Everolimus plus endocrine therapy beyond CDK4/6 inhibitors progression for HR+ /HER2- advanced breast cancer: a real-world evidence cohort.

PURPOSE: Everolimus in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) was formerly approved as 2nd-line therapy in HR(+)/HER2(-) advanced breast cancer (aBC) patients (pts) progressing during or after a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI). Since this approval, the treatment landscape of aBC has changed dramatically, particularly with the arrival of CDK 4-6 inhibitors. Endocrine monotherapy after progression to CDK4/6 inhibitors has shown a limited progression-free survival (PFS), below 3 months. Evidence of the efficacy of everolimus plus ET after CDK4/6 inhibitors is scarce. METHODS: A retrospective observational study of patients with aBC treated with everolimus and ET beyond CDK4/6-i progression compiled from February 2015 to December 2022 in 4 Spanish hospitals was performed. Clinical and demographic data were collected from medical records. The main objective was to estimate the median progression-free survival (mPFS). Everolimus adverse events (AE) were registered. Quantitative variables were summarized with medians; qualitative variables with proportions and the Kaplan-Meier method were used for survival estimates. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-one patients received everolimus plus ET (exemestane: 96, fulvestrant: 54, tamoxifen: 10, unknown: 1) after progressing on a CDK4/6 inhibitor. The median follow-up time was 15 months (interquartile range: 1-56 months). The median age at diagnosis was 49 years (range: 35-90 years). The estimated mPFS was 6.0 months (95%CI 5.3-7.8 months). PFS was longer in patients with previous CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy lasting for > 18 months (8.7 months, 95%CI 6.6-11.3 months), in patients w/o visceral metastases (8.0 months, 95%CI 5.8-10.5 months), and chemotherapy-naïve in the metastatic setting (7.2 months, 95%CI 5.9-8.4 months). CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis cohort of everolimus plus ET in mBC patients previously treated with a CDK4/6 inhibitor suggests a longer estimated mPFS when compared with the mPFS with ET monotherapy obtained from current randomized clinical data. Everolimus plus ET may be considered as a valid control arm in novel clinical trial designs.

A Dalbavancin for Successful Treatment of Infective Endocarditis Caused by Enterococcus faecalis.

Infective endocarditis is a relatively uncommon infection that requires a high index of suspicion, which can sometimes delay its diagnosis. It requires several weeks of intravenous antibiotics, which traditionally requires long hospital stays. Dalbavancin is a novel antibiotic with high activity against several Gram-positive pathogens. Its weekly administration allows the outpatient management of complicated infections requiring parenteral treatment, but only a few cases of Enterococcus faecalis endocarditis treated with dalbavancin have been reported in the literature. We here report a case of successful treatment with dalbavancin of an infectious endocarditis caused by E. faecalis. LEARNING POINTS: Infective endocarditis is a relatively uncommon infection that requires a high index of suspicion and its diagnosis can sometimes be challenging.Endovascular infections require long-term parenteral treatment, so outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) is an option for stable patients in order to avoid prolonged hospital stays.Dalbavancin is a novel antibiotic with high activity against Gram-positive pathogens and can be administered weekly.There is growing experience in the ambulatory treatment of Gram-positive cocci endovascular infections.

Frontline immune checkpoint inhibitor-based combination therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients with poor performance status.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-based combination therapy (ICI-based combination) is a new standard of care for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the frontline setting. Patients with poor performance status (PS) (≥2) were excluded from pivotal trials. Hence, the activity and safety of ICI-based combination therapy in this group of patients is still unknown. METHODS: We performed a multicentre retrospective study of PS ≥2 mRCC patients who received frontline ICI-based combination, either nivolumab-ipilimumab (NI) or pembrolizumab-axitinib (AP). Patients' characteristics, clinical outcomes, and toxicity were collected. We analysed overall response rate (ORR), median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS) and grade ≥3 adverse events (G ≥ 3AEs). The association between the predictive biomarker IPI (immune prognostic index) and ORR/PFS/OS was also evaluated. RESULTS: We identified 70 mRCC patients with PS ≥2 treated with ICI-based combination across 14 institutions between October 2017 and December 2021, including 45 and 25 patients were treated with NI and AP, respectively. Median age at diagnosis was 63 years, 51 (73%) were male, only 17 (24%) had prior nephrectomy, 50 (71%) had synchronous metastatic disease at diagnosis, and 16 (23%) had brain metastases. Sixty-one (87%) and 9 (13%) patients had ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) PS 2 and 3, respectively, and 25 (36%) and 45 (64%) patients were intermediate and poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk, respectively. Among all, 91% were clear cell RCC, 7 patients had sarcomatoid features. At the time of the analysis (median follow-up 11.1 months), 41% patients were dead. Median PFS and mOS in the entire cohort were 5.4 months and 16.0 months, respectively; ORR was 31%. No significant differences in ORR, PFS, OS, or G ≥3AEs were seen between NI and AP. The intermediate and poor IPI groups were significantly associated with reduced ORR and shorter PFS. CONCLUSION: We report the first cohort of PS ≥2 mRCC patients treated with frontline ICI-based combination therapy. The survival outcomes in our cohort were inferior to that reported in pivotal trials. No significant differences in ORR, PFS, OS or toxicity were seen between NI and AP. Prospective real-world studies are needed to confirm these results.

Pandemic Phase-Adjusted Analysis of COVID-19 Outcomes Reveals Reduced Intrinsic Vulnerability and Substantial Vaccine Protection From Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Patients With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Although representing the majority of newly diagnosed cancers, patients with breast cancer appear less vulnerable to COVID-19 mortality compared with other malignancies. In the absence of patients on active cancer therapy included in vaccination trials, a contemporary real-world evaluation of outcomes during the various pandemic phases, as well as of the impact of vaccination, is needed to better inform clinical practice. METHODS: We compared COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among patients with breast cancer across prevaccination (February 27, 2020-November 30, 2020), Alpha-Delta (December 1, 2020-December 14, 2021), and Omicron (December 15, 2021-January 31, 2022) phases using OnCovid registry participants (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04393974). Twenty-eight-day case fatality rate (CFR28) and COVID-19 severity were compared in unvaccinated versus double-dosed/boosted patients (vaccinated) with inverse probability of treatment weighting models adjusted for country of origin, age, number of comorbidities, tumor stage, and receipt of systemic anticancer therapy within 1 month of COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: By the data lock of February 4, 2022, the registry counted 613 eligible patients with breast cancer: 60.1% (n = 312) hormone receptor-positive, 25.2% (n = 131) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, and 14.6% (n = 76) triple-negative. The majority (61%; n = 374) had localized/locally advanced disease. Median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 51-74 years). A total of 193 patients (31.5%) presented ≥ 2 comorbidities and 69% (n = 330) were never smokers. In total, 392 (63.9%), 164 (26.8%), and 57 (9.3%) were diagnosed during the prevaccination, Alpha-Delta, and Omicron phases, respectively. Analysis of CFR28 demonstrates comparable estimates of mortality across the three pandemic phases (13.9%, 12.2%, 5.3%, respectively; P = .182). Nevertheless, a significant improvement in outcome measures of COVID-19 severity across the three pandemic time periods was observed. Importantly, when reported separately, unvaccinated patients from the Alpha-Delta and Omicron phases achieved comparable outcomes to those from the prevaccination phase. Of 566 patients eligible for the vaccination analysis, 72 (12.7%) were fully vaccinated and 494 (87.3%) were unvaccinated. We confirmed with inverse probability of treatment weighting multivariable analysis and following a clustered robust correction for participating center that vaccinated patients achieved improved CFR28 (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.40), hospitalization (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.69), COVID-19 complications (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.45), and reduced requirement of COVID-19-specific therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.63) and oxygen therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.67) compared with unvaccinated controls. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight a consistent reduction of COVID-19 severity in patients with breast cancer during the Omicron outbreak in Europe. We also demonstrate that even in this population, a complete severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination course is a strong determinant of improved morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

COVID-19 Sequelae and the Host Proinflammatory Response: An Analysis From the OnCovid Registry.

BACKGROUND: Fifteen percent of patients with cancer experience symptomatic sequelae, which impair post-COVID-19 outcomes. In this study, we investigated whether a proinflammatory status is associated with the development of COVID-19 sequelae. METHODS: OnCovid recruited 2795 consecutive patients who were diagnosed with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 infection between February 27, 2020, and February 14, 2021. This analysis focused on COVID-19 survivors who underwent a clinical reassessment after the exclusion of patients with hematological malignancies. We evaluated the association of inflammatory markers collected at COVID-19 diagnosis with sequelae, considering the impact of previous systemic anticancer therapy. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Of 1339 eligible patients, 203 experienced at least 1 sequela (15.2%). Median baseline C-reactive protein (CRP; 77.5 mg/L vs 22.2 mg/L, P < .001), lactate dehydrogenase (310 UI/L vs 274 UI/L, P = .03), and the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR; 6.0 vs 4.3, P = .001) were statistically significantly higher among patients who experienced sequelae, whereas no association was reported for the platelet to lymphocyte ratio and the OnCovid Inflammatory Score, which includes albumin and lymphocytes. The widest area under the ROC curve (AUC) was reported for baseline CRP (AUC = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63 to 0.69), followed by the NLR (AUC = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.61) and lactate dehydrogenase (AUC = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.61). Using a fixed categorical multivariable analysis, high CRP (odds ratio [OR] = 2.56, 95% CI: 1.67 to 3.91) and NLR (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.10) were confirmed to be statistically significantly associated with an increased risk of sequelae. Exposure to chemotherapy was associated with a decreased risk of sequelae (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.91), whereas no associations with immune checkpoint inhibitors, endocrine therapy, and other types of systemic anticancer therapy were found. CONCLUSIONS: Although the association between inflammatory status, recent chemotherapy and sequelae warrants further investigation, our findings suggest that a deranged proinflammatory reaction at COVID-19 diagnosis may predict for sequelae development.

Biology of the Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Immunohistochemical, RNA, and DNA Features.

BACKGROUND: The triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) constitutes a heterogeneous disease with an aggressive behavior and a poor prognosis. A better understanding of its biology is required to identify new biomarkers and improve clinical outcomes. SUMMARY: To date, the definition and classification of TNBC depends on a multiomic approach including immunohistochemistry (IHC), genomic, and transcriptomic features, and the tumor immune landscape. The development of new technologies has allowed us to sequence the whole cancer genome. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and next-generation sequencing have led to a greater knowledge of DNA alterations such as TP53 or BRCA mutations, copy number variations, and DNA methylations. In addition, gene expression profiling has allowed to define a molecular intrinsic classification of TNBC based on mRNA. IHC and genomic profiling are also necessary to identify new immune biomarkers such as the presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and the expression of immune checkpoint molecules. KEY MESSAGES: This review aimed to provide recent knowledge of TNBC biology and classification focused on IHC, transcriptomics, genomic features, and the new immune biomarkers.