Genomic analysis of advanced breast cancer tumors from talazoparib-treated gBRCA1/2mut carriers in the ABRAZO study.

These analyses explore the impact of homologous recombination repair gene mutations, including BRCA1/2 mutations and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), on the efficacy of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor talazoparib in the open-label, two-cohort, Phase 2 ABRAZO trial in germline BRCA1/2-mutation carriers. In the evaluable intent-to-treat population (N = 60), 58 (97%) patients harbor ≥1 BRCA1/2 mutation(s) in tumor sequencing, with 95% (53/56) concordance between germline and tumor mutations, and 85% (40/47) of evaluable patients have BRCA locus loss of heterozygosity indicating HRD. The most prevalent non-BRCA tumor mutations are TP53 in patients with BRCA1 mutations and PIK3CA in patients with BRCA2 mutations. BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated tumors show comparable clinical benefit within cohorts. While low patient numbers preclude correlations between HRD and efficacy, germline BRCA1/2 mutation detection from tumor-only sequencing shows high sensitivity and non-BRCA genetic/genomic events do not appear to influence talazoparib sensitivity in the ABRAZO trial.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02034916.

Neoadjuvant Talazoparib in Patients With Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation-Positive, Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Results of a Phase II Study.

BACKGROUND: The undetermined efficacy of the current standard-of-care neoadjuvant treatment, anthracycline/platinum-based chemotherapy, in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and germline BRCA mutations emphasizes the need for biomarker-targeted treatment, such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, in this setting. This phase II, single-arm, open-label study evaluated the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant talazoparib in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated early-stage TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated early-stage TNBC received talazoparib 1 mg once daily for 24 weeks (0.75 mg for moderate renal impairment) followed by surgery. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR) by independent central review (ICR). Secondary endpoints included residual cancer burden (RCB) by ICR. Safety and tolerability of talazoparib and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Of 61 patients, 48 received ≥80% talazoparib doses, underwent surgery, and were assessed for pCR or progressed before pCR assessment and considered nonresponders. pCR rate was 45.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.0%-60.6%) and 49.2% (95% CI, 36.7%-61.6%) in the evaluable and intent-to-treat (ITT) population, respectively. RCB 0/I rate was 45.8% (95% CI, 29.4%-63.2%) and 50.8% (95% CI, 35.5%-66.0%) in the evaluable and ITT population, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were reported in 58 (95.1%) patients. Most common grade 3 and 4 TRAEs were anemia (39.3%) and neutropenia (9.8%). There was no clinically meaningful detriment in quality of life. No deaths occurred during the reporting period; 2 deaths due to progressive disease occurred during long-term follow-up (>400 days after first dose). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant talazoparib monotherapy was active despite pCR rates not meeting the prespecified threshold; these rates were comparable to those observed with combination anthracycline- and taxane-based chemotherapy regimens. Talazoparib was generally well tolerated. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03499353.

Comparison of PARPi efficacy according to homologous recombination deficiency biomarkers in patients with ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mutations in the BRCA1/2 (BRCA) genes are associated with response to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi). In addition, there are different homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) biomarkers available in clinical practice [e.g., genome-wide loss-of-heterozygosity (gLOH) and myChoice® score] that identify patients who can benefit from PARPi. Inconsistencies in biomarkers used in PARPi clinical trials make it challenging to identify clinically relevant predictive biomarkers. This study aims to compare clinically available HRD biomarkers in terms of benefits from PARPi. METHODS: We performed database search for phase II or III randomized clinical trials comparing PARPi versus chemotherapy, and meta-analysis using generic inverse variance and a Random Effects model. Patients were classified according to their HRD status: (I) BRCAm (patients with BRCA mutation of germline or somatic origin); (II) non-BRCA HRD [patients BRCA wild-type (wt) with another HRD biomarker-gLOH or myChoice®]; and (III) homologous recombination proficiency (HRP) (BRCAwt and without HRD biomarkers). From those that were BRCAwt, we compared myChoice®+ with gLOH-high. RESULTS: Five studies (3,225 patients) analyzing PARPi in first line setting were included. Patients with BRCAmut had progression-free survival (PFS) with hazard ratio (HR) 0.33 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30-0.43]; patients with non-BRCA HRD had a PFS HR 0.49 (95% CI: 0.37-0.65), and patients with HRP had a PFS HR 0.78 (95% CI: 0.58-1.03). Eight studies (5,529 patients) with PARPi including first line and recurrence settings were included. BRCAmut had PFS HR 0.37 (95% CI: 0.30-0.48), BRCAwt & HRD 0.45 (95% CI: 0.37-0.55) and HRP 0.70 (95% CI: 0.57-0.85). Patients with BRCAwt & myChoice® ≥42 had PFS HR 0.43 (95% CI: 0.34-0.56), similar to patients with BRCAwt & gLOH-high with PFS HR 0.42 (95% CI: 0.28-0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HRD derived significantly more benefit from PARPi when compared to patients with HRP. The benefit of PARPi in patients with HRP tumors was limited. Careful cost-effectiveness analysis, and alternative therapies or clinical trial enrollment should strongly be considered for patients with HRP tumors. Among patients with BRCAwt, a similar benefit was found in patients with gLOH-high and those myChoice®+. The clinical development of further HRD biomarkers (e.g., Sig3) may help identify more patients who benefit from PARPi.

Determinants of Response to Talazoparib in Patients with HER2-Negative, Germline BRCA1/2-Mutated Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have demonstrated efficacy in tumors with germline breast cancer susceptibility genes (gBRCA) 1 and 2 mutations, but further factors influencing response to PARPi are poorly understood. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Breast cancer tumor tissue from patients with gBRCA1/2 mutations from the phase III EMBRACA trial of the PARPi talazoparib versus chemotherapy was sequenced using FoundationOne CDx. RESULTS: In the evaluable intent-to-treat population, 96.1% (296/308) had ≥1 tumor BRCA (tBRCA) mutation and there was strong concordance (95.3%) between tBRCA and gBRCA mutational status. Genetic/genomic characteristics including BRCA loss of heterozygosity (LOH; identified in 82.6% of evaluable patients), DNA damage response (DDR) gene mutational burden, and tumor homologous recombination deficiency [assessed by genomic LOH (gLOH)] demonstrated no association with talazoparib efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, BRCA LOH status, DDR gene mutational burden, and gLOH were not associated with talazoparib efficacy; however, these conclusions are qualified by population heterogeneity and low patient numbers in some subgroups. Further investigation in larger patient populations is warranted.

A Breast Radiology Department-operated, Proactive Same-day Program Identifies Pathogenic Breast Cancer Mutations in Unaffected Women.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Pathogenic mutations in some genes elevate women's breast cancer risk, necessitating risk-reduction strategies. Unfortunately, women are underscreened for cancer risk, and when identified as potentially high risk, women seldom pursue genetic counseling or testing. To improve cancer risk management, this project determined the feasibility of radiology-operated, proactive, same-day risk assessment and genetic testing programs to diagnose high-risk women undergoing breast imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Comprehensive Assessment, Risk & Education Program launched on June 5, 2019. Data was tracked through July 22, 2020. Women undergoing breast imaging completed questionnaires that calculated Tyrer-Cuzick risk and assessed genetic testing eligibility using National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. To encourage eligible women's genetic testing adherence, pretest counseling and saliva sample collection occurred that same day in the imaging center. Samples were tested by a 34-multigene panel. Genetic counselors called women with positive results. Women with negative results or variants of uncertain significance were mailed notifications. Summary statistics were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 3345 women completed questionnaires. 1080 (32.3%) met genetic testing criteria. 468/1080 (43.3%) submitted genetic samples, and 416/1080 (38.5%) completed testing. Of 416 completed tests, 269 (64.7%) tested negative, 109 (26.2%) had variants of uncertain significance, and 38 (9.1%) diagnosed pathogenic mutations. 13/38 (34.2%) women with pathogenic mutations implemented risk-reduction strategies at our institution. CONCLUSION: Breast imaging centers can operate same-day cancer risk assessment and genetic testing programs, identifying high-risk women that conventional risk assessment methods may not have diagnosed. These proactive programs add value to radiology departments' cancer care beyond traditional imaging services.

Personalized Breast Cancer Risk Assessment: Incorporation of Genetic and High-Risk Factorson Breast Cancer Risk and Management.

Breast cancer remains the second most diagnosed cancer in women worldwide and the number one cause of cancer in women in the United States. It is unfortunately the primary cause of cancerrelated deaths among women, with 14% of all cancer deaths attributed to it. Over the past decade, screening methods have matured, and imaging modalities are continuously improving. Screening mammograms remain the only modality that have been shown to improve breast cancer survival, however, more modalities like MRI, abbreviated MRI, and CT mammography are gaining in momentum. Now more than ever, providers need to identify the patient population that is at an elevated risk for breast cancer to offer them a personalized screening approach specific to their empiric risk. In this paper we shed light on risk factors of breast cancer and summarize risk assessment tools that have been recently incorporated in assessing a woman's risk of breast cancer. We also summarize new genetic testing strategies and their implications in prevention of breast cancer. And finally, we offer a personalized approach to management of women with agenetic predisposition as well as to women at elevated risk but without a genetic mutation. The hope is to identify women at increased risk and perfect a "personalized screening approach" for breast cancer.

Outcomes in Clinically Relevant Patient Subgroups From the EMBRACA Study: Talazoparib vs Physician's Choice Standard-of-Care Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Talazoparib is a poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that causes death in cells with breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 or 2 (BRCA1/2) mutations. METHODS: EMBRACA (NCT01945775) was a randomized phase III study comparing efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of talazoparib (1 mg) with physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT: capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, vinorelbine) in locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer with a germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2) mutation. Prespecified patient subgroups were analyzed for progression-free survival, objective response, clinical benefit, duration of response, and safety. PROs were evaluated in hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subgroups. RESULTS: Of 431 patients, 287 were randomly assigned to talazoparib and 144 to PCT. Prespecified subgroup analyses showed prolonged progression-free survival with talazoparib (HR+/HER2-: hazard ratio = 0.47, 95% confidence interval = 0.32 to 0.71; TNBC: hazard ratio = 0.60, 95% confidence interval = 0.41 to 0.87) and greater objective response rate (odds ratio = 1.97 to 11.89), clinical benefit rate (odds ratio = 2.05 to 7.77), and duration of response with talazoparib in all subgroups. PROs in HR+/HER2- and TNBC subgroups showed consistent overall improvement and delay in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration with talazoparib vs PCT. Across subgroups, common adverse events included anemia, fatigue, and nausea with talazoparib and neutropenia, fatigue, and nausea with PCT. Seven patients (2.4%) receiving talazoparib had grade II alopecia and 22.7% had grade I alopecia. CONCLUSIONS: Across all patient subgroups with gBRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer, talazoparib demonstrated clinically significant superiority in outcomes compared with PCT.

Talazoparib in Patients with a Germline BRCA-Mutated Advanced Breast Cancer: Detailed Safety Analyses from the Phase III EMBRACA Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the EMBRACA phase III study (NCT01945775), talazoparib was associated with a significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT) in germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). Herein, the safety profile of talazoparib is explored in detail. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall, 412 patients received ≥1 dose of talazoparib (n = 286) or PCT (n = 126). Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated, including timing, duration, and potential overlap of selected AEs. The relationship between talazoparib plasma exposure and grade ≥3 anemia was analyzed. Time-varying Cox proportional hazard models assessed the impact of dose reductions on PFS. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with common AEs and health resource utilization (HRU) were assessed in both treatment arms. RESULTS: The most common AEs with talazoparib were hematologic (195 [68.2%] patients) and typically occurred within the first 3-4 months of receiving talazoparib. Grade 3-4 anemia lasted approximately 7 days for both arms. Overlapping grade 3-4 hematologic AEs were infrequent with talazoparib. Higher talazoparib exposure was associated with grade ≥3 anemia. Permanent discontinuation of talazoparib due to hematologic AEs was low (<2%). A total of 150 (52.4%) patients receiving talazoparib had AEs associated with dose reduction. Hematologic toxicities were managed by supportive care medication (including transfusion) and dose modifications. Among patients with anemia or nausea and/or vomiting AEs, PROs favored talazoparib. After accounting for the treatment-emergent period, talazoparib was generally associated with a lower rate of hospitalization and supportive care medication use compared with chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Talazoparib was associated with superior efficacy, favorable PROs, and lower HRU rate versus chemotherapy in gBRCA-mutated ABC. Toxicities were manageable with talazoparib dose modification and supportive care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Talazoparib was generally well tolerated in patients with germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer in the EMBRACA trial. Common toxicities with talazoparib were primarily hematologic and infrequently resulted in permanent drug discontinuation (<2% of patients discontinued talazoparib due to hematologic toxicity). Hematologic toxicities typically occurred during the first 3-4 months of treatment and were managed by dose modifications and supportive care measures. A significant efficacy benefit, improved patient-reported outcomes, lower rate of health resource utilization and a tolerable safety profile support incorporating talazoparib into routine management of germline BRCA-mutated locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer.

Precise and Programmable Detection of Mutations Using Ultraspecific Riboregulators.

The ability to identify single-nucleotide mutations is critical for probing cell biology and for precise detection of disease. However, the small differences in hybridization energy provided by single-base changes makes identification of these mutations challenging in living cells and complex reaction environments. Here, we report a class of de novo-designed prokaryotic riboregulators that provide ultraspecific RNA detection capabilities in vivo and in cell-free transcription-translation reactions. These single-nucleotide-specific programmable riboregulators (SNIPRs) provide over 100-fold differences in gene expression in response to target RNAs differing by a single nucleotide in E. coli and resolve single epitranscriptomic marks in vitro. By exploiting the programmable SNIPR design, we implement an automated design algorithm to develop riboregulators for a range of mutations associated with cancer, drug resistance, and genetic disorders. Integrating SNIPRs with portable paper-based cell-free reactions enables convenient isothermal detection of cancer-associated mutations from clinical samples and identification of Zika strains through unambiguous colorimetric reactions.

A Phase II Study of Talazoparib after Platinum or Cytotoxic Nonplatinum Regimens in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer and Germline BRCA1/2 Mutations (ABRAZO).

PURPOSE: To assess talazoparib activity in germline BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ABRAZO (NCT02034916) was a two-cohort, two-stage, phase II study of talazoparib (1 mg/day) in germline BRCA mutation carriers with a response to prior platinum with no progression on or within 8 weeks of the last platinum dose (cohort 1) or ≥3 platinum-free cytotoxic regimens (cohort 2) for advanced breast cancer. Primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by independent radiological assessment. RESULTS: We enrolled 84 patients (cohort 1, n = 49; cohort 2, n = 35) from May 2014 to February 2016. Median age was 50 (range, 31-75) years. Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) incidence was 59% (cohort 1) and 17% (cohort 2). Median number of prior cytotoxic regimens for advanced breast cancer was two and four, respectively. Confirmed ORR was 21% [95% confidence interval (CI), 10-35; cohort 1] and 37% [95% CI, 22-55; cohort 2]. Median duration of response was 5.8 and 3.8 months, respectively. Confirmed ORR was 23% (BRCA1), 33% (BRCA2), 26% (TNBC), and 29% (hormone receptor-positive). The most common all-grade adverse events (AE) included anemia (52%), fatigue (45%), and nausea (42%). Talazoparib-related AEs led to drug discontinuation in 3 (4%) patients. In an exploratory analysis, longer platinum-free interval was associated with higher response rate in cohort 1 (0% ORR with interval <8 weeks; 47% ORR with interval >6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Talazoparib exhibited promising antitumor activity in patients with advanced breast cancer and germline BRCA mutation.

Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Breast Cancer: Emerging New Data.

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer affecting women in the United States. Triple-negative breast cancer remains the most aggressive molecular subtype secondary to a lack of therapeutic targets. The search for a target has led us to investigate immunotherapeutic agents. Immunotherapy has recently demonstrated significant breakthroughs in various types of cancers that are refractory to traditional therapies including melanoma and Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). Breast cancer however remains one of the tumors that was initially least investigated because of being considered to have a low immunogenic potential and a low mutational load. Over the past few years, antiPD1/PDL1 drugs have started to make progress in the triple-negative subtype with more promising outcomes. In this report, we review the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer and specifically shed light on advances in immunotherapy and newly approved drugs in this challenging disease.

Talazoparib in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer and a Germline BRCA Mutation.

BACKGROUND: The poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) inhibitor talazoparib has shown antitumor activity in patients with advanced breast cancer and germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 ( BRCA1/2). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation were assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive talazoparib (1 mg once daily) or standard single-agent therapy of the physician's choice (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine in continuous 21-day cycles). The primary end point was progression-free survival, which was assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: Of the 431 patients who underwent randomization, 287 were assigned to receive talazoparib and 144 were assigned to receive standard therapy. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the talazoparib group than in the standard-therapy group (8.6 months vs. 5.6 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.71; P<0.001). The interim median hazard ratio for death was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.55 to 1.06; P=0.11 [57% of projected events]). The objective response rate was higher in the talazoparib group than in the standard-therapy group (62.6% vs. 27.2%; odds ratio, 5.0; 95% CI, 2.9 to 8.8; P<0.001). Hematologic grade 3-4 adverse events (primarily anemia) occurred in 55% of the patients who received talazoparib and in 38% of the patients who received standard therapy; nonhematologic grade 3 adverse events occurred in 32% and 38% of the patients, respectively. Patient-reported outcomes favored talazoparib; significant overall improvements and significant delays in the time to clinically meaningful deterioration according to both the global health status-quality-of-life and breast symptoms scales were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation, single-agent talazoparib provided a significant benefit over standard chemotherapy with respect to progression-free survival. Patient-reported outcomes were superior with talazoparib. (Funded by Medivation [Pfizer]; EMBRACA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01945775 .).

A phase II study of combined VEGF inhibitor (bevacizumab+sorafenib) in patients with metastatic breast cancer: Hoosier Oncology Group Study BRE06-109.

PURPOSE: Angiogenesis plays an essential role in tumor development, invasion and metastasis. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of dual angiogenesis blockade with bevacizumab and sorafenib in patients with metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who had received no more than 2 prior chemotherapy regimens in any setting were treated with sorafenib 200 mg as a single oral dose daily plus bevacizumab intravenously 5 mg/kg every other week. Response was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled. Median age was 56 yo, all had good performance status KPS of 0 or 1, and 17 patients had received 1 or 2 prior chemotherapy regimens. Median PFS was 2.8 months. There were no complete or partial responses; 3 patients had stable disease for >6 months. Toxicity was substantial with 9 (50 %) patients reporting Grade 3 toxicity. Seven (39 %) patients discontinued therapy due to adverse events including hypertension (N=2), GI toxicity (N=1), sensory neuropathy (N=1), rash (N=1), pain (N=1) and wound complication (N=1). Given the lack of clear efficacy and increased toxicity, accrual was terminated. CONCLUSION: The combination of sorafenib and bevacizumab has substantial toxicity and minimal efficacy in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer. Further study of this combination is not recommended.

Persistent upregulation of U6:SNORD44 small RNA ratio in the serum of breast cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Serum microRNAs have the potential to be valuable biomarkers of cancer. This investigation addresses two issues that impact their utility: a) appropriate normalization controls and b) whether their altered levels persist in patients who are clinically free of the disease. METHODS: Sera from 40 age-matched healthy women and 39 breast cancer patients without clinical disease at the time of serum collection were analyzed for microRNAs let-7f, miR-16, miR-21 and miR-155 using quantitative real-time PCR. U6 and 5S, which are transcribed by RNA polymerase III (RNAP-III) and the small nucleolar RNU44 (SNORD44), were also analyzed for normalization. Significant results from the initial study were verified using a second set of sera from 15 healthy patients, 15 breast cancer patients without clinical disease and 15 with metastatic disease, and a third set of 12 healthy and 18 patients with metastatic disease. U6 was further verified in the extended second cohort of 75 healthy and 68 breast cancer patients without clinical disease. RESULTS: U6:SNORD44 ratio was consistently higher in breast cancer patients with or without active disease (fold change range 1.5-6.6, p value range 0.0003 to 0.05). This increase in U6:SNORD44 ratio was observed in the sera of both estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) and ER-negative breast cancer patients. MiR-16 and 5S, which are often used as normalization controls for microRNAs, showed remarkable experimental variability and thus are not ideal for normalization. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated serum U6 levels in breast cancer patients irrespective of disease activity at the time of serum collection suggest a new paradigm in cancer; persistent systemic changes during cancer progression, which result in elevated activity of RNAP-III and/or the stability/release pathways of U6 in non-cancer tissues. Additionally, these results highlight the need for developing standards for normalization between samples in microRNA-related studies for healthy versus cancer and for inter-laboratory reproducibility. Our studies rule out the utility of miR-16, U6 and 5S RNAs for this purpose.

Rethinking the metastatic cascade as a therapeutic target.

Metastasis is the leading cause of cancer death. The metastatic cascade is a complex yet inefficient process that we have only begun to understand in recent years. Several of the early steps of this cascade are not readily targetable in the clinic. Past therapeutic developmental strategies have not distinguished between micrometastases and overt metastases. This lack of understanding is apparent in therapies that have been developed for patients with metastatic disease that are not efficacious in patients with micrometastatic disease; that is, in the adjuvant setting. Moreover, drugs that target distant metastases often do not work in the adjuvant setting. This Review will discuss our current understanding of the metastatic cascade as it relates to therapy, emerging therapeutic targets in the metastatic process, and how novel antimetastatic therapies might be developed for clinical use.