector vaccine anti-spike IgG concentrations at D84 following BNT/BNT initial doses were similar to or even higher than for a three dose (BNT/BNT/BNT) schedule. Half dose BNT immune responses were similar to full dose responses. While high antibody tires are desirable in situations of high transmission of new variants of concern, the maintenance of immune responses that confer long-lasting protection against severe disease or death is also of critical importance. Policymakers may also consider adenoviral vector, fractional dose of mRNA, or other non-mRNA vaccines as third doses.

The Place of Chemotherapy in The Evolving Treatment Landscape for Patients With HR-positive/HER2-negative MBC.

Endocrine therapy (ET) for the treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR-positive/HER2-negative) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has changed markedly over recent years with the emergence of new ETs and the use of molecularly targeted agents. Cytotoxic chemotherapy continues, however, to have an important role in these patients and it is important to maximize its efficacy while minimizing toxicity to optimize outcomes. This review examines current HR-positive/HER2-negative MBC clinical guidelines and addresses key questions around the use of chemotherapy in the face of emerging therapeutic options. Specifically, the indications for chemotherapy in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative MBC and the choice of optimal chemotherapy are discussed.

Cancer Treatment: Preclinical & Clinical.

The first evidence that cannabinoids may have in vitro and in vivo antineoplastic activity against tumor cell lines and animal tumor models was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute nearly 50 years ago. Cannabinoids appear to induce apoptosis in rodent brain tumors by way of direct interaction with the cannabinoid receptor. They may inhibit angiogenesis and tumor cell invasiveness. Despite preclinical findings, attempts to translate the benefits from bench to bedside have been limited. This session provides a review of the basic science supporting the use of cannabinoids in gliomas, paired with the first randomized clinical trial of a cannabis-based therapy for glioblastoma multiforme. Another preclinical presentation reports the effects of cannabinoids on triple-negative breast cancer cell lines and how cannabidiol may affect tumors. The session's second human trial raises concerns about the use of botanical cannabis in patients with advanced cancer receiving immunotherapy suggesting inferior outcomes.

Safety and immunogenicity of seven COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose (booster) following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK (COV-BOOST): a blinded, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Few data exist on the comparative safety and immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccines given as a third (booster) dose. To generate data to optimise selection of booster vaccines, we investigated the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of seven different COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT). METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of third dose booster vaccination against COVID-19. Participants were aged older than 30 years, and were at least 70 days post two doses of ChAd or at least 84 days post two doses of BNT primary COVID-19 immunisation course, with no history of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 18 sites were split into three groups (A, B, and C). Within each site group (A, B, or C), participants were randomly assigned to an experimental vaccine or control. Group A received NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax; hereafter referred to as NVX), a half dose of NVX, ChAd, or quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY)control (1:1:1:1). Group B received BNT, VLA2001 (Valneva; hereafter referred to as VLA), a half dose of VLA, Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) or MenACWY (1:1:1:1:1). Group C received mRNA1273 (Moderna; hereafter referred to as m1273), CVnCov (CureVac; hereafter referred to as CVn), a half dose of BNT, or MenACWY (1:1:1:1). Participants and all investigatory staff were blinded to treatment allocation. Coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity and immunogenicity of anti-spike IgG measured by ELISA. The primary analysis for immunogenicity was on a modified intention-to-treat basis; safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included assessment of viral neutralisation and cellular responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 73765130. FINDINGS: Between June 1 and June 30, 2021, 3498 people were screened. 2878 participants met eligibility criteria and received COVID-19 vaccine or control. The median ages of ChAd/ChAd-primed participants were 53 years (IQR 44-61) in the younger age group and 76 years (73-78) in the older age group. In the BNT/BNT-primed participants, the median ages were 51 years (41-59) in the younger age group and 78 years (75-82) in the older age group. In the ChAd/ChAD-primed group, 676 (46·7%) participants were female and 1380 (95·4%) were White, and in the BNT/BNT-primed group 770 (53·6%) participants were female and 1321 (91·9%) were White. Three vaccines showed overall increased reactogenicity: m1273 after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT; and ChAd and Ad26 after BNT/BNT. For ChAd/ChAd-primed individuals, spike IgG geometric mean ratios (GMRs) between study vaccines and controls ranged from 1·8 (99% CI 1·5-2·3) in the half VLA group to 32·3 (24·8-42·0) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·1 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for ChAd to 3·6 (2·4-5·5) for m1273. For BNT/BNT-primed individuals, spike IgG GMRs ranged from 1·3 (99% CI 1·0-1·5) in the half VLA group to 11·5 (9·4-14·1) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·0 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for half VLA to 4·7 (3·1-7·1) for m1273. The results were similar between those aged 30-69 years and those aged 70 years and older. Fatigue and pain were the most common solicited local and systemic adverse events, experienced more in people aged 30-69 years than those aged 70 years or older. Serious adverse events were uncommon, similar in active vaccine and control groups. In total, there were 24 serious adverse events: five in the control group (two in control group A, three in control group B, and zero in control group C), two in Ad26, five in VLA, one in VLA-half, one in BNT, two in BNT-half, two in ChAd, one in CVn, two in NVX, two in NVX-half, and one in m1273. INTERPRETATION: All study vaccines boosted antibody and neutralising responses after ChAd/ChAd initial course and all except one after BNT/BNT, with no safety concerns. Substantial differences in humoral and cellular responses, and vaccine availability will influence policy choices for booster vaccination. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health Research.

Antibody-drug conjugates, immune-checkpoint inhibitors, and their combination in breast cancer therapeutics.

INTRODUCTION: Advanced breast cancer (aBC) remains incurable and the quest for more effective systemic anticancer agents continues. Promising results have led to the FDA approval of three antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) and two immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) to date for patients with aBC. AREAS COVERED: With the anticipated emergence of newer ADCs and ICIs for patients with several subtypes of breast cancer, and given their potential synergy, their use in combination is of clinical interest. In this article, we review the use of ADCs and ICIs in patients with breast cancer, assess the scientific rationale for their combination, and provide an overview of ongoing trials and some early efficacy and safety results of such dual therapy. EXPERT OPINION: Improvement in the medicinal chemistry of next-generation ADCs, their rational combination with ICIs and other agents, and the development of multiparametric immune biomarkers could help to significantly improve the outlook for patients with refractory aBC.

Determining lines of therapy in patients with solid cancers: a proposed new systematic and comprehensive framework.

The complexity of neoplasia and its treatment are a challenge to the formulation of general criteria that are applicable across solid cancers. Determining the number of prior lines of therapy (LoT) is critically important for optimising future treatment, conducting medication audits, and assessing eligibility for clinical trial enrolment. Currently, however, no accepted set of criteria or definitions exists to enumerate LoT. In this article, we seek to open a dialogue to address this challenge by proposing a systematic and comprehensive framework to determine LoT uniformly across solid malignancies. First, key terms, including LoT and 'clinical progression of disease' are defined. Next, we clarify which therapies should be assigned a LoT, and why. Finally, we propose reporting LoT in a novel and standardised format as LoT N (CLoT + PLoT), where CLoT is the number of systemic anti-cancer therapies (SACT) administered with curative intent and/or in the early setting, PLoT is the number of SACT given with palliative intent and/or in the advanced setting, and N is the sum of CLoT and PLoT. As a next step, the cancer research community should develop and adopt standardised guidelines for enumerating LoT in a uniform manner.

A phase 1b randomised, placebo-controlled trial of nabiximols cannabinoid oromucosal spray with temozolomide in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical data suggest some cannabinoids may exert antitumour effects against glioblastoma (GBM). Safety and preliminary efficacy of nabiximols oromucosal cannabinoid spray plus dose-intense temozolomide (DIT) was evaluated in patients with first recurrence of GBM. METHODS: Part 1 was open-label and Part 2 was randomised, double-blind, and placebo-controlled. Both required individualised dose escalation. Patients received nabiximols (Part 1, n = 6; Part 2, n = 12) or placebo (Part 2 only, n = 9); maximum of 12 sprays/day with DIT for up to 12 months. Safety, efficacy, and temozolomide (TMZ) pharmacokinetics (PK) were monitored. RESULTS: The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; both parts) were vomiting, dizziness, fatigue, nausea and headache. Most patients experienced TEAEs that were grade 2 or 3 (CTCAE). In Part 2, 33% of both nabiximols- and placebo-treated patients were progression-free at 6 months. Survival at 1 year was 83% for nabiximols- and 44% for placebo-treated patients (p = 0.042), although two patients died within the first 40 days of enrolment in the placebo arm. There were no apparent effects of nabiximols on TMZ PK. CONCLUSIONS: With personalised dosing, nabiximols had acceptable safety and tolerability with no drug-drug interaction identified. The observed survival differences support further exploration in an adequately powered randomised controlled trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: Part 1- NCT01812603; Part 2- NCT01812616.

CONCORDE: A phase I platform study of novel agents in combination with conventional radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide and most patients are unsuitable for 'gold standard' treatment, which is concurrent chemoradiotherapy. CONCORDE is a platform study seeking to establish the toxicity profiles of multiple novel radiosensitisers targeting DNA repair proteins in patients treated with sequential chemoradiotherapy. Time-to-event continual reassessment will facilitate efficient dose-finding.