Prognostic value of HER2DX in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer: a comprehensive analysis of 757 patients in the Sweden Cancerome Analysis Network-Breast dataset (SCAN-B).

BACKGROUND: The HER2DX risk-score has undergone rigorous validation in prior investigations involving patients with early-stage human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive (HER2+) breast cancer. In this study, we present the outcomes of the HER2DX risk-score within the most recent release of the Sweden Cancerome Analysis Network-Breast (SCAN-B) HER2+ cohort. This updated examination benefits from a larger patient sample, an extended follow-up duration, and detailed treatment information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical and RNAseq data from the SCAN-B dataset were retrieved from Gene Expression Omnibus (GSE81538). Among the 6600 patients, 819 had HER2+ breast cancer, with 757 individuals with research-based HER2DX risk-scores and corresponding survival outcomes. The HER2DX risk-score was evaluated (i) as a continuous variable and (ii) using predefined cut-offs. The primary endpoint for this study was overall survival (OS). The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox models were used to estimate OS and a multistate model with four states was fitted to better characterize patients' follow-up. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 7.5 years (n = 757). The most common systemic therapy was chemotherapy with trastuzumab (82.0%) and most tumors were classified as T1-T2 (97.1%). The HER2DX risk-score as a continuous variable was significantly associated with OS after adjustment for clinical variables and treatment regimen [hazard ratios (HR) per 10-unit increment = 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-1.51, P < 0.001] as well as within predefined risk groups (high versus low; HR = 2.57, 95% CI 1.36-4.85, P < 0.001). Patients classified as HER2DX high-risk also had higher risk of (i) breast cancer recurrence and (ii) death without previous recurrence. Within the subgroup of HER2+ T1N0 tumors (n = 297), those classified as high-risk demonstrated inferior OS compared to low-risk tumors (7-year OS 77.8% versus 96.8%, P < 0.001). The HER2DX mRNA ERBB2 score was associated with clinical HER2 status (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with early-stage HER2+ breast cancer, HER2DX risk-score provides prognostic information beyond clinicopathological variables, including treatment regimen with or without trastuzumab.

Early prediction of endocrine responsiveness in ER+/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC): pilot study with 18F-fluoroestradiol (18F-FES) CT/PET.

BACKGROUND: 18F-fluoroestradiol (FES) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) is considered an accurate diagnostic tool to determine whole-body endocrine responsiveness. In the endocrine therapy (ET)-FES trial, we evaluated 18F-FES PET/CT as a predictive tool in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients underwent an 18F-FES PET/CT at baseline. Patients with standardized uptake value (SUV) ≥ 2 received single-agent ET until progressive disease; patients with SUV < 2 were randomized to single-agent ET (arm A) or chemotherapy (ChT) (arm B). The primary objective was to compare the activity of first-line ET versus ChT in patients with 18F-FES SUV < 2. RESULTS: Overall, 147 patients were enrolled; 117 presented with 18F-FES SUV ≥ 2 and received ET; 30 patients with SUV < 2 were randomized to ET or ChT. After a median follow-up of 62.4 months, 104 patients (73.2%) had disease progression and 53 died (37.3%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.1-59.6 months] in patients with SUV < 2 randomized to arm A versus 23.0 months (95% CI 7.7-30.0 months) in arm B, [hazard (HR) = 0.71, 95% CI 0.3-1.7 months]; median PFS was 18.0 months (95% CI 11.2-23.1 months) in patients with SUV ≥ 2 treated with ET. Median overall survival (OS) was 28.2 months (95% CI 14.2 months-not estimable) in patients with SUV < 2 randomized to ET (arm A) versus 52.8 months (95% CI 16.2 months-not estimable) in arm B (ChT). Median OS was not reached in patients with SUV ≥ 2. 60-month OS rate was 41.6% (95% CI 10.4% to 71.1%) in arm A, 42.0% (95% CI 14.0% to 68.2%) in arm B, and 59.6% (95% CI 48.6% to 69.0%) in patients with SUV ≥ 2. In patients with SUV ≥ 2, 60-month OS rate was 72.6% if treated with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) versus 40.6% in case of fulvestrant or tamoxifen (P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The ET-FES trial demonstrated that ER+/HER2- MBC patients are a heterogeneous population, with different levels of endocrine responsiveness based on 18F-FES CT/PET SUV.

Event-free survival by residual cancer burden with pembrolizumab in early-stage TNBC: exploratory analysis from KEYNOTE-522.

BACKGROUND: KEYNOTE-522 demonstrated statistically significant improvements in pathological complete response (pCR) with neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and event-free survival (EFS) with neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab in patients with high-risk, early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Prior studies have shown the prognostic value of the residual cancer burden (RCB) index to quantify the extent of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In this preplanned exploratory analysis, we assessed RCB distribution and EFS within RCB categories by treatment group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1174 patients with stage T1c/N1-2 or T2-4/N0-2 TNBC were randomized 2 : 1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks given with four cycles of paclitaxel + carboplatin, followed by four cycles of doxorubicin or epirubicin + cyclophosphamide. After surgery, patients received pembrolizumab or placebo for nine cycles or until recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoints are pCR and EFS. RCB is a prespecified exploratory endpoint. The association between EFS and RCB was assessed using a Cox regression model. RESULTS: Pembrolizumab shifted patients into lower RCB categories across the entire spectrum compared with placebo. There were more patients in the pembrolizumab group with RCB-0 (pCR), and fewer patients in the pembrolizumab group with RCB-1, RCB-2, and RCB-3. The corresponding hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for EFS were 0.70 (0.38-1.31), 0.92 (0.39-2.20), 0.52 (0.32-0.82), and 1.24 (0.69-2.23). The most common first EFS events were distant recurrences, with fewer in the pembrolizumab group across all RCB categories. Among patients with RCB-0/1, more than half [21/38 (55.3%)] of all events were central nervous system recurrences, with 13/22 (59.1%) in the pembrolizumab group and 8/16 (50.0%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy resulted in fewer EFS events in the RCB-0, RCB-1, and RCB-2 categories, with the greatest benefit in RCB-2. These findings demonstrate that pembrolizumab not only increased pCR rates, but also improved EFS among most patients who do not have a pCR.

Significantly longer time to deterioration of quality of life due to CANKADO PRO-React eHealth support in HR+ HER2- metastatic breast cancer patients receiving palbociclib and endocrine therapy: primary outcome analysis of the multicenter randomized AGO-B WSG PreCycle trial.

BACKGROUND: The multicenter, randomized, phase IV, intergroup AGO-B WSG PreCycle trial (NCT03220178) evaluated the impact of CANKADO-based electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) assessment on quality of life (QoL) in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients receiving palbociclib and an aromatase inhibitor or palbociclib + fulvestrant. CANKADO PRO-React, a European Union-registered medical device, is an interactive autonomous application reacting to patient self-reported observations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2017 and 2021, 499 patients (median age 59 years) from 71 centers were randomized (2 : 1, stratified by therapy line) between an active version of CANKADO PRO-React (CANKADO-active arm) and a version with limited functionality (CANKADO-inform arm). A total of 412 patients (271 CANKADO-active; 141 CANKADO-inform) were available for analysis of the primary endpoint, time to deterioration (TTD) of QoL [10-point drop on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) score], using an Aalen-Johansen estimator for cumulative incidence function of TTD DQoL (QoL deterioration) with 95% pointwise confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and DQoL. RESULTS: In all patients [intention-to-treat (ITT)-ePRO], cumulative incidence of DQoL was significantly more favorable (lower) in the CANKADO-active arm (hazard ratio 0.698, 95% CI 0.506-0.963). Among first-line patients (n = 295), the corresponding hazard ratio was 0.716 (0.484-1.060; P = 0.09), and in second-line patients (n = 117) it was 0.661 (0.374-1.168; P = 0.2). Absolute patient numbers declined in later visits; FACT-G completion rates were 80% and higher until about visit 30. Mean FACT-G scores showed a steady decline from baseline and an offset in favor of CANKADO-active. No significant differences in clinical outcome were observed between arms: median PFS (ITT population) was 21.4 (95% CI 19.4-23.7) (CANKADO-active) and 18.7 (15.1-23.5) months (CANKADO-inform); median OS was not reached (CANKADO-active) and 42.6 months (CANKADO-inform). CONCLUSIONS: PreCycle is the first multicenter randomized eHealth trial demonstrating a significant benefit for MBC patients receiving oral tumor therapy when using an interactive autonomous patient empowerment application.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, staging and treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, staging and treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) was published in 2021. A special, hybrid guidelines meeting was convened by ESMO and the Korean Society of Medical Oncology (KSMO) in collaboration with nine other Asian national oncology societies in May 2022 in order to adapt the ESMO 2021 guidelines to take into account the differences associated with the treatment of MBC in Asia. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by a panel of Asian experts in the treatment of patients with MBC representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), India (ISMPO), Indonesia (ISHMO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), the Philippines (PSMO), Singapore (SSO), Taiwan (TOS) and Thailand (TSCO). The voting was based on the best available scientific evidence and was independent of drug access or practice restrictions in the different Asian countries. The latter were discussed when appropriate. The aim of these guidelines is to provide guidance for the harmonisation of the management of patients with MBC across the different regions of Asia, drawing from data provided by global and Asian trials whilst at the same time integrating the differences in genetics, demographics and scientific evidence, together with restricted access to certain therapeutic strategies.

Nab-paclitaxel weekly versus dose-dense solvent-based paclitaxel followed by dose-dense epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide in high-risk HR+/HER2- early breast cancer: results from the neoadjuvant part of the WSG-ADAPT-HR+/HER2- trial.

BACKGROUND: In high-risk hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) early breast cancer (EBC), nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel showed promising efficacy versus solvent-based (sb)-paclitaxel in neoadjuvant trials; however, optimal patient and therapy selection remains a topic of ongoing research. Here, we investigate the potential of Oncotype DX® recurrence score (RS) and endocrine therapy (ET) response (low post-endocrine Ki67) for therapy selection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within the WSG-ADAPT trial (NCT01779206), high-risk HR+/HER2- EBC patients were randomized to (neo)adjuvant 4× sb-paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 q2w or 8× nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 q1w, followed by 4× epirubicin + cyclophosphamide (90 mg + 600 mg) q2w; inclusion criteria: (i) cN0-1, RS 12-25, and post-ET Ki67 >10%; (ii) cN0-1 with RS >25. Patients with cN2-3 or (G3, baseline Ki67 ≥40%, and tumor size >1 cm) were allowed to be included without RS and/or ET response testing. Associations of key factors with pathological complete response (pCR) (primary) and survival (secondary) endpoints were analyzed using statistical mediation and moderation models. RESULTS: Eight hundred and sixty-four patients received neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel (n= 437) or sb-paclitaxel (n = 427); nab-paclitaxel was superior for pCR (20.8% versus 12.9%, P = 0.002). pCR was higher for RS >25 versus RS ≤25 (16.0% versus 8.4%, P = 0.021) and for ET non-response versus ET response (15.1% versus 6.0%, P = 0.027); no factors were predictive for the relative efficacy of nab-paclitaxel versus sb-paclitaxel. Patients with pCR had longer distant disease-free survival [dDFS; hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20-0.91, P = 0.024]. Despite favorable prognostic association of RS >25 versus RS ≤25 with pCR (odds ratio 3.11, 95% CI 1.71-5.63, P ≤ 0.001), higher RS was unfavorably associated with dDFS (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05, P = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk HR+/HER2- EBC, neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel q1w appears superior to sb-paclitaxel q2w regarding pCR. Combining RS and ET response assessment appears to select patients with highest pCR rates. The disadvantage of higher RS for dDFS is reduced in patients with pCR. These are the first results from a large neoadjuvant randomized trial supporting the use of RS to help select patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk HR+/HER2- EBC.

Treatment and outcome in metastatic lobular breast cancer in the prospective German research platform OPAL.

PURPOSE: Evidence about routine treatment and outcome of patients with invasive lobular cancer (ILC) is limited, especially regarding metastatic disease. Here we present prospective real-world data of patients with metastatic ILC (mILC) as compared to patients with metastatic invasive ductal cancer (mIDC) receiving systemic therapy in routine care in Germany. METHODS: Prospective data on patient and tumor characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients with mILC (n = 466) and mIDC (n = 2100), recruited between 2007 and 2021 into the Tumor Registry Breast Cancer/OPAL were analyzed. RESULTS: Compared to mIDCs, patients with mILC were older at start of first-line treatment (median 69 vs. 63 years) and had more often lower grade (G1/G2: 72.8% vs. 51.2%), hormone receptor (HR)-positive (83.7% vs. 73.2%) and less often HER2-positive (14.2% vs. 28.6%) tumors, which metastasized more frequently to the bone (19.7% vs. 14.5%) or peritoneum (9.9% vs. 2.0%), and less frequently to the lungs (0.9% vs. 4.0%). Median OS of patients with mILC (n = 209) and mIDC (n = 1158) was 30.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 25.3, 36.0] and 33.7 months [95% CI 30.3, 37.9], respectively. Multivariate survival analysis did not show a significant prognostic impact of the histological subtype [HR mILC vs. mIDC 1.18 (95% CI 0.97-1.42)]. CONCLUSION: Overall, our real-world data confirm clinicopathological differences between mILC and mIDC breast cancer patients. Despite patients with mILC presenting with some favorable prognostic factors, ILC histopathology was not associated with a better clinical outcome in multivariate analysis, suggesting the need for more tailored treatment strategies for patients with the lobular subtype.

Influence of HER2 expression on prognosis in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer-results from an international, multicenter analysis coordinated by the AGMT Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is associated with poor prognosis, and new treatment options are urgently needed. About 34%-39% of primary TNBCs show a low expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2-low), which is a target for new anti-HER2 drugs. However, little is known about the frequency and the prognostic value of HER2-low in metastatic TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively included patients with TNBC from five European countries for this international, multicenter analysis. Triple-negativity had to be shown in a metastatic site or in the primary breast tumor diagnosed simultaneously or within 3 years before metastatic disease. HER2-low was defined as immunohistochemically (IHC) 1+ or 2+ without ERBB2 gene amplification. Survival probabilities were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by Cox regression models. RESULTS: In total, 691 patients, diagnosed between January 2006 and February 2021, were assessable. The incidence of HER2-low was 32.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 28.5% to 35.5%], with similar proportions in metastases (n = 265; 29.8%) and primary tumors (n = 425; 33.4%; P = 0.324). The median overall survival (OS) in HER2-low and HER2-0 TNBC was 18.6 and 16.1 months, respectively (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.83-1.19; P = 0.969). Similarly, in multivariable analysis, HER2-low had no significant impact on OS (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.79-1.13; P = 0.545). No difference in prognosis was observed between HER2 IHC 0/1+ and IHC 2+ tumors (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.69-1.17; P = 0.414). CONCLUSIONS: In this large international dataset of metastatic TNBC, the frequency of HER2-low was 32.0%. Neither in univariable nor in multivariable analysis HER2-low showed any influence on OS.

ESO-ESMO fifth international consensus guidelines for breast cancer in young women (BCY5).

We dedicate this manuscript in memory of a dear friend and colleague Bella Kaufman. The fifth International Consensus Symposium for Breast Cancer in Young Women (BCY5) took place virtually in October 2020, organized by the European School of Oncology (ESO) and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO). Consensus recommendations for the management of breast cancer in young women were updated from BCY4 with incorporation of new evidence to inform the guidelines. Areas of research priorities as well as specificities in different geographic and minority populations were identified. This manuscript summarizes the ESO-ESMO international consensus recommendations, which are also endorsed by the European Society of Breast Specialists (EUSOMA).

Risk-adapted modulation through de-intensification of cancer treatments: an ESMO classification.

BACKGROUND: The landscape of clinical trials testing risk-adapted modulations of cancer treatments is complex. Multiple trial designs, endpoints, and thresholds for non-inferiority have been used; however, no consensus or convention has ever been agreed to categorise biomarkers useful to inform the treatment intensity modulation of cancer treatments. METHODS: An expert subgroup under the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Precision Medicine Working Group shaped an international collaborative project to develop a classification system for biomarkers used in the cancer treatment de-intensification, based on a tiered approach. A group of disease-oriented clinical, translational, methodology and public health experts, and patients' representatives provided an analysis of the status quo, and scanned the horizon of ongoing clinical trials. The classification was developed through multiple rounds of expert revisions and inputs. RESULTS: The working group agreed on a univocal definition of treatment de-intensification. Evidence of reduction in the dose-density, intensity, or cumulative dose, including intermittent schedules or shorter treatment duration or deletion of segment(s) of the standard regimens, compound(s), or treatment modality must be demonstrated, to define a treatment de-intensification. De-intensified regimens must also portend a positive impact on toxicity, quality of life, health system burden, or financial toxicity. ESMO classification categorises the biomarkers for treatment modulation in three tiers, based on the level of evidence. Tier A includes biomarkers validated in prospective, randomised, non-inferiority clinical trials. The working group agreed that in non-inferiority clinical trials, boundaries are highly dependent upon the disease scenario and endpoint being studied and that the absolute differences in the outcomes are the most relevant measures, rather than relative differences. Biomarkers tested in single-arm studies with a threshold of non-inferiority are classified as Tier B. Tier C is when the validation occurs in prospective-retrospective quality cohort investigations. CONCLUSIONS: ESMO classification for the risk-guided intensity modulation of cancer treatments provides a set of evidence-based criteria to categorise biomarkers deemed to inform de-intensification of cancer treatments, in risk-defined patients. The classification aims at harmonising definitions on this matter, therefore offering a common language for all the relevant stakeholders, including clinicians, patients, decision-makers, and for clinical trials.

Prognostic relevance of the HER2 status of circulating tumor cells in metastatic breast cancer patients screened for participation in the DETECT study program.

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have been reported to predict clinical outcome in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Biology of CTCs may differ from that of the primary tumor and HER2-positive CTCs are found in some patients with HER2-negative tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with HER2-negative MBC were screened for participation in DETECT III and IV trials before the initiation of a new line of therapy. Blood samples were analyzed using CELLSEARCH. CTCs were labeled with an anti-HER2 antibody and classified according to staining intensity (negative, weak, moderate, or strong staining). RESULTS: Screening blood samples were analyzed in 1933 patients with HER2-negative MBC. As many as 1217 out of the 1933 screened patients (63.0%) had ≥1 CTC per 7.5 ml blood; ≥5 CTCs were detected in 735 patients (38.0%; range 1-35 078 CTCs, median 8 CTCs). HER2 status of CTCs was assessed in 1159 CTC-positive patients; ≥1 CTC with strong HER2 staining was found in 174 (15.0%) patients. The proportion of CTCs with strong HER2 staining among all CTCs of an individual patient ranged between 0.06% and 100% (mean 15.8%). Patients with estrogen receptor (ER)- and progesterone receptor (PR)-positive tumors were more likely to harbor ≥1 CTC with strong HER2 staining. CTC status was significantly associated with overall survival (OS). Detection of ≥1 CTC with strong HER2 staining was associated with shorter OS [9.7 (7.1-12.3) versus 16.5 (14.9-18.1) months in patients with CTCs with negative-to-moderate HER2 staining only, P = 0.013]. In multivariate analysis, age, ER status, PR status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, therapy line, and CTC status independently predicted OS. CONCLUSION: CTC detection in patients with HER2-negative disease is a strong prognostic factor. Presence of ≥1 CTC with strong HER2 staining was associated with shorter OS, supporting a biological role of HER2 expression on CTCs.

Adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy for high-risk early breast cancer: updated efficacy and Ki-67 analysis from the monarchE study.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy (ET) previously demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer at the second interim analysis, however follow-up was limited. Here, we present results of the prespecified primary outcome analysis and an additional follow-up analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This global, phase III, open-label trial randomized (1 : 1) 5637 patients to adjuvant ET for ≥5 years ± abemaciclib for 2 years. Cohort 1 enrolled patients with ≥4 positive axillary lymph nodes (ALNs), or 1-3 positive ALNs and either grade 3 disease or tumor ≥5 cm. Cohort 2 enrolled patients with 1-3 positive ALNs and centrally determined high Ki-67 index (≥20%). The primary endpoint was IDFS in the intent-to-treat population (cohorts 1 and 2). Secondary endpoints were IDFS in patients with high Ki-67, DRFS, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: At the primary outcome analysis, with 19 months median follow-up time, abemaciclib + ET resulted in a 29% reduction in the risk of developing an IDFS event [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-0.87; nominal P = 0.0009]. At the additional follow-up analysis, with 27 months median follow-up and 90% of patients off treatment, IDFS (HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.82; nominal P < 0.0001) and DRFS (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.83; nominal P < 0.0001) benefit was maintained. The absolute improvements in 3-year IDFS and DRFS rates were 5.4% and 4.2%, respectively. Whereas Ki-67 index was prognostic, abemaciclib benefit was consistent regardless of Ki-67 index. Safety data were consistent with the known abemaciclib risk profile. CONCLUSION: Abemaciclib + ET significantly improved IDFS in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer, with an acceptable safety profile. Ki-67 index was prognostic, but abemaciclib benefit was observed regardless of Ki-67 index. Overall, the robust treatment benefit of abemaciclib extended beyond the 2-year treatment period.

Outcome of breast cancer patients with low hormone receptor positivity: analysis of a 15-year population-based cohort.

BACKGROUND: Guideline recommendations for the treatment of breast cancer with low hormone receptor (HR) expression (1%-9%) are ambiguous and several studies showed more similarities with HR-negative tumors than with HR strongly positive tumors (≥10%). We used a population-based 15-year cohort to compare patient characteristics and outcome of HR low positive tumors with HR-negative and HR strongly positive tumors, respectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 38  560 women diagnosed with early invasive breast cancer between 2004 and 2018 within the scope of the Munich Cancer Registry with 4.9 million inhabitants were included. Descriptive analyses of prognostic factors, treatment, and outcome analyses using the Kaplan-Meier method; cumulative incidence in consideration of competing risks; and multivariate analyses (Cox regression and Fine-Gray model) were conducted. Endpoints were time to local recurrence (TTLR), time to lymph node recurrence (TTLNR), time to metastasis (TTM), overall survival (OS), and relative survival (RS). RESULTS: A total of 861 patients (2%) had HR low positive, 4862 (13%) HR-negative, and 32  837 (85%) HR strongly positive tumors. Within the HER2-negative cohort (n = 33  366), survival of HR low positive tumors was significantly worse than that of HR strongly positive tumors [OS hazard ratio 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.78)], whereas between HR low positive and HR-negative tumors no significant survival difference could be detected [OS hazard ratio 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.78-1.11)]. TTLR, TTLNR, and TTM showed similar results. By contrast, within the HER2-positive cohort (n = 5194), no statistically significant differences between the three HR groups could be detected in multivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: Current definitions for HR positivity and its clinical relevance should be reconsidered. Patients with HR low positive/HER2-negative tumors could be regarded and treated similar to patients with triple-negative tumors.

Congruence and trajectories of device-measured and self-reported physical activity during therapy for early breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This study examines congruence between self-reported and device-measured physical activity data in women with early breast cancer and compares trajectories under different treatments. METHODS: Women with non-metastatic breast cancer were recruited before primary therapy. In four weeks distributed over six months after treatment start, patients reported time spent on work, transport, chores and sports via diary and wore Garmin® vivofit 3 accelerometers to assess steps taken. Associations between these measures and agreement regarding guideline adherence were tested with Spearman's Correlation Coefficient and Weighted Kappa statistic. Effects of time and treatment were evaluated using mixed analyses of variance. RESULTS: Ninety-nine participants (median age = 50) were treated with adjuvant (N = 23), neoadjuvant (N = 21) or without chemotherapy (N = 55). Coherence between self-report and device data was strong (r = 0.566). Agreement about reaching recommendations was only "fair" (kappa coefficient = 0.321 and 0.249, resp.). Neither treatment or week nor their interaction had effects on step counts (all p > 0.05). Self-reported activity time was lower for patients with chemotherapy than for those without (adjuvant: ∆ = 69min, p = 0.006, neoadjuvant: ∆ = 45min, p = 0.038) and lower in week 18 than in week 3 (∆ = 43min, p = 0.010). CONCLUSION: Results show that consumer-grade activity monitors and self-reports correlate but show different perspectives on physical activity in breast cancer patients. In general, patients perceive some decline regardless of primary treatment regimen. Those affected should be offered assistance to gain the benefits of activity. Accelerometers may help professionals to identify these individuals and patients to verify appraisal of their activity levels.

Phase III randomized study of taselisib or placebo with fulvestrant in estrogen receptor-positive, PIK3CA-mutant, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer: the SANDPIPER trial.

BACKGROUND: The phase III SANDPIPER study assessed taselisib (GDC-0032), a potent, selective PI3K inhibitor, plus fulvestrant in estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, PIK3CA-mutant locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with disease recurrence/progression during/after an aromatase inhibitor were randomized 2 : 1 to receive taselisib (4 mg; taselisib arm) or placebo (placebo arm) plus fulvestrant (500 mg). Stratification factors were visceral disease, endocrine sensitivity, and geographic region. Patients with PIK3CA-mutant tumors (central cobas® PIK3CA Mutation Test) were randomized separately from those without detectable mutations. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (INV-PFS) in patients with PIK3CA-mutant tumors. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate, overall survival, clinical benefit rate, duration of objective response, PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR-PFS), safety, and time to deterioration in health-related quality of life. RESULTS: The PIK3CA-mutant intention-to-treat population comprised 516 patients (placebo arm: n = 176; taselisib arm: n = 340). INV-PFS was significantly improved in the taselisib {7.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.26-9.07]} versus placebo arm (5.4 months [95% CI, 3.68-7.29]) (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.89; P = 0.0037) and confirmed by BICR-PFS (HR 0.66). Secondary endpoints, including objective response rate, clinical benefit rate, and duration of objective response, showed consistent improvements in the taselisib arm. Safety was assessed in all randomized patients who received at least one dose of taselisib/placebo or fulvestrant regardless of PIK3CA-mutation status (n = 629). Serious adverse events were lower in the placebo versus taselisib arm (8.9% versus 32.0%). There were more discontinuations (placebo arm: 2.3%; taselisib arm: 16.8%) and dose reductions (placebo arm: 2.3%; taselisib arm: 36.5%) in the taselisib arm. CONCLUSION: SANDPIPER met its primary endpoint; however, the combination of taselisib plus fulvestrant has no clinical utility given its safety profile and modest clinical benefit.