New clinical and biological insights from the international TARGIT-A randomised trial of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy during lumpectomy for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The TARGIT-A trial reported risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) during lumpectomy for breast cancer to be as effective as whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Here, we present further detailed analyses. METHODS: In total, 2298 women (≥45 years, invasive ductal carcinoma ≤3.5 cm, cN0-N1) were randomised. We investigated the impact of tumour size, grade, ER, PgR, HER2 and lymph node status on local recurrence-free survival, and of local recurrence on distant relapse and mortality. We analysed the predictive factors for recommending supplemental EBRT after TARGIT-IORT as part of the risk-adapted approach, using regression modelling. Non-breast cancer mortality was compared between TARGIT-IORT plus EBRT vs. EBRT. RESULTS: Local recurrence-free survival was no different between TARGIT-IORT and EBRT, in every tumour subgroup. Unlike in the EBRT arm, local recurrence in the TARGIT-IORT arm was not a predictor of a higher risk of distant relapse or death. Our new predictive tool for recommending supplemental EBRT after TARGIT-IORT is at https://targit.org.uk/addrt . Non-breast cancer mortality was significantly lower in the TARGIT-IORT arm, even when patients received supplemental EBRT, HR 0.38 (95% CI 0.17-0.88) P = 0.0091. CONCLUSION: TARGIT-IORT is as effective as EBRT in all subgroups. Local recurrence after TARGIT-IORT, unlike after EBRT, has a good prognosis. TARGIT-IORT might have a beneficial abscopal effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN34086741 (21/7/2004), NCT00983684 (24/9/2009).

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 .).

Trastuzumab emtansine with or without pertuzumab versus trastuzumab with taxane for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced breast cancer: Final results from MARIANNE.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 MARIANNE trial, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with or without pertuzumab showed noninferior progression-free survival and better tolerability than trastuzumab plus a taxane (HT) for the first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced breast cancer. This article reports the final descriptive overall survival (OS) analysis, updated safety data, and additional patient-reported outcomes and biomarker analyses. METHODS: OS was assessed in 1095 patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and no prior therapy for advanced disease who had been randomized to HT, T-DM1 plus a placebo (hereafter T-DM1), or T-DM1 plus pertuzumab (T-DM1+pertuzumab). A post hoc exploratory landmark analysis of OS, baseline patient and disease characteristics, and tumor biomarkers in patients with and without an objective tumor response (OR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors within 6.5 months of randomization was conducted. RESULTS: The median OS was similar across groups (50.9, 53.7, and 51.8 months for the HT, T-DM1, and T-DM1+pertuzumab groups, respectively). Among patients with an OR, the median OS was longer with T-DM1 (64.4 months) and T-DM1+pertuzumab (not reached) versus HT (56.3 months). No baseline characteristics or biomarkers were strongly associated with OR. The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was greater with HT (55.8%) than T-DM1 (47.1%) or T-DM1+pertuzumab (48.6%). The median time to clinically meaningful deterioration (a 3-point or greater change) in neurotoxicity symptoms was shorter with HT (2.1 months) and T-DM1+pertuzumab (4.2 months) than T-DM1 (6.2 months). Fewer patients reported alopecia and diarrhea and were bothered by treatment side effects in the T-DM1 arm. CONCLUSIONS: These results support T-DM1 as a first-line treatment for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who are deemed unsuitable for taxane-based therapy.

Correction to: Relationship between tumor biomarkers and efficacy in MARIANNE, a phase III study of trastuzumab emtansine ± pertuzumab versus trastuzumab plus taxane in HER2-positive advanced breast cancer.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported the following errors in the article.

Relationship between tumor biomarkers and efficacy in MARIANNE, a phase III study of trastuzumab emtansine ± pertuzumab versus trastuzumab plus taxane in HER2-positive advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The phase III EMILIA and TH3RESA trials demonstrated clinical benefits of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) therapy in patients with previously treated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Data from these and other trials showed that T-DM1-associated survival benefits were observed across biomarker subgroups tested in these trials. Prespecified, exploratory analyses of the phase III MARIANNE study examined the effects of HER2-related biomarkers on PFS in patients administered T-DM1 in the first-line MBC setting. METHODS: In MARIANNE, patients with previously untreated HER2-positive MBC were randomized (1:1:1) to trastuzumab plus taxane, T-DM1 plus placebo, or T-DM1 plus pertuzumab. Biomarker subgroups included HER2 and HER3 mRNA expression levels (≤median vs. >median), HER2 staining intensity (IHC 3+ vs. 2+ vs. 0/1+), PIK3CA status (mutated vs. non-mutated), PTEN H-score (≤median vs. >median), and PTEN protein expression level (0 vs. 1+ vs. 2+ vs. 3+ vs. 4+). PFS was analyzed descriptively for each subgroup using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Additional exploratory post-hoc analyses evaluated the effects of HER2 heterogeneity. Multivariate analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Median PFS was numerically longer for patients with HER2 mRNA levels >median versus ≤median across treatment arms. In general, there were no predictive biomarkers of benefit for either T-DM1 treatment arm; most hazard ratios were close to 1 with wide confidence intervals that included the value 1. Focal HER2 expression (IHC 3+ or IHC 2+) was present in 3.8% of patients and was associated with numerically shorter PFS in the T-DM1-containing treatment arms versus trastuzumab plus taxane. Compared with non-mutated PIK3CA, mutated PIK3CA was associated with numerically shorter median PFS across treatment groups. Post-hoc multivariate analysis showed HER2 mRNA expression and mutated PIK3CA were prognostic for PFS (P ≤ 0.001 for both biomarkers). CONCLUSIONS: In MARIANNE, biomarkers related to the HER2 pathway did not have predictive value for PFS when comparing T-DM1 (with or without pertuzumab) with trastuzumab plus taxane. However, HER2 mRNA level and PIK3CA mutation status showed prognostic value. Evaluation of other potential biomarkers, including immune markers, is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration number: NCT01120184 . Date of registration: April 28, 2010 (registered prospectively).

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen for the prevention of locoregional and contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ (IBIS-II DCIS): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Third-generation aromatase inhibitors are more effective than tamoxifen for preventing recurrence in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive invasive breast cancer. However, it is not known whether anastrozole is more effective than tamoxifen for women with hormone-receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Here, we compare the efficacy of anastrozole with that of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. METHODS: In a double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial, we recruited women who had been diagnosed with locally excised, hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Eligible women were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by central computer allocation to receive 1 mg oral anastrozole or 20 mg oral tamoxifen every day for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by major centre or hub and was done in blocks (six, eight, or ten). All trial personnel, participants, and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation and only the trial statistician had access to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was all recurrence, including recurrent DCIS and new contralateral tumours. All analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis (in all women who were randomised and did not revoke consent for their data to be included) and proportional hazard models were used to compute hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN37546358. RESULTS: Between March 3, 2003, and Feb 8, 2012, we enrolled 2980 postmenopausal women from 236 centres in 14 countries and randomly assigned them to receive anastrozole (1449 analysed) or tamoxifen (1489 analysed). Median follow-up was 7·2 years (IQR 5·6-8·9), and 144 breast cancer recurrences were recorded. We noted no statistically significant difference in overall recurrence (67 recurrences for anastrozole vs 77 for tamoxifen; HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·64-1·23]). The non-inferiority of anastrozole was established (upper 95% CI <1·25), but its superiority to tamoxifen was not (p=0·49). A total of 69 deaths were recorded (33 for anastrozole vs 36 for tamoxifen; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·58-1·50], p=0·78), and no specific cause was more common in one group than the other. The number of women reporting any adverse event was similar between anastrozole (1323 women, 91%) and tamoxifen (1379 women, 93%); the side-effect profiles of the two drugs differed, with more fractures, musculoskeletal events, hypercholesterolaemia, and strokes with anastrozole and more muscle spasm, gynaecological cancers and symptoms, vasomotor symptoms, and deep vein thromboses with tamoxifen. CONCLUSIONS: No clear efficacy differences were seen between the two treatments. Anastrozole offers another treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS, which may be be more appropriate for some women with contraindications for tamoxifen. Longer follow-up will be necessary to fully evaluate treatment differences. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, Breast Cancer Research Fund, AstraZeneca, Sanofi Aventis.

A randomized phase 2 study comparing EC or CMF versus nab-paclitaxel plus capecitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy for nonfrail elderly patients with moderate to high-risk early breast cancer (ICE II-GBG 52).

BACKGROUND: Although greater than 40% of breast cancers occur in patients aged ≥65 years, these individuals are frequently undertreated. Taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy is considered the treatment of choice but to the authors' knowledge has only limited evidence in elderly patients. METHODS: Patients aged ≥65 years with a Charlson comorbidity index ≤2 and pT1/2 pN0/1 disease and either human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive, hormone receptor-negative, grade 3 (according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3.0]), high uPA/PAI-1 or any stage pT3/4 pN2/3 breast cancer were randomized to receive 4 cycles of adjuvant epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (EC) (epirubicin at a dose of 90 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide at a dose of 600 mg/m(2) intravenously [iv] on day 1 every 3 22 days) or 6 cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) (cyclophosphamide at a dose of 500 mg/m(2), methotrexate at a dose of 40 mg/m(2), and 5-fluorouracil at a dose of 600 mg/m(2) iv on days 1 plus 8 every 29 days) versus 6 cycles of nab-paclitaxel and capecitabine (nPX) (nab-paclitaxel at a dose of 100 mg/m(2) iv on days 1, 8, and 15 every 21 days with 1 week of rest every 6 weeks plus capecitabine at a dose of 2000 mg/m(2) orally on days 1-14 every 21 days). Primary endpoints were treatment discontinuations and overall frequency of adverse events. RESULTS: Thirteen of 198 patients (6.6%) discontinued EC/CMF and 69 of 193 patients (35.8%) discontinued nPX (P<.001) with 1 and 5 deaths observed during treatment, respectively. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were more frequent among patients treated with EC/CMF (90.9%) than among those treated with nPX (64.8%) (P<.001), with hematological toxicities being more frequent with EC/CMF (88.4% vs 22.3%; P<.001), but nonhematological toxicities (hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, mucositis, fatigue, sensory neuropathy, thromboembolisms, and metabolic disorders) being more frequent with nPX (58.5% vs 18.7%; P<.001). None of the geriatric scores (Charlson comorbidity index, Vulnerable Elders Survey [VES-13], Instrumental Activities of Daily Living [IADL], and G8) independently predicted grade 3 to 5 toxic events or treatment discontinuations. No differences in survival between the treatment groups were observed after 22.8 months. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with EC/CMF, treatment with nPX led to more treatment discontinuations and nonhematological toxicities in elderly patients with moderate or high-risk breast cancer.

Risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole-breast radiotherapy for breast cancer: 5-year results for local control and overall survival from the TARGIT-A randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The TARGIT-A trial compared risk-adapted radiotherapy using single-dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) versus fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for breast cancer. We report 5-year results for local recurrence and the first analysis of overall survival. METHODS: TARGIT-A was a randomised, non-inferiority trial. Women aged 45 years and older with invasive ductal carcinoma were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive TARGIT or whole-breast EBRT, with blocks stratified by centre and by timing of delivery of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy: randomisation occurred either before lumpectomy (prepathology stratum, TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy) or after lumpectomy (postpathology stratum, TARGIT given subsequently by reopening the wound). Patients in the TARGIT group received supplemental EBRT (excluding a boost) if unforeseen adverse features were detected on final pathology, thus radiotherapy was risk-adapted. The primary outcome was absolute difference in local recurrence in the conserved breast, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 2·5% at 5 years; prespecified analyses included outcomes as per timing of randomisation in relation to lumpectomy. Secondary outcomes included complications and mortality. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00983684. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled at 33 centres in 11 countries, between March 24, 2000, and June 25, 2012. 1721 patients were randomised to TARGIT and 1730 to EBRT. Supplemental EBRT after TARGIT was necessary in 15·2% [239 of 1571] of patients who received TARGIT (21·6% prepathology, 3·6% postpathology). 3451 patients had a median follow-up of 2 years and 5 months (IQR 12-52 months), 2020 of 4 years, and 1222 of 5 years. The 5-year risk for local recurrence in the conserved breast was 3·3% (95% CI 2·1-5·1) for TARGIT versus 1·3% (0·7-2·5) for EBRT (p=0·042). TARGIT concurrently with lumpectomy (prepathology, n=2298) had much the same results as EBRT: 2·1% (1·1-4·2) versus 1·1% (0·5-2·5; p=0·31). With delayed TARGIT (postpathology, n=1153) the between-group difference was larger than 2·5% (TARGIT 5·4% [3·0-9·7] vs EBRT 1·7% [0·6-4·9]; p=0·069). Overall, breast cancer mortality was much the same between groups (2·6% [1·5-4·3] for TARGIT vs 1·9% [1·1-3·2] for EBRT; p=0·56) but there were significantly fewer non-breast-cancer deaths with TARGIT (1·4% [0·8-2·5] vs 3·5% [2·3-5·2]; p=0·0086), attributable to fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes and other cancers. Overall mortality was 3·9% (2·7-5·8) for TARGIT versus 5·3% (3·9-7·3) for EBRT (p=0·099). Wound-related complications were much the same between groups but grade 3 or 4 skin complications were significantly reduced with TARGIT (four of 1720 vs 13 of 1731, p=0·029). INTERPRETATION: TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy within a risk-adapted approach should be considered as an option for eligible patients with breast cancer carefully selected as per the TARGIT-A trial protocol, as an alternative to postoperative EBRT. FUNDING: University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council, and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pathological complete response has been proposed as a surrogate endpoint for prediction of long-term clinical benefit, such as disease-free survival, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS). We had four key objectives: to establish the association between pathological complete response and EFS and OS, to establish the definition of pathological complete response that correlates best with long-term outcome, to identify the breast cancer subtypes in which pathological complete response is best correlated with long-term outcome, and to assess whether an increase in frequency of pathological complete response between treatment groups predicts improved EFS and OS. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Medline for clinical trials of neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. To be eligible, studies had to meet three inclusion criteria: include at least 200 patients with primary breast cancer treated with preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery; have available data for pathological complete response, EFS, and OS; and have a median follow-up of at least 3 years. We compared the three most commonly used definitions of pathological complete response--ypT0 ypN0, ypT0/is ypN0, and ypT0/is--for their association with EFS and OS in a responder analysis. We assessed the association between pathological complete response and EFS and OS in various subgroups. Finally, we did a trial-level analysis to assess whether pathological complete response could be used as a surrogate endpoint for EFS or OS. FINDINGS: We obtained data from 12 identified international trials and 11 955 patients were included in our responder analysis. Eradication of tumour from both breast and lymph nodes (ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0) was better associated with improved EFS (ypT0 ypN0: hazard ratio [HR] 0·44, 95% CI 0·39-0·51; ypT0/is ypN0: 0·48, 0·43-0·54) and OS (0·36, 0·30-0·44; 0·36, 0·31-0·42) than was tumour eradication from the breast alone (ypT0/is; EFS: HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·55-0·66; OS 0·51, 0·45-0·58). We used the ypT0/is ypN0 definition for all subsequent analyses. The association between pathological complete response and long-term outcomes was strongest in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (EFS: HR 0·24, 95% CI 0·18-0·33; OS: 0·16, 0·11-0·25) and in those with HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-negative tumours who received trastuzumab (EFS: 0·15, 0·09-0·27; OS: 0·08, 0·03, 0·22). In the trial-level analysis, we recorded little association between increases in frequency of pathological complete response and EFS (R(2)=0·03, 95% CI 0·00-0·25) and OS (R(2)=0·24, 0·00-0·70). INTERPRETATION: Patients who attain pathological complete response defined as ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0 have improved survival. The prognostic value is greatest in aggressive tumour subtypes. Our pooled analysis could not validate pathological complete response as a surrogate endpoint for improved EFS and OS. FUNDING: US Food and Drug Administration.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (NOAH): follow-up of a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2-negative cohort.

BACKGROUND: In our randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial NeOAdjuvant Herceptin (NOAH) trial in women with HER2-positive locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer, neoadjuvant trastuzumab significantly improved pathological complete response rate and event-free survival. We report updated results from our primary analysis to establish the long-term benefit of trastuzumab-containing neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: We did this multicentre, open-label, randomised trial in women with HER2-positive locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), by computer program with a minimisation technique, to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone or with 1 year of trastuzumab (concurrently with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and continued after surgery). A parallel group with HER2-negative disease was included and received neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone. Our primary endpoint was event-free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered at www.controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN86043495. FINDINGS: Between June 20, 2002, and Dec 12, 2005, we enrolled 235 patients with HER2-positive disease, of whom 118 received chemotherapy alone and 117 received chemotherapy plus trastuzumab. 99 additional patients with HER2-negative disease were included in the parallel cohort. After a median follow-up of 5.4 years (IQR 3.1-6.8) the event-free-survival benefit from the addition of trastuzumab to chemotherapy was maintained in patients with HER2-positive disease. 5 year event-free survival was 58% (95% CI 48-66) in patients in the trastuzumab group and 43% (34-52) in those in the chemotherapy group; the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for event-free survival between the two randomised HER2-positive treatment groups was 0.64 (95% CI 0.44-0.93; two-sided log-rank p=0.016). Event-free survival was strongly associated with pathological complete remission in patients given trastuzumab. Of the 68 patients with a pathological complete response (45 with trastuzumab and 23 with chemotherapy alone), the HR for event-free survival between those with and without trastuzumab was 0.29 (95% CI 0.11-0.78). During follow-up only four cardiovascular adverse events were regarded by the investigator to be drug-related (grade 2 lymphostasis and grade 2 lymphoedema, each in one patient in the trastuzumab group, and grade 2 thrombosis and grade 2 deep vein thrombosis, each in one patient in the chemotherapy-alone group). INTERPRETATION: These results show a sustained benefit in event-free survival from trastuzumab-containing neoadjuvant therapy followed by adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer, and provide new insight into the association between pathological complete remission and long-term outcomes in HER2-positive disease.

Adjuvant trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab improves survival in the adjuvant treatment of HER-positive breast cancer, although combined therapy with anthracycline-based regimens has been associated with cardiac toxicity. We wanted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new nonanthracycline regimen with trastuzumab. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3222 women with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer to receive doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel every 3 weeks (AC-T), the same regimen plus 52 weeks of trastuzumab (AC-T plus trastuzumab), or docetaxel and carboplatin plus 52 weeks of trastuzumab (TCH). The primary study end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points were overall survival and safety. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 65 months, 656 events triggered this protocol-specified analysis. The estimated disease-free survival rates at 5 years were 75% among patients receiving AC-T, 84% among those receiving AC-T plus trastuzumab, and 81% among those receiving TCH. Estimated rates of overall survival were 87%, 92%, and 91%, respectively. No significant differences in efficacy (disease-free or overall survival) were found between the two trastuzumab regimens, whereas both were superior to AC-T. The rates of congestive heart failure and cardiac dysfunction were significantly higher in the group receiving AC-T plus trastuzumab than in the TCH group (P<0.001). Eight cases of acute leukemia were reported: seven in the groups receiving the anthracycline-based regimens and one in the TCH group subsequent to receiving an anthracycline outside the study. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab significantly improved disease-free and overall survival among women with HER2-positive breast cancer. The risk-benefit ratio favored the nonanthracycline TCH regimen over AC-T plus trastuzumab, given its similar efficacy, fewer acute toxic effects, and lower risks of cardiotoxicity and leukemia. (Funded by Sanofi-Aventis and Genentech; BCIRG-006 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00021255.).

Health-related quality of life with adjuvant docetaxel- and trastuzumab-based regimens in patients with node-positive and high-risk node-negative, HER2-positive early breast cancer: results from the BCIRG 006 Study.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to describe and compare health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with node-positive and high-risk node-negative HER2-positive early breast cancer receiving adjuvant docetaxel and trastuzumab-based or docetaxel-based regimens alone. METHODS: Eligible patients (n = 3,222) were randomly assigned to either four cycles of adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by four cycles of docetaxel (AC→T) or one of two trastuzumab-containing regimens: adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel plus trastuzumab administered for 1 year (AC→TH) or six cycles of docetaxel plus carboplatin combined with trastuzumab administered for 1 year (TCH). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and BR-23 were administered at baseline, the start of cycle 4 (mid), and the end of chemotherapy (EOC), as well as at 6, 12, and 24 months after chemotherapy. RESULTS: Compliance rates for the EORTC questionnaires were acceptable at 72%-93% of eligible patients out to the 12-month assessment. Systemic side effect (SE) change scores were significantly improved for TCH-treated patients compared with AC→TH and AC→T at EOC, suggesting improved tolerability. Physical functioning (PF) was only slightly worse at midpoint for those receiving TCH, compared with patients who were just starting on taxane in an AC→TH regimen, but was otherwise similar between arms. All treatment arms recovered from the deterioration in SE, PF, and Global Health Scale scores by 1 year and median future perspective change scores continued to improve throughout treatment and follow-up. CONCLUSION: HRQL outcomes for adjuvant docetaxel and trastuzumab-based regimens are favorable and support TCH as a more tolerable treatment option.

Monocytes/macrophages support mammary tumor invasivity by co-secreting lineage-specific EGFR ligands and a STAT3 activator.

BACKGROUND: Tumor-associated macrophages (TAM) promote malignant progression, yet the repertoire of oncogenic factors secreted by TAM has not been clearly defined. We sought to analyze which EGFR- and STAT3-activating factors are secreted by monocytes/macrophages exposed to tumor cell-secreted factors. METHODS: Following exposure of primary human monocytes and macrophages to supernatants of a variety of tumor cell lines, we have analyzed transcript and secreted protein levels of EGFR family ligands and of STAT3 activators. To validate our findings, we have analyzed TAM infiltration levels, systemic and local protein levels as well as clinical data of primary breast cancer patients. RESULTS: Primary human monocytes and macrophages respond to tumor cell-derived factors by secreting EGFR- and STAT3-activating ligands, thus inducing two important oncogenic pathways in carcinoma cells. Tumor cell-secreted factors trigger two stereotype secretory profiles in peripheral blood monocytes and differentiated macrophages: monocytes secrete epiregulin (EREG) and oncostatin-M (OSM), while macrophages secrete heparin-binding EGF-like growth factor (HB-EGF) and OSM. HB-EGF and OSM cooperatively induce tumor cell chemotaxis. HB-EGF and OSM are co-expressed by TAM in breast carcinoma patients, and plasma levels of both ligands correlate strongly. Elevated HB-EGF levels accompany TAM infiltration, tumor growth and dissemination in patients with invasive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Our work identifies systemic markers for TAM involvement in cancer progression, with the potential to be developed into molecular targets in cancer therapy.

Breakthroughs in research and treatment of early breast cancer: an overview of the last three decades.

Breast cancer has become curable for the majority of women in Western Europe and North America. Advances have been made in imaging diagnostics as well as the implementation of nationwide screening programmes. Nowadays, we talk about prevention as well as treatment. Pathology has moved from pure morphology (tumour type, grade and stage) to biological characterisation of the tumour. Treatment has changed considerably through a better understanding of the disease; from a local disease predominated by extensive and mutilating surgical techniques to a point where breast cancer has come into its own as a systemic disease with equal "rights" to local as well as systemic treatment. This paradigm shift has led to a multidisciplinary approach of the understanding and treatment of breast cancer. Molecular classification has changed the understanding of breast cancer and will be the basis for an even more individualised treatment. New (biological) agents will help to further tailor treatment to response or resistance. While systemic treatment has been increased in number and duration surgical/local strategies have been reduced to minimum. Evidence-based medicine has helped to improve and standardise treatment of breast cancer. This review summarises the 10th Biedenkopf meeting that was held to review the advances in breast cancer understanding and treatment.

Recommendations from an international consensus conference on the current status and future of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in primary breast cancer.

The use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) for the treatment of primary breast cancer has constantly increased, especially in trials of new therapeutic regimens. In the 1980 s, NST was shown to substantially improve breast-conserving surgery rates and was first typically used for patients with inoperable locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer. Investigators have since also used NST as an in vivo test for chemosensitivity by assessing pathologic complete response. Today, by using pathologic response and other biomarkers as intermediate end points, results from trials of new regimens and therapies that use NST are aimed to precede and anticipate the results from larger adjuvant trials. In 2003, a panel of representatives from various breast cancer clinical research groups was first convened in Biedenkopf to formulate recommendations on the use of NST. The obtained consensus was updated in two subsequent meetings in 2004 and 2006. The most recent conference on recommendations on the use of NST took place in 2010 and forms the basis of this report.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid in premenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer: 62-month follow-up from the ABCSG-12 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group trial-12 (ABCSG-12) at 48 months' follow-up showed that addition of zoledronic acid to adjuvant endocrine therapy significantly improved disease-free survival. We have now assessed long-term clinical efficacy including disease-free survival and disease outcomes in patients receiving anastrozole or tamoxifen with or without zoledronic acid. METHODS: ABSCG-12 is a randomised, controlled, open-label, two-by-two factorial, multicentre trial in 1803 premenopausal women with endocrine-receptor-positive early-stage (stage I-II) breast cancer receiving goserelin (3.6 mg every 28 days), comparing the efficacy and safety of anastrozole (1 mg per day) or tamoxifen (20 mg per day) with or without zoledronic acid (4 mg every 6 months) for 3 years. Randomisation (1:1:1:1 ratio) was computerised and based on the Pocock and Simon minimisation method to balance the four treatment arms across eight prognostic variables (age, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pathological tumour stage; lymph-node involvement, type of surgery or locoregional therapy, complete axillary dissection, intraoperative radiation therapy, and geographical region). Treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (defined as disease recurrence or death) and analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00295646; follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: At a median follow-up of 62 months (range 0-114.4 months), more than 2 years after treatment completion, 186 disease-free survival events had been reported (53 events in 450 patients on tamoxifen alone, 57 in 453 patients on anastrozole alone, 36 in 450 patients on tamoxifen plus zoledronic acid, and 40 in 450 patients on anastrozole plus zoledronic acid). Zoledronic acid reduced risk of disease-free survival events overall (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51-0.91; p=0.009), although the difference was not significant in the tamoxifen (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44-1.03; p=0.067) and anastrozole arms (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.45-1.02; p=0.061) assessed separately. Zoledronic acid did not significantly affect risk of death (30 deaths with zoledronic acid vs 43 deaths without; HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41-1.07; p=0.09). There was no difference in disease-free survival between patients on tamoxifen alone versus anastrozole alone (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81-1.44; p=0.591), but overall survival was worse with anastrozole than with tamoxifen (46 vs 27 deaths; HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.08-2.83; p=0.02). Treatments were generally well tolerated, with no reports of renal failure or osteonecrosis of the jaw. Bone pain was reported in 601 patients (33%; 349 patients on zoledronic acid vs 252 not on the drug), fatigue in 361 (20%; 192 vs 169), headache in 280 (16%; 147 vs 133), and arthralgia in 266 (15%; 145 vs 121). INTERPRETATION: Addition of zoledronic acid improved disease-free survival in the patients taking anastrozole or tamoxifen. There was no difference in disease-free survival between patients receiving anastrozole and tamoxifen overall, but those on anastrozole alone had inferior overall survival. These data show persistent benefits with zoledronic acid and support its addition to adjuvant endocrine therapy in premenopausal patients with early-stage breast cancer. FUNDING: AstraZeneca; Novartis.

Motesanib, or open-label bevacizumab, in combination with paclitaxel, as first-line treatment for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has a crucial role in angiogenesis, and is a valid target in metastatic breast cancer. Motesanib is an investigational oral inhibitor of VEGF receptors. We aimed to determine whether treatment with motesanib plus paclitaxel is better than placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Between Dec 1, 2006, and July 4, 2008, patients with untreated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned (using a randomisation list created by personnel not associated with the study) in a 1:1:1 ratio to paclitaxel (90 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks) plus either masked motesanib 125 mg orally once per day (n=91), masked placebo orally once per day (n=94), or open-label bevacizumab 10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle (n=97), after stratification according to adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (taxane-containing regimens vs other regimens vs none), number of metastatic sites (<3 vs ≥3), and hormone receptor status (positive vs negative). Placebo was provided as a replica of motesanib 25 mg tablets. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) based on the population as assigned to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00356681. FINDINGS: ORRs for the motesanib group and the placebo group did not differ significantly (49%vs 41%; absolute difference 8% [95% CI -6 to 22]; p=0.31). The ORR in the bevacizumab group (52%) was similar to that in the motesanib group. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events included diarrhoea (18 of 92 patients in the motesanib group, none of 89 patients in the placebo group, and four of 96 patients in the bevacizumab group), fatigue (11, eight, and six), hypertension (11, one, and seven), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (ten, seven, and 19). More patients in the motesanib group had serious adverse events than did those in the placebo or bevacizumab groups (34, 26, and 21 patients, respectively); the most common of these in the motesanib group were gastrointestinal in nature. INTERPRETATION: Data from this trial do not support the further investigation of motesanib at this dose and schedule in this population. FUNDING: Amgen.

Genetic Polymorphisms and Correlation with Treatment-Induced Cardiotoxicity and Prognosis in Patients with Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Cardiac toxicity is a serious potential complication of HER2-directed therapies and anthracyclines. HER2 codon 655 and SLC28A3 gene polymorphisms have been reported to be associated with cardiac toxicity from anti-HER2 and anthracycline therapy, respectively. Association of the polymorphism at HER2 codon 655 with prognosis has also been reported. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Whole blood samples from patients treated on a randomized adjuvant breast cancer trial (BCIRG-006) that compared chemotherapy with or without trastuzumab plus either anthracycline or nonanthracycline chemotherapy were tested for genetic polymorphisms in HER2 codon 655 and SLC28A3. Genotypes were correlated with cardiac function and disease-free survival (DFS) outcomes. RESULTS: Of 3,222 patients enrolled in BCIRG-006, 662 patient samples were successfully genotyped for the rs1136201 allele in HER2 (codon 655): 424 (64%) were AA, 30 (4.5%) were GG, and 208 (31%) were AG genotype. In addition, 665 patient samples were successfully genotyped for the rs7853758 allele in the SLC28A3 gene: 19 (3%) were AA, 475 (71%) were GG, and 171 (26%) were AG genotype. Follow-up time was 10 years. No correlation between DFS, cardiac event rate, or mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and rs1136201 genotype was seen in the trastuzumab-treated or non-trastuzumab-treated patients. Moreover, mean LVEF and cardiac event rates were similar in all rs7853758 genotype groups treated with anthracycline-based therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest study to date to evaluate whether two polymorphisms are associated with DFS and/or cardiac toxicity in HER2-positive breast cancer treated with trastuzumab and/or anthracyclines, we observed no correlation.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab followed by adjuvant trastuzumab versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (the NOAH trial): a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2-negative cohort.

BACKGROUND: The monoclonal antibody trastuzumab has survival benefit when given with chemotherapy to patients with early, operable, and metastatic breast cancer that has HER2 (also known as ERBB2) overexpression or amplification. We aimed to assess event-free survival in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without 1 year of trastuzumab. METHODS: We compared 1 year of treatment with trastuzumab (given as neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment; n=117) with no trastuzumab (118), in women with HER2-positive locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer treated with a neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen consisting of doxorubicin, paclitaxel, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil. Randomisation was done with a computer program and minimisation technique, taking account of geographical area, disease stage, and hormone receptor status. Investigators were informed of treatment allocation. A parallel cohort of 99 patients with HER2-negative disease was included and treated with the same chemotherapy regimen. Primary endpoint was event-free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN86043495. FINDINGS: Trastuzumab significantly improved event-free survival in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer (3-year event-free survival, 71% [95% CI 61-78; n=36 events] with trastuzumab, vs 56% [46-65; n=51 events] without; hazard ratio 0.59 [95% CI 0.38-0.90]; p=0.013). Trastuzumab was well tolerated and, despite concurrent administration with doxorubicin, only two patients (2%) developed symptomatic cardiac failure. Both responded to cardiac drugs. INTERPRETATION: The addition of neoadjuvant and adjuvant trastuzumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be considered for women with HER2-positive locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer to improve event-free survival, survival, and clinical and pathological tumour responses. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole breast radiotherapy for breast cancer (TARGIT-A trial): an international, prospective, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: After breast-conserving surgery, 90% of local recurrences occur within the index quadrant despite the presence of multicentric cancers elsewhere in the breast. Thus, restriction of radiation therapy to the tumour bed during surgery might be adequate for selected patients. We compared targeted intraoperative radiotherapy with the conventional policy of whole breast external beam radiotherapy. METHODS: Having safely piloted the new technique of single-dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy with Intrabeam, we launched the TARGIT-A trial on March 24, 2000. In this prospective, randomised, non-inferiority trial, women aged 45 years or older with invasive ductal breast carcinoma undergoing breast-conserving surgery were enrolled from 28 centres in nine countries. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive targeted intraoperative radiotherapy or whole breast external beam radiotherapy, with blocks stratified by centre and by timing of delivery of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy. Neither patients nor investigators or their teams were masked to treatment assignment. Postoperative discovery of predefined factors (eg, lobular carcinoma) could trigger addition of external beam radiotherapy to targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (in an expected 15% of patients). The primary outcome was local recurrence in the conserved breast. The predefined non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 2.5% in the primary endpoint. All randomised patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00983684. FINDINGS: 1113 patients were randomly allocated to targeted intraoperative radiotherapy and 1119 were allocated to external beam radiotherapy. Of 996 patients who received the allocated treatment in the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy group, 854 (86%) received targeted intraoperative radiotherapy only and 142 (14%) received targeted intraoperative radiotherapy plus external beam radiotherapy. 1025 (92%) patients in the external beam radiotherapy group received the allocated treatment. At 4 years, there were six local recurrences in the intraoperative radiotherapy group and five in the external beam radiotherapy group. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of local recurrence in the conserved breast at 4 years was 1.20% (95% CI 0.53-2.71) in the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy and 0.95% (0.39-2.31) in the external beam radiotherapy group (difference between groups 0.25%, -1.04 to 1.54; p=0.41). The frequency of any complications and major toxicity was similar in the two groups (for major toxicity, targeted intraoperative radiotherapy, 37 [3.3%] of 1113 vs external beam radiotherapy, 44 [3.9%] of 1119; p=0.44). Radiotherapy toxicity (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 3) was lower in the targeted intraoperative radiotherapy group (six patients [0.5%]) than in the external beam radiotherapy group (23 patients [2.1%]; p=0.002). INTERPRETATION: For selected patients with early breast cancer, a single dose of radiotherapy delivered at the time of surgery by use of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy should be considered as an alternative to external beam radiotherapy delivered over several weeks. FUNDING: University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council, and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).