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.

Capivasertib in Hormone Receptor-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: AKT pathway activation is implicated in endocrine-therapy resistance. Data on the efficacy and safety of the AKT inhibitor capivasertib, as an addition to fulvestrant therapy, in patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer are limited. METHODS: In a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial, we enrolled eligible pre-, peri-, and postmenopausal women and men with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer who had had a relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive capivasertib plus fulvestrant or placebo plus fulvestrant. The dual primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with AKT pathway-altered (PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN) tumors. Safety was assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 708 patients underwent randomization; 289 patients (40.8%) had AKT pathway alterations, and 489 (69.1%) had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously for advanced breast cancer. In the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 7.2 months in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 3.6 months in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.71; P<0.001). In the AKT pathway-altered population, the median progression-free survival was 7.3 months in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 3.1 months in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.65; P<0.001). The most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in patients receiving capivasertib-fulvestrant were rash (in 12.1% of patients, vs. in 0.3% of those receiving placebo-fulvestrant) and diarrhea (in 9.3% vs. 0.3%). Adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported in 13.0% of the patients receiving capivasertib and in 2.3% of those receiving placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Capivasertib-fulvestrant therapy resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with fulvestrant alone among patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer whose disease had progressed during or after previous aromatase inhibitor therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor. (Funded by AstraZeneca and the National Cancer Institute; CAPItello-291 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04305496.).

3-year invasive disease-free survival with chemotherapy de-escalation using an 18F-FDG-PET-based, pathological complete response-adapted strategy in HER2-positive early breast cancer (PHERGain): a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: PHERGain was designed to assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a chemotherapy-free treatment based on a dual human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC). It used an 18fluorine-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET-based, pathological complete response (pCR)-adapted strategy. METHODS: PHERGain was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial that took place in 45 hospitals in seven European countries. It randomly allocated patients in a 1:4 ratio with centrally confirmed, HER2-positive, stage I-IIIA invasive, operable breast cancer with at least one PET-evaluable lesion to either group A, where patients received docetaxel (75 mg/m2, intravenous), carboplatin (area under the curve 6 mg/mL per min, intravenous), trastuzumab (600 mg fixed dose, subcutaneous), and pertuzumab (840 mg loading dose followed by 420 mg maintenance doses, intravenous; TCHP), or group B, where patients received trastuzumab and pertuzumab with or without endocrine therapy, every 3 weeks. Random allocation was stratified by hormone receptor status. Centrally reviewed PET was conducted at baseline and after two treatment cycles. Patients in group B were treated according to on-treatment PET results. Patients in group B who were PET-responders continued with trastuzumab and pertuzumab with or without endocrine therapy for six cycles, while PET-non-responders were switched to receive six cycles of TCHP. After surgery, patients in group B who were PET-responders who did not achieve a pCR received six cycles of TCHP, and all patients completed up to 18 cycles of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. The primary endpoints were pCR in patients who were group B PET-responders after two treatment cycles (the results for which have been reported previously) and 3-year invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in patients in group B. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03161353) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 26, 2017, and April 24, 2019, a total of 356 patients were randomly allocated (71 patients in group A and 285 patients in group B), and 63 (89%) and 267 (94%) patients proceeded to surgery in groups A and B, respectively. At this second analysis (data cutoff: Nov 4, 2022), the median duration of follow-up was 43·3 months (range 0·0-63·0). In group B, the 3-year iDFS rate was 94·8% (95% CI 91·4-97·1; p=0·001), meeting the primary endpoint. No new safety signals were identified. Treatment-related adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs) were numerically higher in patients allocated to group A than to group B (grade ≥3 62% vs 33%; SAEs 28% vs 14%). Group B PET-responders with pCR presented the lowest incidence of treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (1%) without any SAEs. INTERPRETATION: Among HER2-positive EBC patients, a PET-based, pCR-adapted strategy was associated with an excellent 3-year iDFS. This strategy identified about a third of patients who had HER2-positive EBC who could safely omit chemotherapy. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Genomic characterization of metastatic breast cancers.

Metastasis is the main cause of death for patients with breast cancer. Many studies have characterized the genomic landscape of breast cancer during its early stages. However, there is evidence that genomic alterations are acquired during the evolution of cancers from their early to late stages, and that the genomic landscape of early cancers is not representative of that of lethal cancers1-7. Here we investigated the landscape of somatic alterations in 617 metastatic breast cancers. Nine driver genes (TP53, ESR1, GATA3, KMT2C, NCOR1, AKT1, NF1, RIC8A and RB1) were more frequently mutated in metastatic breast cancers that expressed hormone receptors (oestrogen and/or progesterone receptors; HR+) but did not have high levels of HER2 (HER2-; n = 381), when compared to early breast cancers from The Cancer Genome Atlas. In addition, 18 amplicons were more frequently observed in HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancers. These cancers showed an increase in mutational signatures S2, S3, S10, S13 and S17. Among the gene alterations that were enriched in HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancers, mutations in TP53, RB1 and NF1, together with S10, S13 and S17, were associated with poor outcome. Metastatic triple-negative breast cancers showed an increase in the frequency of somatic biallelic loss-of-function mutations in genes related to homologous recombination DNA repair, compared to early triple-negative breast cancers (7% versus 2%). Finally, metastatic breast cancers showed an increase in mutational burden and clonal diversity compared to early breast cancers. Thus, the genomic landscape of metastatic breast cancer is enriched in clinically relevant genomic alterations and is more complex than that of early breast cancer. The identification of genomic alterations associated with poor outcome will allow earlier and better selection of patients who require the use of treatments that are still in clinical trials. The genetic complexity observed in advanced breast cancer suggests that such treatments should be introduced as early as possible in the disease course.

Author Correction: Genomic characterization of metastatic breast cancers.

An Amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Capivasertib and fulvestrant for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (CAPItello-291): patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: CAPItello-291 is an ongoing phase 3 trial in which capivasertib-fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo-fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after aromatase inhibitor treatment, in both the overall population and in patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. This study further explored patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functioning, symptoms, and symptom tolerability in CAPItello-291. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, which was conducted across 193 hospitals and cancer centres in 19 countries, enrolled women with any menopausal status or men, aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Japan), with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4 or 6 inhibitor therapy. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/WHO performance score of 0 or 1 and could have received up to two previous lines of endocrine therapy and up to one previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using block randomisation (stratified according to the presence or absence of liver metastases, previous use of a CDK4/6 inhibitor [yes vs no], and geographical region) to receive oral capivasertib 400 mg (twice daily for 4 days, followed by 3 days off) plus intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (every 14 days for the first three injections, then every 28 days) or placebo with matching fulvestrant dosing. The dual primary endpoint of the trial was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module (QLQ-C30) and breast module (QLQ-BR23), Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Patient Global Impression of Treatment Tolerability (PGI-TT) questionnaires were used to assess patient-reported outcomes. Evaluation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 were secondary endpoints and evaluation of PRO-CTCAE and PGI-TT were pre-defined exploratory endpoints, and these endpoints are the subject of analysis in this Article. Data were collected at baseline and prespecified timepoints. Patient-reported outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients with an evaluable baseline assessment and at least one evaluable post-baseline assessment. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed model with repeated measures for EORTC QLQ-C30 and summarised for QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration was described using the Kaplan-Meier method. PGI-TT and PRO-CTCAE responses were summarised at each treatment cycle. Patient-reported outcomes were not prospectively powered for statistical comparison. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04305496. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2020, and Oct 13, 2021, 901 patients were enrolled, of whom 708 patients were randomly assigned to receive capivasertib-fulvestrant (n=355) or placebo-fulvestrant (n=353). The median age of the patients was 59 years (IQR 51-67) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 58 years (IQR 49-66) in the placebo-fulvestrant group. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2022), the median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival in censored patients was 13·0 months (IQR 9·1-16·7) for capivasertib-fulvestrant and 12·7 months (IQR 2·0-16·4) for placebo-fulvestrant in the overall population. EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL) scores were maintained from baseline and were similar between treatment groups throughout the study period (difference in mean change from baseline of -2·5 [95% CI -4·5 to -0·6] with capivasertib-fulvestrant vs -5·6 [-7·9 to -3·4] with placebo-fulvestrant; treatment difference 3·1 [95% CI 0·2 to 6·0]). Median time to deterioration in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL was 24·9 months (95% CI 13·8 to not reached) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 12·0 months (10·2 to 15·7) in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·53 to 0·92). Time to deterioration HRs for all EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 subscale scores showed little difference between the treatment groups, except for diarrhoea, which was worse in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group (HR 2·75, 95% CI 2·01-3·81). In PRO-CTCAE symptom assessment, the proportion of patients reporting loose and watery stools "frequently" or "almost constantly" was 29% higher at cycle 1, day 15 in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group, decreasing at subsequent cycles. Other PRO-CTCAE-reported symptoms (rash, mouth or throat sores, itchy skin, and numbness or tingling in hands or feet) were absent or mild in most patients in both groups throughout treatment. According to the PGI-TT, most patients in both groups reported "not at all" or "a little bit" of bother from treatment side-effects. INTERPRETATION: Patient-reported outcomes from CAPItello-291 demonstrated that capivasertib-fulvestrant delayed time to deterioration of GHS/QOL and maintained other dimensions of HRQOL (except symptoms of diarrhoea) similarly to fulvestrant. With the clinical efficacy and manageable safety profile, these exploratory results further support the positive benefit-risk profile of capivasertib-fulvestrant in this population. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

p4EBP1 staining predicts outcome in ER-positive endocrine-resistant metastatic breast cancer patients treated with everolimus and exemestane.

BACKGROUND: To identify patients most likely to respond to everolimus, a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, a prospective biomarker study was conducted in hormone receptor-positive endocrine-resistant metastatic breast cancer patients treated with exemestane-everolimus therapy. METHODS: Metastatic tumor biopsies were processed for immunohistochemical staining (p4EBP1, PTEN, pAKT, LKB1, and pS6K). ESR1, PIK3CA and AKT1 gene mutations were detected by NGS. The primary endpoint was the association between the p4EBP1 expression and clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 6 months of everolimus plus exemestane treatment. RESULTS: Of 150 patients included, 107 were evaluable for the primary endpoint. p4EBP1 staining above the median (Allred score ≥6) was associated with a higher CBR at 6 months (62% versus 40% in high-p4EBP1 versus low-p4EBP1, χ2 test, p = 0.026) and a longer progression-free survival (PFS) (median PFS of 9.2 versus 5.8 months in high-p4EBP1 versus low-p4EBP1; p = 0.02). When tested with other biomarkers, only p4EBP1 remained a significant predictive marker of PFS in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.591; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a subset of patients with hormone receptor-positive endocrine-resistant metastatic breast cancer and poor outcome who would derive less benefit from everolimus and exemestane. p4EBP1 may be a useful predictive biomarker in routine clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02444390.

Overall survival with sacituzumab govitecan in hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer (TROPiCS-02): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated significant progression-free survival benefit over chemotherapy in the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 trial in patients with pretreated, endocrine-resistant hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+ and HER2-) metastatic breast cancer with limited treatment options. Here, we report the protocol-specified final analysis of overall survival and endpoints by trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (Trop-2) expression and other variables. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial, which took place in 91 centres across North America (the USA and Canada) and Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK), patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sacituzumab govitecan or chemotherapy (eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine). Patients had confirmed HR+ and HER2- locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic breast cancer and had received at least one previous endocrine therapy, a taxane, and a CDK4/6 inhibitor in any setting and two to four previous chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (previously reported and not included in this analysis), and secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and patient-reported outcomes. Overall survival was assessed using stratified log-rank tests and Cox regression. Trop-2 expression was assessed in tumour tissue by immunohistochemistry. In the statistical testing hierarchy, ORR and patient-reported outcomes were tested sequentially if overall survival was significant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03901339. FINDINGS: At the data cutoff date of July 1, 2022, 543 of 776 screened patients were randomly assigned between May 30, 2019, and April 5, 2021, with 272 patients in the sacituzumab govitecan group and 271 patients in the chemotherapy group. With a 12·5-month (IQR 6·4-18·8) median follow-up, 390 deaths occurred among 543 patients. Overall survival was significantly improved with sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy (median 14·4 months [95% CI 13·0-15·7] vs 11·2 months [10·1-12·7]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·65-0·96; p=0·020); survival benefit was consistent across Trop-2 expression-level subgroups. ORR was significantly improved with sacituzumab govitecan compared with chemotherapy (57 [21%] patients vs 38 [14%]; odds ratio 1·63 [95% CI 1·03-2·56]; p=0·035), as was time to deterioration of global health status and quality of life (median 4·3 months vs 3·0 months; HR 0·75 [0·61-0·92]; p=0·0059) and fatigue (median 2·2 months vs 1·4 months; HR 0·73 [0·60-0·89]; p=0·0021). The safety profile of sacituzumab govitecan was consistent with previous studies (including the TROPiCS-02 primary analysis and the ASCENT trial). One fatal adverse event (septic shock caused by neutropenic colitis) was determined to be related to sacituzumab govitecan treatment. INTERPRETATION: Sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit over chemotherapy, with a 3·2-month median overall survival improvement and a manageable safety profile. These data support sacituzumab govitecan as a new treatment option for patients with pretreated, endocrine-resistant HR+ and HER2- metastatic breast cancer. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Health-related quality of life with sacituzumab govitecan in HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer in the phase III TROPiCS-02 trial.

BACKGROUND: The TROPiCS-02 study (NCT03901339) demonstrated that sacituzumab govitecan (SG) has superior clinical outcomes over treatment of physician's choice (TPC) chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2 receptor-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Here, we present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) patient-reported outcome (PRO) findings from this study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible adults with HR+/HER2- mBC who previously received a taxane, endocrine-based therapy, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and 2-4 lines of chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to receive SG or TPC until progression or unacceptable toxicity. PROs were assessed at baseline and on day 1 of each cycle, using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), EQ-5D-5L, and PRO Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). RESULTS: Compared to TPC, overall least square mean change from baseline was significantly better for SG for physical functioning and dyspnea, but worse for diarrhea. Time to first clinically meaningful worsening or death was significantly longer for SG in global health status/quality of life, physical functioning, fatigue, emotional functioning, dyspnea, insomnia, and financial difficulties of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EQ-VAS, but longer for TPC in diarrhea. Few patients in both arms reported experiencing any worsening to level 3 or 4 treatment-related symptomatic events during treatment, as assessed by 16 PRO-CTCAE items, except for diarrhea frequency and amount of hair loss, which favored TPC. CONCLUSIONS: SG was associated with an HRQoL benefit in most symptoms and functioning, compared with TPC. This supports the favorable profile of SG as a treatment option for patients with pretreated HR+/HER2- mBC.

Sacituzumab Govitecan in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer have a poor prognosis. Sacituzumab govitecan is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an antibody targeting the human trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (Trop-2), which is expressed in the majority of breast cancers, coupled to SN-38 (topoisomerase I inhibitor) through a proprietary hydrolyzable linker. METHODS: In this randomized, phase 3 trial, we evaluated sacituzumab govitecan as compared with single-agent chemotherapy of the physician's choice (eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine) in patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. The primary end point was progression-free survival (as determined by blinded independent central review) among patients without brain metastases. RESULTS: A total of 468 patients without brain metastases were randomly assigned to receive sacituzumab govitecan (235 patients) or chemotherapy (233 patients). The median age was 54 years; all the patients had previous use of taxanes. The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3 to 6.3; 166 events) with sacituzumab govitecan and 1.7 months (95% CI, 1.5 to 2.6; 150 events) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.52; P<0.001). The median overall survival was 12.1 months (95% CI, 10.7 to 14.0) with sacituzumab govitecan and 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.8 to 7.7) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.59; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with an objective response was 35% with sacituzumab govitecan and 5% with chemotherapy. The incidences of key treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (51% with sacituzumab govitecan and 33% with chemotherapy), leukopenia (10% and 5%), diarrhea (10% and <1%), anemia (8% and 5%), and febrile neutropenia (6% and 2%). There were three deaths owing to adverse events in each group; no deaths were considered to be related to sacituzumab govitecan treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free and overall survival were significantly longer with sacituzumab govitecan than with single-agent chemotherapy among patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Myelosuppression and diarrhea were more frequent with sacituzumab govitecan. (Funded by Immunomedics; ASCENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02574455; EudraCT number, 2017-003019-21.).

A plain language summary of the CAPItello-291 study: Capivasertib in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of the article discussing the results of the CAPItello-291 study. In the study, participants had advanced breast cancer that could not be completely removed with surgery, and that was diagnosed as a type of breast cancer where tumor cells had hormone receptors (HR-positive) but did not have HER2 receptors (HER2-negative). All participants were also required to have previously received treatment with a type of therapy called an aromatase inhibitor (with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor), but over time their cancer cells had still grown or spread. The CAPItello-291 study researchers wanted to find out if a treatment combination of the medications capivasertib plus fulvestrant worked better than placebo plus fulvestrant. Capivasertib is a drug that blocks the activity of a protein called AKT, which is found inside breast cancer cells. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: The main finding was that participants who took capivasertib plus fulvestrant lived longer without their disease getting worse (progressing) compared with those treated with placebo plus fulvestrant. This is called progression-free survival. This result was seen across all participants (median progression-free survival of 7.2 months with capivasertib plus fulvestrant vs 3.6 months with placebo plus fulvestrant). It was also seen in participants whose tumors had detectable genetic alterations in genes called PIK3CA, AKT1, and/ or PTEN (median progression-free survival of 7.3 months with capivasertib plus fulvestrant vs 3.1 months with placebo plus fulvestrant). The most common side effects experienced by participants included diarrhea and different types of rash. These were as expected (given how capivasertib works). The CAPItello-291 study is still ongoing, and more results are expected to be released in the future. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: Results from the CAPItello-291 study showed that capivasertib plus fulvestrant compared with placebo plus fulvestrant improved progression-free survival in participants with HR-positive/ HER2-negative advanced breast cancer whose cancer had grown or spread despite hormone therapy (with/without a CDK4/6 inhibitor).Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04305496 (CAPItello-291) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Baseline quality of life and chemotherapy toxicities in patients with early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The authors used the French breast cancer Cancer and Toxicities (CANTO) cohort to study the associations between baseline quality of life and chemotherapy dose-reductions (CDRs) or postchemotherapy-toxicities (PCTs). METHODS: In total, 3079 patients with breast cancer who received chemotherapy were included in this analysis. The associations between baseline physical functioning (PF) and fatigue measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Core 30, and two endpoints-CDRs during adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy; and selected PCTs were estimated with odds ratios (ORs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Among the 3079 patients from the CANTO cohort who were included, 718 (33.0%) received chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting, and 2361 (67.0%) received chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment. The chemotherapy included taxanes in 94.2% of patients and anthracyclines in 90.5% of patients. Overall, 15.5% of patients experienced CDRs and, 31.0% developed PCTs. Women with low baseline PF scores (<83) had higher multivariate odds of developing CDRs compared with those who had PF scores ≥83 (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.13-2.09). The corresponding OR for PCTs was 1.50 (95% CI, 1.13-2.00). Women with high baseline fatigue scores had higher odds of CDRs (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13-1.76) and PCTs (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59). CONCLUSIONS: By using the national CANTO cohort, baseline PF and fatigue were independently associated with CDRs and PCTs.

Palbociclib with Fulvestrant or Letrozole in Endocrine-Sensitive Patients with HR-Positive/HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: A Detailed Safety Analysis of the Randomized PARSIFAL Trial.

BACKGROUND: Palbociclib has gained a central role in the treatment of hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Despite its manageable toxicity profile, venous thromboembolism (VTE) or interstitial lung disease (ILD)/pneumonitis may infrequently occur. Therefore, we provide a comprehensive summary of the safety and tolerability of the combination of endocrine therapy and palbociclib among patients included in the randomized phase 2 PARSIFAL study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with endocrine-sensitive HR+/HER2- ABC and no prior therapy in an advanced setting (n = 486) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive fulvestrant-palbociclib (FP) or letrozole-palbociclib (LP). Laboratory tests and the incidence of adverse events (AEs) were recorded at baseline and day 1 of each cycle. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated for patients with and without VTE. RESULTS: A total of 483 patients were analyzed. Neutropenia, leukopenia, anemia, asthenia, arthralgia, fatigue, and diarrhea were the most frequent AEs in both groups. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 3 (1.2%) patients of the FP group and in 1 (0.4%) patient in the LP group. Six (2.5%; 0.4% grade 3) patients in the FP group and 6 patients (2.5%; 0.4% grade 3) in the LP group experienced ILD/pneumonitis. Pulmonary embolism was reported in 12 (5.0%) patients in the FP group and 6 (2.5%) patients in the LP group. Advanced age at baseline was the only factor significantly associated with an increased risk of pulmonary embolism (P < .01). CONCLUSION: The PARSIFAL data confirmed the favorable safety profile of both palbociclib regimens. VTE and ILD/pneumonitis were occasionally reported, and their early detection allowed patients to continue treatment effectively without detriment to efficacy. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02491983; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02491983).

Clinical and pathological characterization of 158 consecutive and unselected oligometastatic breast cancers in a single institution.

PURPOSE: Data about incidence, biological, and clinical characteristics of oligometastatic breast cancer (OMBC) are scarce. However, these data are essential in determining optimal treatment strategy. Gaining knowledge of these elements means observing and describing large, recent, and consecutive series of OMBC in their natural history. METHODS: We collected data retrospectively at our institution from 998 consecutive patients diagnosed and treated with synchronous or metachronous metastatic breast cancer (MBC) between January 2014 and December 2018. The only criterion used to define OMBC was the presence of one to five metastases at diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 998 MBC, 15.8% were classified OMBC. Among these, 88% had one to three metastases, and 86.7% had only one organ involved. Bone metastases were present in 52.5% of cases, 20.9% had progression to lymph nodes, 14.6% to the liver, 13.3% to the brain, 8.2% to the lungs, and 3.8% had other metastases. 55.7% had HR+/HER2- OMBC, 25.3% had HER2+OMBC, and 19% had HR-/HER2- OMBC. The HR+/HER2- subtype statistically correlated with bone metastases (p = 0.001), the HER2+subtype with brain lesions (p = 0.001), and the HR-/HER2- subtype with lymph node metastases (p = 0.008). Visceral metastases were not statistically associated with any OMBC subtypes (p = 0.186). OMBC-SBR grade III was proportionally higher than in the ESME series of 22,109 MBC (49.4% vs. 35.1%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: OMBC is a heterogeneous entity whose incidence is higher than has commonly been published. Not an indolent disease, each subgroup, with its biological and anatomical characteristics, merits specific management.

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.

Investigating the clinical impact of dose-banding for weekly paclitaxel in patients with breast cancer: A retrospective and monocentric study.

AIMS: Dose-banding (DB) consists in approximating the theoretical dose of anticancer drugs calculated according to the body surface area (Dose-BSA) of patients. This concept is supported by pharmacokinetic but not by clinical data. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcome of DB defined as dose-fitting up to ±10%. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted in patients receiving weekly paclitaxel in neoadjuvant (NAT) and metastatic (M+) settings. Three groups of patients were considered according to type of paclitaxel dosing: Dose-BSA, DB approximated down (DB-Low) and DB approximated up (DB-High). Efficacy was evaluated by the rate of pathological complete response for patients in NAT setting and by the median of progression-free survival plus overall survival for those in M+ setting. Toxicity and efficacy were compared in the 3 groups. RESULTS: A total of 224 and 209 patients were assessable in the M+ and NAT settings, respectively. A toxic event was observed for 31.7 and 27.3% in M+ and NAT, respectively. The rate of pathological complete response was 41.6% in NAT. The median progression-free survival was 5.2 (4.1-5.8) months and overall survival was 16.3 (14.6-18.4) months for patients in M+. Efficacy and toxicity were not different in DB-Low and DB-High groups compared to Dose-BSA group. CONCLUSION: DB with approximated doses up to ±10% does not seem to influence clinical outcome of patients treated with weekly paclitaxel. This is the first study to include clinical observations, which lends support to DB as a safe and effective dosing method.

Switch to fulvestrant and palbociclib versus no switch in advanced breast cancer with rising ESR1 mutation during aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib therapy (PADA-1): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In advanced oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, acquired resistance to aromatase inhibitors frequently stems from ESR1-mutated subclones, which might be sensitive to fulvestrant. The PADA-1 trial aimed to show the efficacy of an early change in therapy on the basis of a rising ESR1 mutation in blood (bESR1mut), while assessing the global safety of combination fulvestrant and palbociclib. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial in 83 hospitals in France. Women aged at least 18 years with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were recruited and monitored for rising bESR1mut during first-line aromatase inhibitor (2·5 mg letrozole, 1 mg anastrozole, or 25 mg exemestane, orally once per day, taken continuously) and palbociclib (125 mg orally once per day on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) therapy. Patients with newly present or increased bESR1mut in circulating tumour DNA and no synchronous disease progression were randomly assigned (1:1) to continue with the same therapy or to switch to fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscularly on day 1 of each 28-day cycle and on day 15 of cycle 1) and palbociclib (dosing unchanged). The randomisation sequence was generated within an interactive web response system using a minimisation method (with an 80% random factor); patients were stratified according to visceral involvement (present or absent) and the time from inclusion to bESR1mut detection (<12 months or ≥12 months). The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival from random assignment, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all randomly assigned patients), and grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events in all patients. The trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03079011), and is now complete. FINDINGS: From March 22, 2017, to Jan 31, 2019, 1017 patients were included, of whom 279 (27%) developed a rising bESR1mut and 172 (17%) were randomly assigned to treatment: 88 to switching to fulvestrant and palbociclib and 84 patients to continuing aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib. At database lock on July 31, 2021, randomly assigned patients had a median follow-up of 35·3 months (IQR 29·2-41·4) from inclusion and 26·0 months (13·8-34·3) from random assignment. Median progression-free survival from random assignment was 11·9 months (95% CI 9·1-13·6) in the fulvestrant and palbociclib group versus 5·7 months (3·9-7·5) in the aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib group (stratified HR 0·61, 0·43-0·86; p=0·0040). The most frequent grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events were neutropenia (715 [70·3%] of 1017 patients), lymphopenia (66 [6·5%]), and thrombocytopenia (20 [2·0%]). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in step 2 were neutropenia (35 [41·7%] of 84 patients in the aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib group vs 39 [44·3%] of 88 patients in the fulvestrant and palbociclib group) and lymphopenia (three [3·6%] vs four [4·5%]). 31 (3·1%) patients had grade 3 or worse serious adverse events related to treatment in the overall population. Three (1·7%) of 172 patients randomly assigned had one serious adverse event in step 2: one (1·2%) grade 4 neutropenia and one (1·2%) grade 3 fatigue among 84 patients in the aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib group, and one (1·1%) grade 4 neutropenia among 88 patients in the fulvestrant and palbociclib group. One death by pulmonary embolism in step 1 was declared as being treatment related. INTERPRETATION: PADA-1 is the first prospective randomised trial showing that the early therapeutic targeting of bESR1mut results in significant clinical benefit. Additionally, the original design explored in PADA-1 might help with tackling acquired resistance with new drugs in future trials. FUNDING: Pfizer.

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.

Trastuzumab and pertuzumab without chemotherapy in early-stage HER2+ breast cancer: a plain language summary of the PHERGain study.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a publication about the PHERGain study, which was published in The Lancet Oncology in May 2021. The study includes 376 women with a type of breast cancer called HER2-positive breast cancer that can be removed by surgery. In the study, researchers wanted to learn if participants could be treated with two medicines called trastuzumab and pertuzumab without the need for chemotherapy. To identify HER2-positive tumors with more sensitivity to anti-HER2 therapies, the researchers used a type of imaging called a FDG-PET scan to check how well the treatments were working. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PHERGAIN STUDY?: Participants took a treatment before surgery, consisting of either chemotherapy (docetaxel and carboplatin) plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab (group A) or trastuzumab and pertuzumab alone (plus hormone therapy if the tumor was hormone receptor-positive; group B). After two cycles of treatment, participants underwent a FDG-PET scan. Participants assigned to group A completed 6 cycles of treatment regardless of 18F-FDG-PET results. Participants in group B continued the same treatment until surgery if their FDG-PET scan showed the treatment was working. While participants who did not show a response started treatment with chemotherapy in addition to trastuzumab and pertuzumab. All participants then had surgery. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: The results revealed that, of the participants in group B who showed a response using FDG-PET scan, 37.9% achieved a disappearance of all invasive cancer in the breast and axillary lymph nodes. This rate appears to be higher than those reported in previous studies evaluating the same treatment. These participants also had less side effects and improved overall quality of life compared with participants taking chemotherapy plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Early monitoring of how well participants respond to treatment by FDG-PET scan seems to identify participants with operable HER2-positive breast cancer who were more likely to benefit from trastuzumab and pertuzumab without the need to have chemotherapy. The PHERGain study is still ongoing and results on long-term survival are expected to be released in 2023. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03161353 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Chemotherapy de-escalation using an 18F-FDG-PET-based pathological response-adapted strategy in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PHERGain): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-comparative, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Several de-escalation approaches are under investigation in patients with HER2-positive, early-stage breast cancer. We assessed early metabolic responses to neoadjuvant trastuzumab and pertuzumab using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG)-PET (18F-FDG-PET) and the possibility of chemotherapy de-escalation using a pathological response-adapted strategy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-comparative, phase 2 trial in 45 hospitals in Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, the UK, Italy, and Portugal. Eligible participants were women aged 18 years or older with centrally confirmed, HER2-positive, stage I-IIIA, invasive, operable breast cancer (≥1·5 cm tumour size) with at least one breast lesion evaluable by 18F-FDG-PET, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and a baseline left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55%. We randomly assigned participants (1:4), via an interactive response system using central block randomisation with block sizes of five, stratified by hormone receptor status, to either docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenous), carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve 6 mg/mL per min intravenous), trastuzumab (subcutaneous 600 mg fixed dose), and pertuzumab (intravenous 840 mg loading dose, 420 mg maintenance doses; group A); or trastuzumab and pertuzumab (group B). Hormone receptor-positive patients allocated to group B were additionally given letrozole if postmenopausal (2·5 mg/day orally) or tamoxifen if premenopausal (20 mg/day orally). Centrally reviewed 18F-FDG-PET scans were done before randomisation and after two treatment cycles. Patients assigned to group A completed six cycles of treatment (every 3 weeks) regardless of 18F-FDG-PET results. All patients assigned to group B initially received two cycles of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. 18F-FDG-PET responders in group B continued this treatment for six further cycles; 18F-FDG-PET non-responders in this group were switched to six cycles of docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab. Surgery was done 2-6 weeks after the last dose of study treatment. Adjuvant treatment was selected according to the neoadjuvant treatment administered, pathological response, hormone receptor status, and clinical stage at diagnosis. The coprimary endpoints were the proportion of 18F-FDG-PET responders in group B with a pathological complete response in the breast and axilla (ypT0/is ypN0) as determined by a local pathologist after surgery after eight cycles of treatment, and 3-year invasive disease-free survival of patients in group B, both assessed by intention to treat. The definitive assessment of pathological complete response was done at this primary analysis; follow-up to assess invasive disease-free survival is continuing, hence these data are not included in this Article. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. Health-related quality-of-life was assessed with EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires at baseline, after two cycles of treatment, and before surgery. This trial is registered with EudraCT (2016-002676-27) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03161353), and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 26, 2017, and April 24, 2019, we randomly assigned 71 patients to group A and 285 to group B. Median follow-up was 5·7 months (IQR 5·3-6·0). 227 (80%) of 285 patients in group B were 18F-FDG-PET responders, of whom 86 (37·9%, 95% CI 31·6-44·5; p<0·0001 compared with the historical rate) of 227 had a pathological complete response. The most common haematological grade 3-4 adverse events were anaemia (six [9%] of 68 patients in group A vs four [1%] of 283 patients in group B), neutropenia (16 [24%] vs ten [4%]), and febrile neutropenia (14 [21%] vs 11 [4%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (29%) of 68 patients in group A versus 13 (5%) of 283 patients in group B. No deaths were reported during neoadjuvant treatment. Global health status declined by at least 10% in 65·0% (95% CI 46·5-72·4) and 35·5% (29·7-41·7) of patients in groups A and B, respectively INTERPRETATION: 18F-FDG-PET identified patients with HER2-positive, early-stage breast cancer who were likely to benefit from chemotherapy-free dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab, and a reduced impact on global health status. Depending on the forthcoming results for the 3-year invasive disease-free survival endpoint, this strategy might be a valid approach to select patients not requiring chemotherapy. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.