Return of individual genomic research results within the PRAEGNANT multicenter registry study.

PURPOSE: The PRAEGNANT study is a registry study for metastatic breast cancer patients, focusing on biomarker detection. Recently, within this study, genetic alterations in 37 breast cancer predisposition genes were analyzed and genetic findings were detected for 396 participants. The aim of this project was to return genetic results to the physicians and to analyze actions taken (e.g., disclosure of results to patients, validation of results, clinical impact, and impact on the patient's quality of life) using a questionnaire. METHODS: 235 questionnaires were sent out to the study centers, with each questionnaire representing one patient with a genetic finding. The questionnaire consisted of twelve questions in the German language, referring to the disclosure of results, validation of test results, and their impact on treatment decisions and on the patient's quality of life. RESULTS: 135 (57.5%) questionnaires were completed. Of these, 46 (34.1%) stated that results were returned to the patients. In 80.0% (N = 36) of cases where results were returned, the patient had not been aware of the finding previously. For 27 patients (64.3%), genetic findings had not been validated beforehand. All validation procedures (N = 15) were covered by the patients' health insurance. For 11 (25.0%) patients, physicians reported that the research results influenced current or future decision-making on treatment, and for 37.8% (N = 17) the results influenced whether family members will be genetically tested. CONCLUSION: This study provides novel insights into the return of research results and into clinical and personal benefits of disclosure of genetic findings within a German registry.

Survival after secondary liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer: Comparing data of three prospective randomized European trials (LICC, CELIM, FIRE-3).

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with liver-limited disease (LLD) have a chance of long-term survival and potential cure after hepatic metastasectomy. However, the appropriate postoperative treatment strategy is still controversial. The CELIM and FIRE-3 studies demonstrated that secondary hepatic resection significantly improved overall survival (OS). The objective of this analysis was to compare these favorable outcome data with recent results from the LICC trial investigating the antigen-specific cancer vaccine tecemotide (L-BLP25) as adjuvant therapy in mCRC patients with LLD after R0/R1 resection. Data from mCRC patients with LLD and secondary hepatic resection from each study were analyzed for efficacy outcomes based on patient characteristics, treatment and surveillance after surgery. In LICC, 40/121 (33%) patients, in CELIM 36/111 (32%) and in FIRE-3-LLD 29/133 (22%) patients were secondarily resected, respectively. Of those, 31 (77.5%) patients in LICC and all patients in CELIM were R0 resected. Median disease-free survival after resection was 8.9 months in LICC, 9.9 months in CELIM. Median OS in secondarily resected patients was 66.1 months in LICC, 53.9 months in CELIM and 56.2 months in FIRE-3-LLD. Median age was about 5 years less in LICC compared to CELIM and FIRE-3. Secondarily resected patients of LICC, CELIM and FIRE-3 showed an impressive median survival with a tendency for improved survival for patients in the LICC trial. A younger patient cohort but also more selective surgery, improved resection techniques, deep responses and a close surveillance program after surgery in the LICC trial may have had a positive impact on survival.

[Diagnosis and therapy of tumors with NTRK gene fusion]. / Diagnostik und Therapie von Tumoren mit NTRK-Genfusionen.

NTRK gene fusions are sporadic genetic alterations that can occur across tumor entities. Whereas they are quite rare in most solid tumors they are present at much higher frequencies in certain rare tumors such as infantile fibrosarcoma, congenital mesoblastic nephroma, secretory breast, or salivary gland carcinoma. NTRK gene fusions or TRK fusion proteins are considered strong oncogenic drivers. If NTRK gene fusions are detected, TRK inhibitors such as entrectinib and larotrectinib can be used regardless of the tumor entity. So far only larotrectinib is approved in the European Union. Both drugs have been shown to be effective and well tolerated in phase I and phase II studies. The low prevalence of TRK fusion-positive cancers poses challenges for diagnostic and clinical work-flows. On one hand, patients with NTRK gene fusions should be identified; on the other hand, epidemiological, histological, and resource-related aspects have to be taken into account. Based on these premises, we suggest a diagnostic algorithm for TRK fusion cancers and present current data on TRK inhibitors.

Heregulin (HRG) assessment for clinical trial eligibility testing in a molecular registry (PRAEGNANT) in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Eligibility criteria are a critical part of clinical trials, as they define the patient population under investigation. Besides certain patient characteristics, clinical trials often include biomarker testing for eligibility. However, patient-identification mostly relies on the trial site itself and is often a time-consuming procedure, which could result in missing out on potentially eligible patients. Pre-selection of those patients using a registry could facilitate the process of eligibility testing and increase the number of identified patients. One aim with the PRAEGNANT registry (NCT02338167) is to identify patients for therapies based on clinical and molecular data. Here, we report eligibility testing for the SHERBOC trial using the German PRAEGNANT registry. METHODS: Heregulin (HRG) has been reported to identify patients with better responses to therapy with the anti-HER3 monoclonal antibody seribantumab (MM-121). The SHERBOC trial investigated adding seribantumab (MM-121) to standard therapy in patients with advanced HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive (HR-positive) breast cancer and HRG overexpression. The PRAEGNANT registry was used for identification and tumor testing, helping to link potential HRG positive patients to the trial. Patients enrolled in PRAEGNANT have invasive and metastatic or locally advanced, inoperable breast cancer. Patients eligible for SHERBOC were identified by using the registry. Study aims were to describe the HRG positivity rate, screening procedures, and patient characteristics associated with inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Among 2769 unselected advanced breast cancer patients, 650 were HER2-negative, HR-positive and currently receiving first- or second-line treatment, thus potentially eligible for SHERBOC at the end of current treatment; 125 patients also met further clinical eligibility criteria (e.g. menopausal status, ECOG). In the first/second treatment lines, patients selected for SHERBOC based on further eligibility criteria had a more favorable prognosis than those not selected. HRG status was tested in 38 patients, 14 of whom (36.8%) proved to be HRG-positive. CONCLUSION: Using a real-world breast cancer registry allowed identification of potentially eligible patients for SHERBOC focusing on patients with HER3 overexpressing, HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. This approach may provide insights into differences between patients eligible or non-eligible for clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials, NCT02338167 , Registered 14 January 2015 - retrospectively registered.

Evaluation of soluble carbonic anhydrase IX as predictive marker for efficacy of bevacizumab: A biomarker analysis from the geparquinto phase III neoadjuvant breast cancer trial.

We analyzed the predictive potential of pretreatment soluble carbonic anhydrase IX levels (sCAIX) for the efficacy of bevacizumab in the phase III neoadjuvant GeparQuinto trial. sCAIX was determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Correlations between sCAIX and pathological complete response (pCR), disease-free and overall survival (DFS, OS) were assessed with logistic and Cox proportional hazard regression models using bootstrapping for robust estimates and internal validation. 1,160 HER2-negative patient sera were analyzed, of whom 577 received bevacizumab. Patients with low pretreatment sCAIX had decreased pCR rates (12.1 vs. 20.1%, p = 0.012) and poorer DFS (adjusted 5-year DFS 71.4 vs. 80.5 months, p = 0.010) compared to patients with high sCAIX when treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT). For patients with low sCAIX, pCR rates significantly improved upon addition of bevacizumab to NCT (12.1 vs. 20.4%; p = 0.017), which was not the case in patients with high sCAIX (20.1% for NCT vs. 17.0% for NCT-B, p = 0.913). When analyzing DFS we found that bevacizumab improved 5-year DFS for patients with low sCAIX numerically but not significantly (71.4 vs. 78.5 months; log rank 0.234). In contrast, addition of bevacizumab worsened 5-year DFS for patients with high sCAIX (81 vs. 73.6 months, log-rank 0.025). By assessing sCAIX levels we identified a patient cohort in breast cancer that is potentially undertreated with NCT alone. Bevacizumab improved pCR rates in this group, suggesting sCAIX is a predictive biomarker for bevacizumab with regards to treatment response. Our data also show that bevacizumab is not beneficial in patients with high sCAIX.

Efficacy of neoadjuvant pertuzumab in addition to chemotherapy and trastuzumab in routine clinical treatment of patients with primary breast cancer: a multicentric analysis.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant combination treatment with chemotherapy (CTX), trastuzumab (TZM), and pertuzumab (PTZ) has been shown to result in higher pathological complete response rates (pCR) in comparison with treatment with chemotherapy and trastuzumab (CTX/TZM). This analysis was aimed at real-world validation of these results from prospective randomized trials. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis conducted in the PRAEGNANT network, patients were eligible for inclusion if they had either received neoadjuvant therapy with CTX/TZM or chemotherapy, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (CTX/TZM/PTZ) and subsequently underwent surgery for their primary breast cancer. The effect of the two neoadjuvant regimens on pCR in addition to commonly applicable predictors of pCR was analyzed in 300 patients from three study sites, using logistic regression analyses with treatment arm, age, clinical tumor stage, grading, and hormone receptor status as predictors. RESULTS: pCR with complete disappearance of all tumor cells was seen in 30.2% (n = 58) of patients treated with CTX/TZM and in 52.8% (n = 57) of those treated with CTX/TZM/PTZ. CTX/TZM/PTZ was positively associated with pCR (adjusted odds ratio 2.44; 95% CI 1.49-4.02). Mastectomy rates were not influenced by the therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The results of clinical trials were confirmed in this dataset of patients who were treated outside of clinical trials in everyday routine work. pCR rates can be improved by 20% with pertuzumab in routine clinical use.

Translational highlights in breast cancer research and treatment: recent developments with clinical impact.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Over the last decades the time which is needed to translate a preclinical finding or idea in the clinic has reduced continuously. Especially but not only for breast cancer the number of tested drugs and targeted pathways have increased immensely. In addition, the introduction of immune-oncological treatments has further advanced the possibilities for future treatments. This review focuses on recent developments in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer including results from major clinical trials and recent conferences. RECENT FINDINGS: Many pathways involved in the progression or treatment of breast cancer have been also identified in the cause and pathogenesis of breast cancer. Therefore, breast cancer risk can be described in much more detail, possibly leading to new prevention strategies. In breast cancer treatment the introduction of PARP inhibitors has begun. Recent trials will lead to a better understanding whether PI3K inhibitors can be developed for application in the clinic and first large randomized trials show the superiority of anti PD-1/PD-L1 treatments. SUMMARY: Treatment strategies which were developed over the last decade are moving rapidly into the clinical use. The understanding of treatment targets and involved side effects will be important for the safe implementation of these treatments into routine practice.

Neratinib after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy in HER2-positive breast cancer (ExteNET): 5-year analysis of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: ExteNET showed that 1 year of neratinib, an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor, significantly improves 2-year invasive disease-free survival after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy in women with HER2-positive breast cancer. We report updated efficacy outcomes from a protocol-defined 5-year follow-up sensitivity analysis and long-term toxicity findings. METHODS: In this ongoing randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, eligible women aged 18 years or older (≥20 years in Japan) with stage 1-3c (modified to stage 2-3c in February, 2010) operable breast cancer, who had completed neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy plus trastuzumab with no evidence of disease recurrence or metastatic disease at study entry. Patients who were eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via permuted blocks stratified according to hormone receptor status (hormone receptor-positive vs hormone receptor-negative), nodal status (0 vs 1-3 vs or ≥4 positive nodes), and trastuzumab adjuvant regimen (given sequentially vs concurrently with chemotherapy), then implemented centrally via an interactive voice and web-response system, to receive 1 year of oral neratinib 240 mg/day or matching placebo. Treatment was given continuously for 1 year, unless disease recurrence or new breast cancer, intolerable adverse events, or consent withdrawal occurred. Patients, investigators, and trial funder were masked to treatment allocation. The predefined endpoint of the 5-year analysis was invasive disease-free survival, analysed by intention to treat. ExteNET is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00878709, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between July 9, 2009, and Oct 24, 2011, 2840 eligible women with early HER2-positive breast cancer were recruited from community-based and academic institutions in 40 countries and randomly assigned to receive neratinib (n=1420) or placebo (n=1420). After a median follow-up of 5·2 years (IQR 2·1-5·3), patients in the neratinib group had significantly fewer invasive disease-free survival events than those in the placebo group (116 vs 163 events; stratified hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·57-0·92, p=0·0083). The 5-year invasive disease-free survival was 90·2% (95% CI 88·3-91·8) in the neratinib group and 87·7% (85·7-89·4) in the placebo group. Without diarrhoea prophylaxis, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the neratinib group, compared with the placebo group, were diarrhoea (561 [40%] grade 3 and one [<1%] grade 4 with neratinib vs 23 [2%] grade 3 with placebo), vomiting (grade 3: 47 [3%] vs five [<1%]), and nausea (grade 3: 26 [2%] vs two [<1%]). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events occurred in 103 (7%) women in the neratinib group and 85 (6%) women in the placebo group. No evidence of increased risk of long-term toxicity or long-term adverse consequences of neratinib-associated diarrhoea were identified with neratinib compared with placebo. INTERPRETATION: At the 5-year follow-up, 1 year of extended adjuvant therapy with neratinib, administered after chemotherapy and trastuzumab, significantly reduced the proportion of clinically relevant breast cancer relapses-ie, those that might lead to death, such as distant and locoregional relapses outside the preserved breast-without increasing the risk of long-term toxicity. An analysis of overall survival is planned after 248 events. FUNDING: Wyeth, Pfizer, and Puma Biotechnology.

A randomized phase II study of paclitaxel alone versus paclitaxel plus sorafenib in second- and third-line treatment of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (PASO).

BACKGROUND: We conducted an open-label, randomized, two-arm multi-center study to assess the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel versus paclitaxel + sorafenib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel monotherapy (80 mg/m2) weekly (3 weeks on, 1 week off) plus sorafenib 400 mg orally, twice a day taken continuously throughout 28 day cycles. Sorafenib dose was gradually escalated from a starting dose of 200 mg twice a day. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A pre-planned efficacy interim analysis was performed on the data of 60 patients, 30 patients in each treatment arm. Median PFS was estimated at 6.6 months (95% CI: 5.1 to 9.0) in patients randomized to single-agent paclitaxel (Arm A) and 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.8 to 6.5) in patients randomized to paclitaxel-sorafenib combination (Arm B) therapy. Contrary to the hypothesis, the treatment effect was statistically significant in favor of paclitaxel monotherapy (hazard ratio 1.80, 95% CI: 1.02 to 3.20; log-rank test P = 0.0409). It was decided to stop the trial early for futility. Median OS was also in favor of Arm A (20.7 months (95% CI: 16.4 to 26.7) versus 12.1 months (95% CI: 5.8 to 20.4) in Arm B. Clinical control was achieved in 28 patients (93.3%) in Arm A and in 21 patients 70.0% in Arm B. Overall response rate was met in 43.3% of patients in Arm A and in 40.0% in Arm B. Toxicities were increased in Arm B with higher rates of diarrhea, nausea, neutropenia, hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) and anorexia, Grad 3 and 4 toxicities were rare. CONCLUSIONS: In this pre-planned interim analysis, paclitaxel-sorafenib combination therapy was not found to be superior to paclitaxel monotherapy with regard to the primary end point, progression-free survival. The trial was therefore discontinued early. There was no indication of more favorable outcomes for combination therapy in secondary efficacy end points. As expected, the safety and toxicity profile of the combination therapy was less favorable compared to monotherapy. Overall, this trial did not demonstrate that adding sorafenib to second- or third-line paclitaxel provides any clinical benefit to patients with HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Cautious dosing using a sorafenib ramp up schedule might have contributed to negative results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at EudraCT (No 2009-018025-73) and retrospectively registered at Clinical trials.gov on March 17, 2011 ( NCT01320111 ).

Use of complementary and integrative medicine among German breast cancer patients: predictors and implications for patient care within the PRAEGNANT study network.

PURPOSE: The present study aims to analyze a cohort of advanced breast cancer patients in Germany to assess their interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and patient's use of most frequent CAM methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Based on the PREGNANT real-time breast cancer registry which is a multicenter study in Germany, questionnaires of 580 patients with advanced breast cancer were evaluated. The implemented questionnaire for CAM asked for general interest in CAM and for patient's use of different CAM methods at present and in the past. The interest and application of CAM were analyzed for association with patients' characteristics such as tumor, patient, and therapy characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 436 out of 580 (75%) patients claimed to be interested in CAM. Further, interest in CAM is significantly correlated with younger age and absence of metastasis at the time of diagnosis. Multivariate analysis confirmed the patient's age and distant disease status at the time of diagnosis as related to interest in CAM. A total of 56.4% of patients applied any CAM method in the past. Moreover, with increasing lines of therapies, the more frequent use of CAM was observed. Hereby, praying, vitamin supplements, and other food supplements were most frequently applied. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate high overall interest and frequent use of CAM in advanced breast cancer patients supporting a strong demand of breast cancer patients for complementary counseling and treatments additional to the established cancer therapies. It is indispensable to implement counseling and evidence-based complementary treatments into clinical routine of cancer centers and to adapt postgraduate medical education, respectively.

Computerized patient identification for the EMBRACA clinical trial using real-time data from the PRAEGNANT network for metastatic breast cancer patients.

As breast cancer is a diverse disease, clinical trials are becoming increasingly diversified and are consequently being conducted in very small subgroups of patients, making study recruitment increasingly difficult. The aim of this study was to assess the use of data from a remote data entry system that serves a large national registry for metastatic breast cancer. The PRAEGNANT network is a real-time registry with an integrated biomaterials bank that was designed as a scientific study and as a means of identifying patients who are eligible for clinical trials, based on clinical and molecular information. Here, we report on the automated use of the clinical data documented to identify patients for a clinical trial (EMBRACA) for patients with metastatic breast cancer. The patients' charts were assessed by two independent physicians involved in the clinical trial and also by a computer program that tested patients for eligibility using a structured query language script. In all, 326 patients from two study sites in the PRAEGNANT network were included in the analysis. Using expert assessment, 120 of the 326 patients (37 %) appeared to be eligible for inclusion in the EMBRACA study; with the computer algorithm assessment, a total of 129 appeared to be eligible. The sensitivity of the computer algorithm was 0.87 and its specificity was 0.88. Using computer-based identification of patients for clinical trials appears feasible. With the instrument's high specificity, its application in a large cohort of patients appears to be feasible, and the workload for reassessing the patients is limited.

[A look into the neighboring discipline: eHealth in oncology]. / Ein Blick in die Nachbardisziplin: eHealth in der Onkologie.

Digitalization is dramatically changing the entire healthcare system. Keywords such as artificial intelligence, electronic patient files (ePA), electronic prescriptions (eRp), telemedicine, wearables, augmented reality and digital health applications (DiGA) represent the digital transformation that is already taking place. Digital becomes real! This article outlines the state of research and development, current plans and ongoing uses of digital tools in oncology in the first half of 2024. The possibilities for using artificial intelligence and the use of DiGAs in oncology are presented in more detail in this overview according to their stage of development as they already show a noticeable benefit in oncology.

[The economic dilemma]. / Das ökonomische Dilemma.

Clinical studies have been situated very well in Germany during the last 10 years; oncologists in practices and clinics are highly motivated. However, the financing of clinical trials is desolate so that disillusionment spreads in many centers. This paper would like to give some impetus to the discussion on better and more adequate financing. Facts and backgrounds concerning unsatisfactory financing of clinical trials are demonstrated; costs are analyzed in a detailed way. It seems to be very important to establish tools for a better calculation of costs. First approaches have been defined.

[Status of clinical trials in oncology--2013 and onwards]. / Klinische Studien in der Onkologie--2013 und zukünftig.

Clinical trials connect basic science with patient care. They form the backbone of evidence-based medicine and clinical guidelines. The unprecedented implementation of new methods in oncology over the past 40 years has only been possible on the basis of multiple well-organized clinical study groups. The continued existence of these study groups in their current multitude is in danger. Far-reaching changes in the legal framework, underfunding, new definitions of patient-related outcome and shifts in the organization of cancer patient care ask for critical reappraisal and new concepts.

Everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failure of initial vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFr-TKI) therapy: results of an interim analysis of a non-interventional study.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus is approved for treatment of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-refractory patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Clinical trials rarely mirror treatment reality. Thus, a broader evaluation of everolimus is valuable for routine use. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A German multicenter non-interventional study documented mRCC patients starting everolimus after failure of initial VEGF-targeted therapy. Primary endpoint was effectiveness, defined as time to progression (TTP) according to investigator assessment (time from first dose to progression). RESULTS: Of 382 documented patients, 196 were included in this interim analysis. In the efficacy population (n = 165), median TTP was 7.0 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.1-9.0). Among patients with < or ≥ 6 months of previous VEGF-targeted therapy, median TTP was 6.6 months (95% CI 3.8-not estimable) and 7.4 months (95% CI 4.6-9.6), respectively. Most common adverse events were anemia (13%) and dyspnea (14%). Physicians assessed high tolerance and documented high adherence to everolimus therapy (approximately 97%). CONCLUSION: In routine clinical practice, everolimus is effective, as measured by median TTP (longer than median progression-free survival in RECORD-1 trial), and well tolerated. Our results support everolimus use in anti-VEGF-refractory patients with mRCC.

LICC: L-BLP25 in patients with colorectal carcinoma after curative resection of hepatic metastases: a randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter, multinational, double-blinded phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: 15-20% of all patients initially diagnosed with colorectal cancer develop metastatic disease and surgical resection remains the only potentially curative treatment available. Current 5-year survival following R0-resection of liver metastases is 28-39%, but recurrence eventually occurs in up to 70%. To date, adjuvant chemotherapy has not improved clinical outcomes significantly. The primary objective of the ongoing LICC trial (L-BLP25 In Colorectal Cancer) is to determine whether L-BLP25, an active cancer immunotherapy, extends recurrence-free survival (RFS) time over placebo in colorectal cancer patients following R0/R1 resection of hepatic metastases. L-BLP25 targets MUC1 glycoprotein, which is highly expressed in hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer. In a phase IIB trial, L-BLP25 has shown acceptable tolerability and a trend towards longer survival in patients with stage IIIB locoregional NSCLC. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multinational, phase II, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with a sample size of 159 patients from 20 centers in 3 countries. Patients with stage IV colorectal adenocarcinoma limited to liver metastases are included. Following curative-intent complete resection of the primary tumor and of all synchronous/metachronous metastases, eligible patients are randomized 2:1 to receive either L-BLP25 or placebo. Those allocated to L-BLP25 receive a single dose of 300 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide (CP) 3 days before first L-BLP25 dose, then primary treatment with s.c. L-BLP25 930 µg once weekly for 8 weeks, followed by s.c. L-BLP25 930 µg maintenance doses at 6-week (years 1&2) and 12-week (year 3) intervals unless recurrence occurs. In the control arm, CP is replaced by saline solution and L-BLP25 by placebo. Primary endpoint is the comparison of recurrence-free survival (RFS) time between groups. Secondary endpoints are overall survival (OS) time, safety, tolerability, RFS/OS in MUC-1 positive cancers. Exploratory immune response analyses are planned. The primary endpoint will be assessed in Q3 2016. Follow-up will end Q3 2017. Interim analyses are not planned. DISCUSSION: The design and implementation of such a vaccination study in colorectal cancer is feasible. The study will provide recurrence-free and overall survival rates of groups in an unbiased fashion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number 2011-000218-20.

Benefits of early and prolonged fulvestrant treatment in 848 postmenopausal advanced breast cancer patients.

Response to fulvestrant and survival in postmenopausal hormone-sensitive advanced breast cancer was investigated within a non-randomized, In-Practice Evaluation Program, with the aim of optimizing treatment decisions. 848 patients (median age 64 years; 52% co-morbidity; 78% prior palliative therapy; median 4 prior regimens) received monthly fulvestrant injections (250 mg/month) and were followed-up three-monthly for 9 months. Clinical benefit (PFS ≥ 24 weeks) occurred in 532/848 (62.7%); stable disease (SD) in 627/848 patients (74%), including 62 complete and 177 partial responses. Best response was delayed in 115 patients. Estimated 9-month overall survival (OS) was 89%; 9-month event-free survival (EFS) was 71%. Indicators of disease aggressiveness affected response and survival, but number of fulvestrant cycles was the key OS and EFS determinant. The patients with SD at 3 months benefitted from continued fulvestrant. Excluding deaths, 7 serious adverse events occurred (none attributable to fulvestrant). No new or unexpected safety issues arose; 90% of the patients and physicians rated fulvestrant tolerability as "very good" or "good". In the largest prospective, fulvestrant-treated cohort to date, advanced breast cancer patients achieving SD or better after 3 months of treatment gained survival benefit by prolonging fulvestrant therapy-independent of disease and treatment history.

Challenges and Opportunities for Real-World Evidence in Metastatic Luminal Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic armamentarium for patients with metastatic breast cancer is becoming more and more specific. Recommendations from clinical trials are not available for all treatment situations and patient subgroups, and it is therefore important to collect real-world data. SUMMARY: To develop recommendations for up-to-date treatments and participation in clinical trials for patients with metastatic breast cancer, the Prospective Academic Translational Research PRAEGNANT Network was established to optimize the quality of oncological care in the advanced therapeutic setting. The main aim of PRAEGNANT is to systematically record medical care for patients with metastatic breast cancer in the real-life setting, including the outcome and side effects of different treatment strategies, to monitor quality-of-life changes during therapy, to identify patients eligible for participation in clinical studies, and to allow targeted therapies based on the molecular structures of breast carcinomas. KEY MESSAGES: This article describes the PRAEGNANT network and sheds light on the question of whether the various end points from clinical trials can be transferred to the real-world treatment situation.

Update Breast Cancer 2020 Part 5 - Moving Therapies From Advanced to Early Breast Cancer Patients.

In recent years, significant progress has been made in new therapeutic approaches to breast cancer, particularly in patients with HER2-positive and HER2-negative/hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer. In the case of HER2-positive tumours, these approaches have included, in particular, treatment with pertuzumab, T-DM1, neratinib and, soon, also tucatinib and trastuzumab deruxtecan (neither of which has yet been authorised in Europe). In patients with HER2-/HR+ breast cancer, CDK4/6 inhibitors and the PIK3CA inhibitor alpelisib are of particular importance. Further novel therapies, such as Akt kinase inhibitors and oral SERDs (selective estrogen receptor down regulators), are already being investigated in ongoing clinical trials. These therapeutic agents are not only being introduced into curative, (neo-)adjuvant therapeutic settings for HER2-positive tumours; a first favourable study on abemaciclib as an adjuvant therapy has now also been published. In patients with triple-negative breast cancer, after many years of negative study results with the Trop-2 antibody drug conjugate (ADC) sacituzumab govitecan, a randomised study has been published that may represent a significant therapeutic advance. This review describes the latest developments in breast cancer subsequent to the ESMO Congress 2020.

Prognostic effect of low-level HER2 expression in patients with clinically negative HER2 status.

PURPOSE: Assessment of HER2 overexpression using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or in situ hybridisation (ISH) for the detection of HER2 amplifications is standard to identify patients for established HER2-directed treatments. Patients with lower HER2 expression levels have recently also become candidates for novel therapies targeting HER2. This study aimed to assess tumour and patient characteristics and prognosis in patients with advanced breast cancer (aBC), relative to low HER2 expression levels. METHODS: PRAEGNANT is a prospective aBC registry (NCT02338167), focusing on molecular biomarkers. Patients in all therapy lines receiving any kind of treatment are eligible. This analysis includes patients with conventionally HER2-negative aBC. Clinical outcome was compared in the groups with no (IHC score 0) or with low HER2 expression (IHC 1+, or IHC 2+/ISH negative). RESULTS: Low HER2 expression levels in triple-negative aBC patients did not influence progression-free survival. Overall survival appeared poorer in patients with IHC 2+ compared with patients with no HER2 expression in the unadjusted analysis (hazard ratio 2.24, 95% confidence interval 0.1.12-4.47). However, this effect was not maintained in the adjusted analysis. In HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive patients, low HER2 expression appeared to have no effect on prognosis, neither progression-free survival nor overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: We could not demonstrate that HER2 expression at a low level and assessed in clinical routine can differentiate patients into prognostic groups. However, the prevalence of patients with a low expression makes this population interesting for clinical trials with potentially active treatments using HER2 as a target.