Genomics to select treatment for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Cancer progression is driven in part by genomic alterations1. The genomic characterization of cancers has shown interpatient heterogeneity regarding driver alterations2, leading to the concept that generation of genomic profiling in patients with cancer could allow the selection of effective therapies3,4. Although DNA sequencing has been implemented in practice, it remains unclear how to use its results. A total of 1,462 patients with HER2-non-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer were enroled to receive genomic profiling in the SAFIR02-BREAST trial. Two hundred and thirty-eight of these patients were randomized in two trials (nos. NCT02299999 and NCT03386162) comparing the efficacy of maintenance treatment5 with a targeted therapy matched to genomic alteration. Targeted therapies matched to genomics improves progression-free survival when genomic alterations are classified as level I/II according to the ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT)6 (adjusted hazards ratio (HR): 0.41, 90% confidence interval (CI): 0.27-0.61, P < 0.001), but not when alterations are unselected using ESCAT (adjusted HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.56-1.06, P = 0.109). No improvement in progression-free survival was observed in the targeted therapies arm (unadjusted HR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.76-1.75) for patients presenting with ESCAT alteration beyond level I/II. Patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations (n = 49) derived high benefit from olaparib (gBRCA1: HR = 0.36, 90% CI: 0.14-0.89; gBRCA2: HR = 0.37, 90% CI: 0.17-0.78). This trial provides evidence that the treatment decision led by genomics should be driven by a framework of target actionability in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Clinical effectiveness and safety of olaparib in BRCA-mutated, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in a real-world setting: final analysis of LUCY.

PURPOSE: The interim analysis of the phase IIIb LUCY trial demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of olaparib in patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC), with median progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.11 months, which was similar to that in the olaparib arm of the phase III OlympiAD trial (7.03 months). This prespecified analysis provides final overall survival (OS) and safety data. METHODS: The open-label, single-arm LUCY trial of olaparib (300 mg, twice daily) enrolled adults with gBRCAm or somatic BRCA-mutated (sBRCAm), HER2-negative mBC. Patients had previously received a taxane or anthracycline for neoadjuvant/adjuvant or metastatic disease and up to two lines of chemotherapy for mBC. RESULTS: Of 563 patients screened, 256 (gBRCAm, n = 253; sBRCAm, n = 3) were enrolled. In the gBRCAm cohort, median investigator-assessed PFS (primary endpoint) was 8.18 months and median OS was 24.94 months. Olaparib was clinically effective in all prespecified subgroups: hormone receptor status, previous chemotherapy for mBC, previous platinum-based chemotherapy (including by line of therapy), and previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor use. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were nausea (55.3%) and anemia (39.2%). Few patients (6.3%) discontinued olaparib owing to a TEAE. No deaths associated with AEs occurred during the study treatment or 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSION: The LUCY patient population reflects a real-world population in line with the licensed indication of olaparib in mBC. These findings support the clinical effectiveness and safety of olaparib in patients with gBRCAm, HER2-negative mBC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials registration number: NCT03286842.

Mutational landscape of inflammatory breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is the most pro-metastatic form of BC. Better understanding of its enigmatic pathophysiology is crucial. We report here the largest whole-exome sequencing (WES) study of clinical IBC samples. METHODS: We retrospectively applied WES to 54 untreated IBC primary tumor samples and matched normal DNA. The comparator samples were 102 stage-matched non-IBC samples from TCGA. We compared the somatic mutational profiles, spectra and signatures, copy number alterations (CNAs), HRD and heterogeneity scores, and frequencies of actionable genomic alterations (AGAs) between IBCs and non-IBCs. The comparisons were adjusted for the molecular subtypes. RESULTS: The number of somatic mutations, TMB, and mutational spectra were not different between IBCs and non-IBCs, and no gene was differentially mutated or showed differential frequency of CNAs. Among the COSMIC signatures, only the age-related signature was more frequent in non-IBCs than in IBCs. We also identified in IBCs two new mutational signatures not associated with any environmental exposure, one of them having been previously related to HIF pathway activation. Overall, the HRD score was not different between both groups, but was higher in TN IBCs than TN non-IBCs. IBCs were less frequently classified as heterogeneous according to heterogeneity H-index than non-IBCs (21% vs 33%), and clonal mutations were more frequent and subclonal mutations less frequent in IBCs. More than 50% of patients with IBC harbored at least one high-level of evidence (LOE) AGA (OncoKB LOE 1-2, ESCAT LOE I-II), similarly to patients with non-IBC. CONCLUSIONS: We provide the largest mutational landscape of IBC. Only a few subtle differences were identified with non-IBCs. The most clinically relevant one was the higher HRD score in TN IBCs than in TN non-IBCs, whereas the most intriguing one was the smaller intratumor heterogeneity of IBCs.

Survival outcomes of metastatic breast cancer patients by germline BRCA1/2 status in a large multicenter real-world database.

The outcomes and best treatment strategies for germline BRCA1/2 mutation (gBRCAm) carriers with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remain uncertain. We compared the overall survival and the first line progression free survival (PFS1) of patients with a gBRCAm identified at initiation of first-line treatment with those of BRCA wild-type (WT) and not-tested (NT) individuals in the ESME real-world database of MBC patients between 2008 and 2016 (NCT03275311). Among the 20 624 eligible patients, 325 had a gBRCAm, 1138 were WT and 19 161 NT. Compared with WT, gBRCAm carriers were younger, and had more aggressive diseases. At a median follow-up of 50.5 months, median OS was 30.6 (95%CI: 21.9-34.3), 35.8 (95%CI: 32.2-37.8) and 39.3 months (95% CI: 38.3-40.3) in the gBRCAm, WT and NT subgroups, respectively. Median PFS1 was 7.9 (95%CI: 6.6-9.3), 7.8 (95%CI: 7.3-8.5) and 9.7 months (95%CI, 9.5-10.0). In the multivariable analysis conducted in the whole cohort, gBRCAm status had however no independent prognostic impact on OS and PFS1. Though, in the triple-negative subgroup, gBRCAm patients had better OS and PFS1 (HR vs WT = 0.76; 95%CI: 0.60-0.97; P = .027 and 0.69; 95% CI: 0.55-0.86; P = .001, respectively). In contrast, in patients with HR+/HER2 negative cancers, PFS1 appeared significantly and OS non significantly lower for gBRCAm carriers (PFS1: HR vs WT = 1.23; 95%CI: 1.03-1.46; P = .024; OS:HR = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.97-1.52, P = .089). In conclusion, gBRCA1/2 status appears to have divergent survival effects in MBC according to IHC subtype.

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.

Real-World Impact of Adjuvant Anti-HER2 Treatment on Characteristics and Outcomes of Women With HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer in the ESME Program.

BACKGROUND: Although adjuvant cancer treatments increase cure rates, they may induce clonal selection and tumor resistance. Information still lacks as whether (neo)adjuvant anti-HER2 treatments impact the patterns of recurrence and outcomes of HER2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We aimed to assess this in the large multicenter ESME real-world database. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined the characteristics and outcomes (overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival under first-line treatment (PFS1)) of HER2+ patients with MBC from the French ESME program with recurrent disease, as a function of the previous receipt of adjuvant trastuzumab. Multivariable analyses used Cox models adjusted for baseline demographic, prognostic factors, adjuvant treatment received, and disease-free interval. RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred and forty-three patients who entered the ESME cohort between 2008 and 2017 had a recurrent HER2+ MBC. Among them, 56% had received (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab and 2.5% another anti-HER2 in this setting. Patients pre-exposed to trastuzumab were younger, had a lower disease-free interval, more HR-negative disease and more metastatic sites. While the crude median OS appeared inferior in patients exposed to adjuvant trastuzumab, as compared to those who did not (37.2 (95%CI 34.4-40.3) versus 53.5 months (95% CI: 47.6-60.1)), this difference disappeared in the multivariable model (HR = 1.05, 95%CI 0.91-1.22). The same figures were observed for PFS1. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with relapsed HER2+ MBC, the receipt of adjuvant trastuzumab did not independently predict for worse outcomes when adjusted to other prognostic factors.

Pattern and risk factors of isolated local relapse among women with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer and lymph node involvement: 10-year follow-up analysis of the PACS 01 and PACS 04 trials.

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine the pattern of isolated local recurrences (ILR) in women with stage II-III hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 breast cancer (HR + /HER2-BC) after 10-year follow-up. METHODS: UNICANCER-PACS 01 and PACS 04 trials included 5,008 women with T1-T3 and N1-N3 to evaluate the efficacy of different anthracycline ± taxanes-containing regimens after modified mastectomy or lumpectomy plus axillary lymph node dissection. We analyzed the data from 2,932 women with HR + /HER2- BC to evaluate the cumulative incidence of ILR and describe the factors associated with ILR. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 9.1 years (95% CI 9.0-9.2 years), the cumulative incidence of ILR increased steadily between 1 and 10 years from 0.2% to 2.5%. The multivariable analysis showed that older age (subhazard ratios [sHR] = 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.99) and mastectomy (sHR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.86) were associated with lower risk of ILR, and no adjuvant endocrine therapy (sHR = 2.73, 95% CI 1.32 7-5.67) with increased risk of ILR. CONCLUSION: In this population of high-risk patients with localized HR + /HER2- BC, the risk of ILR was low but remained constant over 10 years. Younger age at diagnosis, breast-conserving surgery, and adjuvant endocrine therapy were independent risk factors of ILR.

Prevention of aromatase inhibitor-induced bone loss with anti-resorptive therapy in post-menopausal women with early-stage breast cancer.

We assessed if antiresorptive treatment can prevent aromatase inhibitor-induced bone loss in patients with early breast cancer. We observed that patients who did not receive antiresorptive treatment had a 20.8-fold increase in risk of bone loss after 24 months of aromatase inhibitors therapy. PURPOSE: This study aimed to describe changes in femoral and lumbar bone mineral density (BMD) after 24 months of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and antiresorptive treatment in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS: Prospective, longitudinal study in a real-life setting with a 2-year follow-up. Patients underwent a complete baseline bone assessment including clinical assessment, biological evaluation, BMD measurement, and spine X-ray. Antiresorptive treatment was prescribed to patients with a T-score < - 2 or a T-score < - 1.5 SD with additional osteoporosis risk factors. A follow-up bone assessment was carried out after 24 months. RESULTS: Among 328 patients referred to our center, 168 patients (67.7 ± 10.6 years) were included in our study, and 144 were eligible for antiresorptive treatment. After 24 months, patients receiving antiresorptive treatment experienced a significant increase of + 6.28% in femoral-BMD (F-BMD) and + 7.79% in lumbar-BMD (L-BMD). This increase was not significantly different between osteoporotic and osteopenic patients. Conversely, patients not receiving antiresorptive treatment presented significant F-BMD and L-BMD loss regardless of the baseline BMD. In the multivariate logistic model, the lack of antiresorptive treatment was the only predictive factor for major femoral bone loss with a 20.83 odds ratio (CI95%:4.2-100, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This real-life study confirmed that antiresorptive treatment significantly increases femoral and lumbar BMD regardless of the baseline BMD in postmenopausal patients receiving AIs for early breast cancer. Patients who did not receive antiresorptive treatment had a 20.8-fold increased risk of major bone loss. Nevertheless, the best threshold to adopt for starting antiresorptive agents remains undetermined.

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.

Immunotherapy and breast cancer: an overview.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have demonstrated survival benefits in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients, treated in both the advanced and the early settings. RECENT FINDINGS: As monotherapy, ICI failed to demonstrate a superiority over chemotherapy in pretreated advanced TNBC. In the first-line setting, ICI in combination with chemotherapy have shown consistent gains in progression-free survival in programmed death-ligand 1-positive TNBC, but only pembrolizumab indisputably demonstrated a significant overall survival benefit. In early-stage TNBC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), ICI may improve the pathological complete response (pCR) rate. In the KEYNOTE-522 trial enrolling stage II to III TNBC patients, pembrolizumab, in combination with a NAC composed of carboplatin-paclitaxel followed by anthracyclines, and continued in the adjuvant phase led to significant increases in both pCR and disease-free survival, a practice-changing result in the field. Importantly, no unexpected safety signal was observed, but the possibility of definitive ICI-related toxicities may be challenging in curable early disease. SUMMARY: Immunotherapy is now an important component in the therapeutic management of TNBC. Unresolved issues include the best chemotherapy partners, additional biomarkers to maximize the clinical benefit, and the possible extension of its use to other breast cancer subtypes.

Post-traumatic growth 5 years after cancer: identification of associated actionable factors.

BACKGROUND: The number of cancer survivors is growing increasingly worldwide. The long-term negative consequences of the disease are now better known. Cancer may also foster positive outcomes. Some survivors consider life after cancer as the start of a new life and experience positive changes called post-traumatic growth (PTG) measured by a scale developed by Tedeschi and Calhoun. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article was to explore actionable factors affecting PTG, particularly those in relation with health care management and those that reflected health behavior changes. METHODS: This study included the 1,982 participants in the VICAN cohort who responded to the questionnaire on living conditions 2 and 5 years after diagnosis. Factors associated with a moderate or high PTG (score ≥ 63) were identified using logistic regressions. RESULTS: Factors positively associated with moderate or high PTG were being satisfied with the time spent by health care team on information (OR:1.35 [1.08;1.70]), increased physical activity (OR:1.42 [1.04;1.95]) and healthier diet (OR:1.85 [1.44;2.36]) since diagnosis, and having benefited from psychological support at diagnosis (OR:1.53 [1.16;2.01]). CONCLUSION: High PTG is positively associated with health behavior and time spent on information. Our findings suggest that appropriate clinical and educational interventions can help foster growth after the experience of cancer. Even if we do not know what causes what, it is admitted that the interventions leading to an increase of physical activity, for example, are good from all points of view.

Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (KEYNOTE-119): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab showed durable antitumour activity and manageable safety in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in the single-arm KEYNOTE-012 and KEYNOTE-086 trials. In this study, we compared pembrolizumab with chemotherapy for second-line or third-line treatment of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. METHODS: KEYNOTE-119 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at 150 medical centres (academic medical centres, community cancer centres, and community hospitals) in 31 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, with centrally confirmed metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, who had received one or two previous systemic treatments for metastatic disease, had progression on their most recent therapy, and had previous treatment with an anthracycline or taxane were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a block method (block size of four) and an interactive voice-response system with integrated web-response to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks for 35 cycles (pembrolizumab group), or to single-drug chemotherapy per investigator's choice of capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine (60% enrolment cap for each; chemotherapy group). Randomisation was stratified by PD-L1 tumour status (positive [combined positive score (CPS) ≥1] vs negative [CPS <1]) and history of previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment versus de-novo metastatic disease at initial diagnosis. Primary endpoints were overall survival in participants with a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of 10 or more, those with a CPS of 1 or more, and all participants; superiority of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy was tested in all participants only if shown in those with a CPS of one or more. The primary endpoint was analysed in the intention-to-treat population; safety was analysed in the all-subjects-as-treated population. This Article describes the final analysis of the trial, which is now completed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02555657. FINDINGS: From Nov 25, 2015, to April 11, 2017, 1098 participants were assessed for eligibility and 622 (57%) were randomly assigned to receive either pembrolizumab (312 [50%]) or chemotherapy (310 [50%]). Median study follow-up was 31·4 months (IQR 27·8-34·4) for the pembrolizumab group and 31·5 months (27·8-34·6) for the chemotherapy group. Median overall survival in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more was 12·7 months (95% CI 9·9-16·3) for the pembrolizumab group and 11·6 months (8·3-13·7) for the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·78 [95% CI 0·57-1·06]; log-rank p=0·057). In participants with a CPS of 1 or more, median overall survival was 10·7 months (9·3-12·5) for the pembrolizumab group and 10·2 months (7·9-12·6) for the chemotherapy group (HR 0·86 [95% CI 0·69-1·06]; log-rank p=0·073). In the overall population, median overall survival was 9·9 months (95% CI 8·3-11·4) for the pembrolizumab group and 10·8 months (9·1-12·6) for the chemotherapy group (HR 0·97 [95% CI 0·82-1·15]). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (three [1%] patients in the pembrolizumab group vs ten [3%] in the chemotherapy group), decreased white blood cells (one [<1%] vs 14 [5%]), decreased neutrophil count (one [<1%] vs 29 [10%]), and neutropenia (0 vs 39 [13%]). 61 (20%) patients in the pembrolizumab group and 58 (20%) patients in the chemotherapy group had serious adverse events. Three (<1%) of 601 participants had treatment-related adverse events that led to death (one [<1%] in the pembrolizumab group due to circulatory collapse; two [1%] in the chemotherapy group, one [<1%] due to pancytopenia and sepsis and one [<1%] haemothorax). INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab did not significantly improve overall survival in patients with previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer versus chemotherapy. These findings might inform future research of pembrolizumab monotherapy for selected subpopulations of patients, specifically those with PD-L1-enriched tumours, and inform a combinatorial approach for the treatment of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

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

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

Risk of secondary hematologic malignancies associated with breast cancer chemotherapy and G-CSF support: A nationwide population-based cohort.

Our study aimed to analyze the risk of hematologic malignancies (HM) associated with the use of G-CSF with chemotherapy for BC. Using the French National Health Data System, we examined the HM risks in patients diagnosed with an incident breast cancer between 2007 and 2015, who received chemotherapy for BC. Main outcomes were acute myeloid leukemia (AML), Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), multiple myeloma (MM), Hodgkin lymphoma or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (HL/NHL) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia or lymphocytic lymphoma (ALL/LL). Among a total of 122 373 BC survivors, 38.9% received chemotherapy only and 61.1% received chemotherapy + G-CSF. Overall, 781 cases of hematologic malignancies occurred. We observed a nonsignificant increase in the risk of AML (aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.7), of MDS (aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9-1.8) and of ALL/LL (aHR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-4.4) among patients treated by chemotherapy + G-CSF compared to chemotherapy only. In analyses by dose, we observed a slight increase in the risk of AML (1-3 doses: aHR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.8-1.7/4+ doses: aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.8) and of MDS (1-3 doses: aHR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-1.7/4+ doses: aHR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9), a significant increase in risk of ALL (1-3 doses: aHR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.5-3.9 / 4+ doses: aHR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.0-5.1) with increasing cycles of G-CSF. Our population-based study showed that the ALL/LL was the only HM at increased risk with the use of growth factors with a possible dose-effect relationship. Our data regarding the risk of all the other HM are reassuring.

Talazoparib in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer and a Germline BRCA Mutation.

BACKGROUND: The poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) inhibitor talazoparib has shown antitumor activity in patients with advanced breast cancer and germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 ( BRCA1/2). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation were assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive talazoparib (1 mg once daily) or standard single-agent therapy of the physician's choice (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine in continuous 21-day cycles). The primary end point was progression-free survival, which was assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: Of the 431 patients who underwent randomization, 287 were assigned to receive talazoparib and 144 were assigned to receive standard therapy. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the talazoparib group than in the standard-therapy group (8.6 months vs. 5.6 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.71; P<0.001). The interim median hazard ratio for death was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.55 to 1.06; P=0.11 [57% of projected events]). The objective response rate was higher in the talazoparib group than in the standard-therapy group (62.6% vs. 27.2%; odds ratio, 5.0; 95% CI, 2.9 to 8.8; P<0.001). Hematologic grade 3-4 adverse events (primarily anemia) occurred in 55% of the patients who received talazoparib and in 38% of the patients who received standard therapy; nonhematologic grade 3 adverse events occurred in 32% and 38% of the patients, respectively. Patient-reported outcomes favored talazoparib; significant overall improvements and significant delays in the time to clinically meaningful deterioration according to both the global health status-quality-of-life and breast symptoms scales were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation, single-agent talazoparib provided a significant benefit over standard chemotherapy with respect to progression-free survival. Patient-reported outcomes were superior with talazoparib. (Funded by Medivation [Pfizer]; EMBRACA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01945775 .).

Adjuvant chemotherapy for small, lymph node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer: A single-center study and a meta-analysis of the published literature.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with small, lymph node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) measuring >5 mm (T1b disease), but clinical evidence to support this recommendation is lacking. Thus, the current study aimed to evaluate the survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with T1N0M0 (measuring ≤2 cm) TNBC with different tumor sizes. METHODS: The authors retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients with pT1N0M0 TNBC who were diagnosed between 2000 and 2016 at Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center. For the meta-analysis, electronic medical databases were searched for all relevant studies regarding the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on the target population. RESULTS: Of the 351 enrolled patients, 309 (88%) received adjuvant chemotherapy and 42 patients (12%) did not. The distribution by T classification was T1a in 19 patients (5.4%), T1b in 67 patients (19.1%), and T1c in 265 patients (75.5%). Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) in the patients with T1c disease, but not those with T1b and T1a disease. Meanwhile, there was no difference in RFS noted according to the chemotherapy regimen among patients with T1c disease. Seven eligible studies comprising 1525 patients with T1N0M0 (941 with T1a/bN0M0) were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated that adjuvant chemotherapy significantly reduced the rate of disease recurrence for patients with T1a/b disease as a group, but the population driving that was only patients with T1b disease, not those with T1a disease. CONCLUSIONS: Although the retrospective analysis demonstrated a survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy only for patients with T1cN0 TNBC, the meta-analysis showed it also is beneficial for individuals with T1bN0 TNBC. For patients with T1cN0M0 TNBC, less intensive chemotherapy regimens achieve an excellent survival outcome similar to that of intensive anthracycline and taxane combination chemotherapy.

Prognostic value of CEC count in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients treated with bevacizumab and chemotherapy: a prospective validation study (UCBG COMET).

BACKGROUND: Proof of concept studies has reported that circulating endothelial cell (CEC) count may be associated with the outcome of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients treated by chemotherapy and the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab. We report the results obtained in an independent prospective validation cohort (COMET study, NCT01745757). METHODS: The main baseline criteria were HER2-negative mBC, performance status 0-2 and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. CECs were detected by CellSearch® from 4 ml of blood at baseline and after 4 weeks of weekly paclitaxel and bevacizumab therapy. CEC counts (considered both as a continuous variable and using the previously described 20 CEC/4 ml cutoff) were associated with clinical characteristics and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: CEC count was obtained in 251 patients at baseline and in 207 patients at 4 weeks. Median baseline CEC count was 22 CEC/4 ml (range 0-2231). Baseline CEC counts were associated with performance status (p = 0.02). No statistically significant change in CEC counts was observed between baseline and 4 weeks of therapy. High baseline CEC count was associated with shorter PFS in univariate and multivariate analyses (continuous: p < 0.001; dichotomized: HR 1.52, 95% CI [1.15-2.02], p = 0.004). CEC counts at 4 weeks had no prognostic impact. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that CEC count may be associated with the outcome of mBC patients treated with chemotherapy and bevacizumab. However, discrepancies with previous reports in terms of both the timing of CEC count and the direction of the prognostic impact warrant further clinical investigation.

Talazoparib in Patients with a Germline BRCA-Mutated Advanced Breast Cancer: Detailed Safety Analyses from the Phase III EMBRACA Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the EMBRACA phase III study (NCT01945775), talazoparib was associated with a significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT) in germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). Herein, the safety profile of talazoparib is explored in detail. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall, 412 patients received ≥1 dose of talazoparib (n = 286) or PCT (n = 126). Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated, including timing, duration, and potential overlap of selected AEs. The relationship between talazoparib plasma exposure and grade ≥3 anemia was analyzed. Time-varying Cox proportional hazard models assessed the impact of dose reductions on PFS. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with common AEs and health resource utilization (HRU) were assessed in both treatment arms. RESULTS: The most common AEs with talazoparib were hematologic (195 [68.2%] patients) and typically occurred within the first 3-4 months of receiving talazoparib. Grade 3-4 anemia lasted approximately 7 days for both arms. Overlapping grade 3-4 hematologic AEs were infrequent with talazoparib. Higher talazoparib exposure was associated with grade ≥3 anemia. Permanent discontinuation of talazoparib due to hematologic AEs was low (<2%). A total of 150 (52.4%) patients receiving talazoparib had AEs associated with dose reduction. Hematologic toxicities were managed by supportive care medication (including transfusion) and dose modifications. Among patients with anemia or nausea and/or vomiting AEs, PROs favored talazoparib. After accounting for the treatment-emergent period, talazoparib was generally associated with a lower rate of hospitalization and supportive care medication use compared with chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Talazoparib was associated with superior efficacy, favorable PROs, and lower HRU rate versus chemotherapy in gBRCA-mutated ABC. Toxicities were manageable with talazoparib dose modification and supportive care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Talazoparib was generally well tolerated in patients with germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer in the EMBRACA trial. Common toxicities with talazoparib were primarily hematologic and infrequently resulted in permanent drug discontinuation (<2% of patients discontinued talazoparib due to hematologic toxicity). Hematologic toxicities typically occurred during the first 3-4 months of treatment and were managed by dose modifications and supportive care measures. A significant efficacy benefit, improved patient-reported outcomes, lower rate of health resource utilization and a tolerable safety profile support incorporating talazoparib into routine management of germline BRCA-mutated locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer.

Combining poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors in breast cancer: rationale and preliminary clinical results.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recently, both immune checkpoint inhibitors and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors have demonstrated clinical benefit in some subsets of HER2-negative breast cancer patients. A biological rationale exists supporting a potential synergism between these compounds, which may further increase their antitumor activity in the clinic. RECENT FINDINGS: PARP inhibitors were shown to activate type I interferon pathway, thus eliciting local and general immune response, while inducing programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) up-regulation. In addition, the DNA damages created by PARP inhibition may increase tumor mutational burden and neo-antigens, thereby favoring efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Accordingly, clinical trials combining PARP inhibitors and agents targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis have been initiated in breast cancer in both advanced and early stages, enrolling patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutation, homologous recombination deficiency and/or with triple negative phenotype. Preliminary safety and efficacy results are encouraging, but it is still unclear whether the combination adds benefit compared with each therapeutic administered as single agent. SUMMARY: Although a strong rationale exists to support the combination of PARP inhibitors with immune checkpoint inhibitors, future clinical trials will have to demonstrate whether it improves outcome and to identify which patients are the most likely to benefit from.

Real-life activity of eribulin mesylate among metastatic breast cancer patients in the multicenter national observational ESME program.

Eribulin mesylate (EM) was recently approved for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) chemotherapy (CT) in late lines by the FDA, with debated results in second line. We evaluated outcomes in breast cancer patients receiving EM as second, third and fourth line in a national real-life cohort of 16,703 consecutive MBC patients initiating their first metastatic therapeutic line between 2008 and 2014. Primary and secondary objectives were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). An imbalance was seen for HER2+ tumors and concomitant anti-HER2 targeted therapies use, we thus performed a subanalysis in HER2- patients. PFS and OS were significantly better in EM patients in third and fourth lines, compared to "Other chemotherapies" patients (PFS: 4.14 vs. 3.02 months, p = 0.0010; 3.61 vs. 2.53 months, p = 0.0102, third and fourth-line; OS: 11.27 vs. 7.65 months, p = 0.0001; 10.91 vs. 5.95 months, p < 0.0001, third and fourth-line). No significant difference was reported in second-line (PFS: 5.06 vs. 4.14 months, p = 0.1171; OS: 13.99 vs. 11.66 months, p = 0.151). Among HER2- patients, a significant difference was seen for all lines, including 2nd-line (PFS: 4.57 vs. 3.91 months, p = 0.0379; OS: 14.98 vs. 10.51 months, p = 0.0113). In this large real-world database, HER2-negative MBC patients receiving EM in second or later CT line presented significantly better PFS and OS. This difference disappeared in second line in the overall population, probably because of the imbalance in HER2-targeted treatments use. Our results mirror those of the published randomized trials. The effect of anti-HER2 therapies addition in this setting still needs to be defined.