Methodological and reporting standards for quality-of-life data eligible for European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) credit.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) has been developed to grade clinical benefit of cancer therapies. Improvement in quality of life (QoL) is considered relevant, especially in the non-curative setting. This is reflected by an upgrade of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score if QoL is improved compared to the control arm or a downgrade if an improvement in progression-free survival is not paralleled by an improvement in QoL or overall survival. Given the importance of QoL for the final score, a need to ensure the robustness of QoL data was recognised. DESIGN: A checklist was created based on existing guidelines for QoL research. Field testing was carried out using clinical trials that either received an adjustment of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score based on QoL or had QoL as the primary endpoint. Several rounds of revision and re-testing of the checklist were undertaken until a final consensus was reached. RESULTS: The final checklist consists of four items and can be applied if three prerequisites are met: (i) QoL is at least a secondary endpoint, (ii) evidence of reliability and validity of the instrument is provided, and (iii) a statistically and clinically significant improvement in QoL is observed. The four items on the checklist pertain to the (i) hypothesis, (ii) compliance and missing data, (iii) presentation of the results, and (iv) statistical and clinical relevance. Field testing revealed that a clear QoL hypothesis and correction for multiple testing were mostly lacking, while the main statistical method was always described. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ESMO-MCBS QoL checklist will facilitate objective and transparent decision making on QoL data within the ESMO-MCBS scoring process. Trials published until 1 January 2025 will have to meet the prerequisites and at least two items for crediting QoL benefit in the final ESMO-MCBS score. Trials published thereafter will have to meet all four items.

ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H) version 1.0.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) has been accepted as a robust tool to evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit reported in trials for oncological therapies. However, the ESMO-MCBS hitherto has only been validated for solid tumours. With the rapid development of novel therapies for haematological malignancies, we aimed to develop an ESMO-MCBS version that is specifically designed and validated for haematological malignancies. METHODS: ESMO and the European Hematology Association (EHA) initiated a collaboration to develop a version for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H). The process incorporated five landmarks: field testing of the ESMO-MCBS version 1.1 (v1.1) to identify shortcomings specific to haematological diseases, drafting of the ESMO-MCBS:H forms, peer review and revision of the draft based on re-scoring (resulting in a second draft), assessment of reasonableness of the scores generated, final review and approval by ESMO and EHA including executive boards. RESULTS: Based on the field testing results of 80 haematological trials and extensive review for feasibility and reasonableness, five amendments to ESMO-MCBS were incorporated in the ESMO-MCBS:H addressing the identified shortcomings. These concerned mainly clinical trial endpoints that differ in haematology versus solid oncology and the very indolent nature of nevertheless incurable diseases such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers presentation of mature data. In addition, general changes incorporated in the draft version of the ESMO-MCBS v2 were included, and specific forms for haematological malignancies generated. Here we present the final approved forms of the ESMO-MCBS:H, including instructions. CONCLUSION: The haematology-specific version ESMO-MCBS:H allows now full applicability of the scale for evaluating the magnitude of clinical benefit derived from clinical studies in haematological malignancies.

Outcome without any adjuvant systemic treatment in stage I ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients included in the MINDACT trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant systemic treatments (AST) reduce mortality, but have associated short- and long-term toxicities. Careful selection of patients likely to benefit from AST is needed. We evaluated outcome of low-risk breast cancer patients of the EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT trial who received no AST. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, lymph node-negative tumors ≤2 cm who received no AST were matched 1 : 1 to patients with similar tumor characteristics treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET), using propensity score matching and exact matching on age, genomic risk (70-gene signature) and grade. In a post hoc analysis, distant metastasis-free interval (DMFI) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and hazard ratios (HR) by Cox regression. Cumulative incidences of locoregional recurrence (LRR) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) were assessed with competing risk analyses. RESULTS: At 8 years, DMFI rates were 94.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92.7% to 96.9%] in 509 patients receiving no AST, and 97.3% (95% CI 95.8% to 98.8%) in 509 matched patients who received only ET [absolute difference: 2.5%, HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.30-1.03)]. No statistically significant difference was seen in 8-year OS rates, 95.4% (95% CI 93.5% to 97.4%) in patients receiving no AST and 95.6% (95% CI 93.8% to 97.5%) in patients receiving only ET [absolute difference: 0.2%, HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.53-1.41)]. Cumulative incidence rates of LRR and CBC were 4.7% (95% CI 3.0% to 7.0%) and 4.6% (95% CI 2.9% to 6.9%) in patients receiving no AST versus 1.4% (95% CI 0.6% to 2.9%) and 1.5% (95% CI 0.6% to 3.1%) in patients receiving only ET. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stage I low-risk breast cancer, the effect of ET on DMFI was limited, but overall significantly fewer breast cancer events were observed in patients who received ET, after the relatively short follow-up of 8 years. These benefits and side-effects of ET should be discussed with all patients, even those at a very low risk of distant metastasis.

Overall survival in the OlympiA phase III trial of adjuvant olaparib in patients with germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 and high-risk, early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, double-blind OlympiA trial compared 1 year of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, olaparib, to matching placebo as adjuvant therapy for patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (gBRCA1/2pv) and high-risk, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, early breast cancer (EBC). The first pre-specified interim analysis (IA) previously demonstrated statistically significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS). The olaparib group had fewer deaths than the placebo group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance for overall survival (OS). We now report the pre-specified second IA of OS with updates of IDFS, DDFS, and safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One thousand eight hundred and thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo following (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy if indicated. Endocrine therapy was given concurrently with study medication for hormone receptor-positive cancers. Statistical significance for OS at this IA required P < 0.015. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the second IA of OS demonstrated significant improvement in the olaparib group relative to the placebo group [hazard ratio 0.68; 98.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.97; P = 0.009]. Four-year OS was 89.8% in the olaparib group and 86.4% in the placebo group (Δ 3.4%, 95% CI -0.1% to 6.8%). Four-year IDFS for the olaparib group versus placebo group was 82.7% versus 75.4% (Δ 7.3%, 95% CI 3.0% to 11.5%) and 4-year DDFS was 86.5% versus 79.1% (Δ 7.4%, 95% CI 3.6% to 11.3%), respectively. Subset analyses for OS, IDFS, and DDFS demonstrated benefit across major subgroups. No new safety signals were identified including no new cases of acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome. CONCLUSION: With 3.5 years of median follow-up, OlympiA demonstrates statistically significant improvement in OS with adjuvant olaparib compared with placebo for gBRCA1/2pv-associated EBC and maintained improvements in the previously reported, statistically significant endpoints of IDFS and DDFS with no new safety signals.

Immunotherapy for early breast cancer: too soon, too superficial, or just right?

Immunotherapy emerged as a new treatment modality for breast cancer, and its use is approved in combination with chemotherapy for first-line therapy in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer overexpressing PD-L1. As immune checkpoint inhibitors alone have modest clinical activity in advanced breast cancer, there is a growing interest in combinatorial modalities, and particularly for their rapid development in the early disease setting. The plethora of ongoing immunotherapy trials in early breast cancer comes at a time when solid data in advanced disease are still imperfect. This review offers a perspective on the efforts to establish the efficacy and safety of immunotherapeutic agents in early breast cancer.

A plain language summary of the ASCENT study: Sacituzumab Govitecan for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

Sacituzumab Govitecan (also known by the brand name TRODELVY®) is a new and available treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, or mTNBC for short. Metastatic breast cancer means the breast cancer has spread to other parts of the body. Triple negative means the breast cancer does not have 3 common proteins on the cell surface called receptors. This is a summary of the ASCENT study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 2021. This study compared Sacituzumab Govitecan with standard chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is a treatment that kills cancer cells or stops them from dividing. 529 people with mTNBC took part in the study across 7 countries. All who took part had already received 2 previous chemotherapies, which stopped working for their cancer. The study showed that patients who took Sacituzumab Govitecan lived longer than those who took a different chemotherapy while on the study. Tumors shrank in more patients who took Sacituzumab Govitecan than in patients who took chemotherapy. In general, patients who took Sacituzumab Govitecan experienced more side effects. This included low levels of a type of white blood cell known as neutrophils (neutropenia) and loose or watery stool (diarrhea). Use of supportive care lessened these side effects. This summary also includes insights and perspectives from 2 breast cancer patient advocates. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT number: NCT02574455. To read the full Plain Language Summary of this article, click on the View Article button above and download the PDF. Link to original article here.

Unravelling triple-negative breast cancer molecular heterogeneity using an integrative multiomic analysis.

Background: Recent efforts of genome-wide gene expression profiling analyses have improved our understanding of the biological complexity and diversity of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) reporting, at least six different molecular subtypes of TNBC namely Basal-like 1 (BL1), basal-like 2 (BL2), immunomodulatory (IM), mesenchymal (M), mesenchymal stem-like (MSL) and luminal androgen receptor (LAR). However, little is known regarding the potential driving molecular events within each subtype, their difference in survival and response to therapy. Further insight into the underlying genomic alterations is therefore needed. Patients and methods: This study was carried out using copy-number aberrations, somatic mutations and gene expression data derived from the Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas. TNBC samples (n = 550) were classified according to Lehmann's molecular subtypes using the TNBCtype online subtyping tool (http://cbc.mc.vanderbilt.edu/tnbc/). Results: Each subtype showed significant clinic-pathological characteristic differences. Using a multivariate model, IM subtype showed to be associated with a better prognosis (HR = 0.68; CI = 0.46-0.99; P = 0.043) whereas LAR subtype was associated with a worst prognosis (HR = 1.47; CI = 1.0-2.14; P = 0.046). BL1 subtype was found to be most genomically instable subtype with high TP53 mutation (92%) and copy-number deletion in genes involved in DNA repair mechanism (BRCA2, MDM2, PTEN, RB1 and TP53). LAR tumours were associated with higher mutational burden with significantly enriched mutations in PI3KCA (55%), AKT1 (13%) and CDH1 (13%) genes. M and MSL subtypes were associated with higher signature score for angiogenesis. Finally, IM showed high expression levels of immune signatures and check-point inhibitor genes such as PD1, PDL1 and CTLA4. Conclusion: Our findings highlight for the first time the substantial genomic heterogeneity that characterize TNBC molecular subtypes, allowing for a better understanding of the disease biology as well as the identification of several candidate targets paving novel approaches for the development of anticancer therapeutics for TNBC.

Trastuzumab versus observation for HER2 nonamplified early breast cancer with circulating tumor cells (EORTC 90091-10093, BIG 1-12, Treat CTC): a randomized phase II trial.

Background: Trastuzumab improves the outcome of women with HER2 positive breast cancer. We aimed to assess whether trastuzumab decreases the detection rate of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in women with high risk, HER2 nonamplified, early breast cancer. Patients and methods: The EORTC 90091-10093 BIG 1-12 Treat CTC is a phase II trial, conducted in 70 hospitals and 6 CTC laboratories across 5 European countries. Patients with centrally confirmed HER2 nonamplified breast cancer and ≥1 centrally confirmed CTC per 15 ml of blood by CellSearch® following surgery and (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy were randomized (1 : 1) to 6 cycles of trastuzumab intravenously versus 18 weeks of observation. Randomization was stratified for center, locally confirmed estrogen receptor status and adjuvant versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The primary end point was rate of detection of ≥1 CTC per 15 ml of blood at week 18. Secondary end points were invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and cardiac safety. Results: Between 30 April 2013 and 17 October 2016, 1317 patients were screened; 95 (7.2%) had detectable CTC(s), and 63 (4.8%) were randomized to trastuzumab (n = 31) or observation (n = 32). Fifty-eight patients were assessable for the primary end point, 29 in each arm. In 9 of the 58 patients, CTC(s) were still detected at week 18 : 5 in the trastuzumab and 4 in the observation arm (one-sided Fisher's exact test, P = 0.765). An Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended stopping further accrual for futility for the primary end point. Median follow-up at database lock was 13 months (IQR 4-16.5). The 1-year iDFS was 93.8% (95% CI 77.3-98.4) in the observation versus 84.8% (95% CI 63.4-94.2) in the trastuzumab arm. No grade 2-4 cardiac events were observed in the trastuzumab arm. Conclusion: Trastuzumab does not decrease the detection rate of CTCs in HER2 nonamplified, nonmetastatic breast cancer.

Characterisation of the HLA-DRB1*07:01 biomarker for lapatinib-induced liver toxicity during treatment of early-stage breast cancer patients with lapatinib in combination with trastuzumab and/or taxanes.

HLA-DRB1*07:01 allele carriage was characterised as a risk biomarker for lapatinib-induced liver injury in a large global study evaluating lapatinib, alone and in combination with trastuzumab and taxanes, as adjuvant therapy for advanced breast cancer (adjuvant lapatinib and/or trastuzumab treatment optimisation). HLA-DRB1*07:01 carriage was associated with serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevations in lapatinib-treated patients (odds ratio 6.5, P=3 × 10-26, n=4482) and the risk and severity of ALT elevation for lapatinib-treated patients was higher in homozygous than heterozygous HLA-DRB1*07:01 genotype carriers. A higher ALT case incidence plus weaker HLA association observed during concurrent administration of lapatinib and taxane suggested a subset of liver injury in this combination group that was HLA-DRB1*07:01 independent. Furthermore, the incidence of ALT elevation demonstrated an expected correlation with geographic HLA-DRB1*07:01 carriage frequency. Robust ALT elevation risk estimates for HLA-DRB1*07:01 may support causality discrimination and safety risk management during the use of lapatinib combination therapy for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1.

BACKGROUND: The ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) version 1.0 (v1.0) was published in May 2015 and was the first version of a validated and reproducible tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit from new cancer therapies. The ESMO-MCBS was designed to be a dynamic tool with planned revisions and updates based upon recognition of expanding needs and shortcomings identified since the last review. METHODS: The revision process for the ESMO-MCBS incorporates a nine-step process: Careful review of critiques and suggestions, and identification of problems in the application of v1.0; Identification of shortcomings for revision in the upcoming version; Proposal and evaluation of solutions to address identified shortcomings; Field testing of solutions; Preparation of a near-final revised version for peer review for reasonableness by members of the ESMO Faculty and Guidelines Committee; Amendments based on peer review for reasonableness; Near-final review by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board; Final amendments; Final review and approval by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board. RESULTS: Twelve issues for revision or amendment were proposed for consideration; proposed amendments were formulated for eight identified shortcomings. The proposed amendments are classified as either structural, technical, immunotherapy triggered or nuanced. All amendments were field tested in a wide range of studies comparing scores generated with ESMO-MCBS v1.0 and version 1.1 (v1.1). CONCLUSIONS: ESMO-MCBS v1.1 incorporates 10 revisions and will allow for scoring of single-arm studies. Scoring remains very stable; revisions in v1.1 alter the scores of only 12 out of 118 comparative studies and facilitate scoring for single-arm studies.

PIK3CA mutations are associated with reduced pathological complete response rates in primary HER2-positive breast cancer: pooled analysis of 967 patients from five prospective trials investigating lapatinib and trastuzumab.

BACKGROUND: The predictive value of PIK3CA mutations in HER2 positive (HER2+) breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant anti-HER2 and chemotherapy has been reported, but the power for subgroup analyses was lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We combined individual patient data from five clinical trials evaluating PIK3CA mutations and associations with pathological complete response (pCR), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Patients received either trastuzumab (T), lapatinib (L) or the combination T/L in addition to a taxane-based chemotherapy. PIK3CA was genotyped in tumour biopsies taken before therapy. RESULTS: A total of 967 patients were included in this analysis; the median follow-up is 47 months. Overall, the pCR rate was significantly lower in the PIK3CA mutant compared with the wild-type group (16.2% versus 29.6%; P < 0.001). Within the hormone-receptor positive (HR+) subgroup, the PIK3CA mutant group had a pCR rate of only 7.6% compared with 24.2% in the wild-type group (P < 0.001). In contrast, in the HER2+/HR- group, there was no difference in pCR (27.2% versus 36.4%; P = 0.125) according to PIK3CA mutation status (interaction test P = 0.036). According to treatment arm, the pCR rate for mutant versus wild-type was 20.3% versus 27.1% for T (P = 0.343), 11.3% versus 16.9% for L (P = 0.369) and 16.7% versus 39.1% for T/L (P < 0.001). In the HR+ T/L group, the pCR rate was 5.5% versus 33.9% (interaction between HR and PIK3CA genotype P = 0.008). DFS and OS were not significantly different by mutation status, though the incidence rate of events was low. However, HR+/PIK3CA mutant patients seemed to have significantly worse DFS {hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-2.45], P = 0.050; Pinteraction = 0.021}. T/L tended to improve DFS compared with T in the wild-type cohort, especially in the HR- group [HR 0.72, 95% CI (0.41-1.25), P = 0.242]. CONCLUSION: Overall PIK3CA mutant/HER2+ tumours had significantly lower pCR rates compared with wild-type tumours, however mainly confined to the HR+/PIK3CA mutant population. No definite conclusions can be drawn regarding survival.

Progression-free survival as surrogate end point for overall survival in clinical trials of HER2-targeted agents in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The gold standard end point in randomized clinical trials in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is overall survival (OS). Although therapeutics have been approved based on progression-free survival (PFS), its use as a primary end point is controversial. We aimed to assess to what extent PFS may be used as a surrogate for OS in randomized trials of anti-HER2 agents in HER2+ MBC. METHODS: Eligible trials accrued HER2+ MBC patients in 1992-2008. A correlation approach was used: at the individual level, to estimate the association between investigator-assessed PFS and OS using a bivariate model and at the trial level, to estimate the association between treatment effects on PFS and OS. Correlation values close to 1.0 would indicate strong surrogacy. RESULTS: We identified 2545 eligible patients in 13 randomized trials testing trastuzumab or lapatinib. We collected individual patient data from 1963 patients and retained 1839 patients from 9 trials for analysis (7 first-line trials). During follow-up, 1072 deaths and 1462 progression or deaths occurred. The median survival time was 22 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 21-23 months] and the median PFS was 5.7 months (95% CI 5.5-6.1 months). At the individual level, the Spearman correlation was equal to ρ = 0.67 (95% CI 0.66-0.67) corresponding to a squared correlation value of 0.45. At the trial level, the squared correlation between treatment effects (log hazard ratios) on PFS and OS was provided by R(2) = 0.51 (95% CI 0.22-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: In trials of HER2-targeted agents in HER2+ MBC, PFS moderately correlates with OS at the individual level and treatment effects on PFS correlate moderately with those on overall mortality, providing only modest support for considering PFS as a surrogate. PFS does not completely substitute for OS in this setting.

Frequent incidence of BARD1-truncating mutations in germline DNA from triple-negative breast cancer patients.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for 10-20% of all breast cancers (BCs), and conventional chemotherapy is the only effective systemic treatment. Germline BRCA1/2 mutations are found in approximately 15% of TNBC patients. In the past, we have documented pathogenic mutations in BARD1, a BRCA1 interacting protein, in families at high risk for BC. In this study, we have analyzed germline DNA from 61 estrogen receptor negative patients (of which 42 were TNBC) for the presence of mutations in the BRCA1, BRCA2 and BARD1 gene. BRCA1/2 mutations were found in 8 out of 42 (19%) TNBC patients, but not in the ER-/HER2+ cohort. We also found four good candidate pathogenic BARD1 mutations in the TNBC cohort, including two protein-truncating mutations (p.Gln564Ter and p.Arg641Ter). Our data suggest that TNBC patients are enriched for pathogenic BARD1 germline mutations as compared to control samples and high BC risk families. Ten of the 42 investigated TNBC patients carry a BRCA pathway mutation (in BRCA1, BRCA2 or BARD1) rendering them susceptible to homologous recombination deficiency. These patients should become eligible for exploring the efficacy of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors.

Adjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer: quo vadis?

The premise that breast cancer (BC) has a tendency toward early systemic dissemination, together with empirical findings showing that drugs given after breast tumor surgery improve outcome, led to the development of systemic adjuvant therapy. This strategy, which started more than 50 years ago, revolutionized BC treatment and improved patient outcome in a substantial way. However, in recent years, several large trials that incorporated new systemic treatments in the adjuvant setting of BC failed to demonstrate a benefit. In the present review, we discuss the progress made in the adjuvant treatment of BC in the past decade, the possible reasons for the recent failures, and practical strategies that may be incorporated in the design of future trials.

A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).

The value of any new therapeutic strategy or treatment is determined by the magnitude of its clinical benefit balanced against its cost. Evidence for clinical benefit from new treatment options is derived from clinical research, in particular phase III randomised trials, which generate unbiased data regarding the efficacy, benefit and safety of new therapeutic approaches. To date, there is no standard tool for grading the magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer therapies, which may range from trivial (median progression-free survival advantage of only a few weeks) to substantial (improved long-term survival). Indeed, in the absence of a standardised approach for grading the magnitude of clinical benefit, conclusions and recommendations derived from studies are often hotly disputed and very modest incremental advances have often been presented, discussed and promoted as major advances or 'breakthroughs'. Recognising the importance of presenting clear and unbiased statements regarding the magnitude of the clinical benefit from new therapeutic approaches derived from high-quality clinical trials, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed a validated and reproducible tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit for cancer medicines, the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). This tool uses a rational, structured and consistent approach to derive a relative ranking of the magnitude of clinically meaningful benefit that can be expected from a new anti-cancer treatment. The ESMO-MCBS is an important first step to the critical public policy issue of value in cancer care, helping to frame the appropriate use of limited public and personal resources to deliver cost-effective and affordable cancer care. The ESMO-MCBS will be a dynamic tool and its criteria will be revised on a regular basis.

The AURORA initiative for metastatic breast cancer.

Metastatic breast cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality among women in the Western world. To date most research efforts have focused on the molecular analysis of the primary tumour to dissect the genotypes of the disease. However, accumulating evidence supports a molecular evolution of breast cancer during its life cycle, with metastatic lesions acquiring new molecular aberrations. Recognising this critical gap of knowledge, the Breast International Group is launching AURORA, a large, multinational, collaborative metastatic breast cancer molecular screening programme. Approximately 1300 patients with metastatic breast cancer who have received no more than one line of systemic treatment for advanced disease will, after giving informed consent, donate archived primary tumour tissue, as well as will donate tissue collected prospectively from the biopsy of metastatic lesions and blood. Both tumour tissue types, together with a blood sample, will then be subjected to next generation sequencing for a panel of cancer-related genes. The patients will be treated at the discretion of their treating physicians per standard local practice, and they will be followed for clinical outcome for 10 years. Alternatively, depending on the molecular profiles found, patients will be directed to innovative clinical trials assessing molecularly targeted agents. Samples of outlier patients considered as 'exceptional responders' or as 'rapid progressors' based on the clinical follow-up will be subjected to deeper molecular characterisation in order to identify new prognostic and predictive biomarkers. AURORA, through its innovative design, will shed light onto some of the unknown areas of metastatic breast cancer, helping to improve the clinical outcome of breast cancer patients.