A retrospective, multicenter study of the efficacy of lapatinib plus trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients previously treated with trastuzumab, lapatinib, or both: the Trastyvere study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lapatinib (L) and trastuzumab (T) combination in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients previously treated with T and/or L. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, post-authorized, multicenter study including patients with HER2-positive MBC or locally advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated with the combination of L-T. Concomitant endocrine therapy, as well as brain metastasis and/or prior exposure to L, were allowed. RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen patients from 14 institutions were included. The median age was 59.8 years. The median number of prior T regimens in the advanced setting was 3 and 73 patients had received a prior L regimen. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 34.8% (95% CI 26.1-43.5). Among other efficacy endpoints, the overall response rate was 21.7%, and median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 3.9 and 21.6 months, respectively. Heavily pretreated and ≥ 3 metastatic organ patients showed lower CBR and PFS than patients with a low number of previous regimens and < 3 metastatic organs. Moreover, CBR did not significantly change in L-pretreated compared with L-naïve patients (31.5% versus 40.5% for L-pretreated versus L-naïve). Grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 19 patients (16.5%). CONCLUSION: The combination of L-T is an effective and well-tolerated regimen in heavily pretreated patients and remains active among patients progressing on prior L-based therapy. Our study suggests that the L-T regimen is a safe and active chemotherapy-free option for MBC patients previously treated with T and/or L.

SEOM-SERAM-SEMNIM guidelines on the use of functional and molecular imaging techniques in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Imaging in oncology is an essential tool for patient management but its potential is being profoundly underutilized. Each of the techniques used in the diagnostic process also conveys functional information that can be relevant in treatment decision-making. New imaging algorithms and techniques enhance our knowledge about the phenotype of the tumor and its potential response to different therapies. Functional imaging can be defined as the one that provides information beyond the purely morphological data, and include all the techniques that make it possible to measure specific physiological functions of the tumor, whereas molecular imaging would include techniques that allow us to measure metabolic changes. Functional and molecular techniques included in this document are based on multi-detector computed tomography (CT), 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and hybrid equipments, integrating PET with CT (PET/CT) or MRI (PET-MRI). Lung cancer is one of the most frequent and deadly tumors although survival is increasing thanks to advances in diagnostic methods and new treatments. This increased survival poises challenges in terms of proper follow-up and definitions of response and progression, as exemplified by immune therapy-related pseudoprogression. In this consensus document, the use of functional and molecular imaging techniques will be addressed to exploit their current potential and explore future applications in the diagnosis, evaluation of response and detection of recurrence of advanced NSCLC.

Defining the optimal sequence for the systemic treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

Metastatic breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease that presents in varying forms, and a growing number of therapeutic options makes it difficult to determine the best choice in each particular situation. When selecting a systemic treatment, it is important to consider the medication administered in the previous stages, such as acquired resistance, type of progression, time to relapse, tumor aggressiveness, age, comorbidities, pre- and post-menopausal status, and patient preferences. Moreover, tumor genomic signatures can identify different subtypes, which can be used to create patient profiles and design specific therapies. However, there is no consensus regarding the best treatment sequence for each subgroup of patients. During the SABCC Congress of 2014, specialized breast cancer oncologists from referral hospitals in Europe met to define patient profiles and to determine specific treatment sequences for each one. Conclusions were then debated in a final meeting in which a relative degree of consensus for each treatment sequence was established. Four patient profiles were defined according to established breast cancer phenotypes: pre-menopausal patients with luminal subtype, post-menopausal patients with luminal subtype, patients with triple-negative subtype, and patients with HER2-positive subtype. A treatment sequence was then defined, consisting of hormonal therapy with tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, fulvestrant, and mTOR inhibitors for pre- and post-menopausal patien ts; a chemotherapy sequence for the first, second, and further lines for luminal and triple-negative patients; and an optimal sequence for treatment with new antiHER2 therapies. Finally, a document detailing all treatment sequences, that had the agreement of all the oncologists, was drawn up as a guideline and advocacy tool for professionals treating patients with this disease.

Preventive treatments for breast cancer: recent developments.

Breast cancer is a burden for western societies, and an increasing one in emerging economies, because of its high incidence and enormous psychological, social, sanitary and economic costs. However, breast cancer is a preventable disease in a significant proportion. Recent developments in the armamentarium of effective drugs for breast cancer prevention (namely exemestane and anastrozole), the new recommendation from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to use preventative drugs in women at high risk as well as updated Guidelines from the US Preventive Services Task Force and the American Society of Clinical Oncology should give renewed momentum to the pharmacological prevention of breast cancer. In this article we review recent major developments in the field and examine their ongoing repercussion for breast cancer prevention. As a practical example, the potential impact of preventive measures in Spain is evaluated and a course of practical actions is delineated.

Tumor histological subtyping determined by hormone receptors and HER2 status defines different pathological complete response and outcome to dose-dense neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact in pathological complete response (pCR) and outcome of two dose-dense neoadjuvant chemotherapy (DDNC) regimens among different histological subtypes determined by hormonal receptor (HR) and HER2 status in breast cancer patients. METHODS: A total of 127 breast cancer patients were treated with DDNC in two prospective studies. A: adriamycin 40 mg/m(2) on day (d) 1 plus paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 2,000 mg/m(2) on d2 for six cycles (n = 54). B: epirubicin 90 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) on d1 for three cycles, followed by paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 2,500 mg/m(2) on d1 ± trastuzumab according to HER2 status (n = 73). Histological subtypes of breast cancer were 49 % HR+/HER2-, 17.5 % HR+/HER2+, 13.5 % HR-/HER2+ and 20 % HR-/HER2-. RESULTS: pCR (absence of invasive cells in breast and lymph node) was achieved in 35 patients (28 %). The pCR rate was significantly different between histological subtypes: HR+/HER2- (9 %), HR+/HER2+ (23 %), HR-/HER2+ (50 %), HR-/HER2- (56 %) (p < 0.001). The median follow-up was 81 months (r: 15-150 months). HR-/HER2- tumor subtype had a significantly worse DFS compared to HR+/HER2- (p = 0.02), RH+/HER2+ (p = 0.04) and HR-/HER2+ tumor subtypes (p = 0.02). HR-/HER2- tumor subtype had a significantly shorter OS compared to HR+/HER2- (p = 0.007), RH+/HER2+ (p = 0.05), and HR-/HER2+ (p = 0.03) tumor subtypes. However, no significant difference was observed in DFS and OS among HR-/HER2- tumors that achieved a pCR. CONCLUSIONS: HR-/HER2- and HR-/HER2+ subtypes had a high pCR rate to DDNC. HR-/HER2- tumors had a worse outcome compared to other tumor subtypes but no significant difference was observed among HR-/HER2- tumors that achieved a pCR.

Bevacizumab plus preoperative chemotherapy in operable HER2 negative breast cancer: biomarkers and pathologic response.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this trial was to assess the rate of pathologic complete responses (pCR) of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) followed by bevacizumab/docetaxel (BT), as neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer (BC). Furthermore, the association between biomarkers and the pCR was explored. METHODS: Patients with HER-negative operable stage II-III BC ≥ 2 cm were enrolled. Four cycles of AC (A 60 mg/m(2) and C 600 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks) followed by 4 cycles of BT (B 15 mg/kg and T 75 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks), were planned. A core-biopsy was performed for biological markers assessment. RESULTS: Seventy-two women were included. Forty-three (63 %) patients were hormone receptor-positive. Sixty-four (89 %) completed the planned treatment, and 66 evaluable patients underwent surgery (92 %): a pCR was achieved in 16 of them (24, 95 % CI 15-36 %). pCR was significantly higher in tumors hormone receptor-negative, and in those with Angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AGTR1) protein overexpression. The overall clinical response rate was 86 % (95 % CI 76-93 %), including 42 complete responses. No unexpected toxicities or treatment-related deaths were observed. CONCLUSION: This regimen showed a remarkable clinical and pathological activity: the suggested relation between pCR and AGTR1 overexpression should be confirmed in larger trials.

Current controversies in the management of early breast cancer.

Medical professionals in general, and medical oncologists in particular, have highly stressful practices because they are under constant pressure to have the highest-quality, up-to-date evidence available in order to make the right decision for each individual patient. From a practical point of view, being updated on oncological and other medical specialties may seem an insurmountable task because the number of scientific publications has increased dramatically. The use of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials or the application of results obtained from high-quality randomised controlled trials are some of the most common ways to address this need. Unfortunately, they do not cover all complex clinical situations that the majority of medical oncologists face in their outpatient consultations. In this review, we report the conclusions achieved in a multiexpert meeting where five important controversies in the treatment of breast cancer were analysed. Five highly experienced medical oncologists were required to defend an affirmative answer and another five were required to defend a negative answer for each of the clinical questions. After that, a one-day meeting was organised to debate each clinical question and to reach a consensus. We report here the content of this multi-expert meeting along with the conclusions drawn.

Biweekly docetaxel and gemcitabine as neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide therapy in stage II and III breast cancer patients: results of a phase II study.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this phase II study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant docetaxel/gemcitabine treatment in a biweekly regimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with stage II/III breast cancer were treated with docetaxel (65 mg/m(2)) followed by gemcitabine (2500 mg/m(2)) every 2 weeks for 6 cycles. Patients with a clinical response or stable disease underwent mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery plus axillary dissection. After surgery, patients received 4 cycles of standard doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) every 21 days. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were included in the trial. The overall response rate was 71.4% (95% CI: 53.7-85.4), with 8 complete and 17 partial responses. Breast conservation was possible in 59% of the patients. Toxicity was manageable. CONCLUSIONS: We consider biweekly docetaxel and gemcitabine could be an active and tolerable regimen option in the neoadjuvant setting sequentially with standard adjuvant doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide in patients with stage II or III breast cancer.