Abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor as initial therapy for HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer: Final overall survival results of MONARCH 3.

BACKGROUND: In MONARCH 2, the addition of abemaciclib to fulvestrant significantly improved both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC) with disease progression on prior endocrine therapy (ET). In MONARCH 3, the addition of abemaciclib to a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) as initial therapy for HR+, HER2- ABC significantly improved PFS. Here, we present the prespecified final OS results for MONARCH 3. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MONARCH 3 is a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of abemaciclib plus NSAI (anastrozole or letrozole) versus placebo plus NSAI in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC without prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting. The primary objective was investigator-assessed PFS; OS was a gated secondary endpoint, and chemotherapy-free survival (CFS) was an exploratory endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 493 women were randomized 2:1 to receive abemaciclib plus NSAI (n = 328) or placebo plus NSAI (n = 165). After a median follow-up of 8.1 years, there were 198 OS events (60.4%) in the abemaciclib arm and 116 (70.3%) in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.804; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.637-1.015; P = 0.0664, non-significant). Median OS was 66.8 versus 53.7 months for abemaciclib versus placebo. In the subgroup with visceral disease (sVD), there were 113 OS events (65.3%) in the abemaciclib arm and 65 (72.2%) in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.758; 95% CI, 0.558-1.030; P = 0.0757, non-significant). Median OS was 63.7 months versus 48.8 months for abemaciclib versus placebo. The previously demonstrated PFS benefit was sustained, and CFS numerically improved with the addition of abemaciclib. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: Abemaciclib combined with an NSAI resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in median OS (ITT: 13.1 months; sVD: 14.9 months) in patients with HR+ HER2- ABC; however, statistical significance was not reached.

Long-term outcomes of a randomized, open-label, phase II study comparing cabazitaxel versus paclitaxel as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with triple-negative or luminal B/HER2-negative breast cancer (GENEVIEVE).

BACKGROUND: The GENEVIEVE study, comparing neoadjuvant cabazitaxel versus paclitaxel in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and luminal B/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer (BC), previously reported significant differences in pathological complete response (pCR) rates. Effects on long-term outcome are unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: GENEVIEVE randomized patients with cT2-3, any cN or cT1, cN+/pNSLN+, centrally confirmed TNBC or luminal B/HER2-negative BC (latter defined as estrogen/progesterone receptor-positive and >14% Ki-67-stained cells) to receive either cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 q3w for four cycles or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly for 12 weeks. Anthracycline-containing chemotherapy was allowed in case of histologically proven invasive residuals as neoadjuvant treatment or after surgery as adjuvant treatment. Here we report the secondary endpoints invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of the 333 patients randomized, 74.7% and 83.2% completed treatment in the cabazitaxel and paclitaxel arms, respectively. After a median follow-up of 89.3 months (interquartile range 68.8-97.3 months), 80 iDFS events (43 after cabazitaxel and 37 after paclitaxel) and 47 deaths (23 after cabazitaxel and 24 after paclitaxel) were reported. IDFS rates were not significantly different between the cabazitaxel and paclitaxel arms after a 3-year (83.6% versus 85.0%) and 5-year follow-up (76.2% versus 78.3%) [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval 0.82-1.96, P = 0.294], respectively. DDFS rates at 3 years (88.6% versus 87.8%) and 5 years (82.1% versus 82.8%) for cabazitaxel and paclitaxel were comparable (HR = 1.15, P = 0.573). Similarly, OS rates at 3 years (91.6% versus 91.8%) and 5 years (89.2% versus 86.8%) showed no significant differences (HR = 1.05, P = 0.872). Subgroup analysis for TNBC and luminal B/HER2-negative BCs indicated no significant variations in 3- or 5-year iDFS, DDFS, or OS. CONCLUSIONS: The significant differences in pCR rates observed in both treatment arms did not significantly impact long-term outcomes for patients treated with cabazitaxel versus paclitaxel in the GENEVIEVE trial.

Neoadjuvant durvalumab improves survival in early triple-negative breast cancer independent of pathological complete response.

BACKGROUND: Addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is a promising strategy in early breast cancer, but the optimal duration of therapy is currently unknown. In the GeparNuevo (NCT02685059) trial, addition of durvalumab to NACT as previously reported led to a moderate increase in pathological complete response (pCR) rate by an absolute 9% (P = 0.287). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with cT1b-cT4a-d triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) received durvalumab 1.5 g or placebo every 4 weeks added to nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 weekly for 12 weeks, followed by durvalumab/placebo every 4 weeks plus epirubicin/cyclophosphamide every 2 weeks followed by surgery. Durvalumab was not continued after surgery. The primary objective was pCR. Secondary endpoints included invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 174 patients were randomised between June 2016 and October 2017. After a median follow-up of 43.7 months, 34 events had occurred. Despite a non-significant increase in the pCR rate, significant differences were observed for 3-year iDFS, DDFS and OS: iDFS was 85.6% with durvalumab versus 77.2% with placebo [hazard ratio (HR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.97, stratified log-rank P = 0.036]; DDFS 91.7% versus 78.4% (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.74, P = 0.005); OS 95.2% versus 83.5% (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08-0.72, P = 0.006). pCR patients had 3-year iDFS of 95.5% with durvalumab and 86.1% without (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-1.06). In the non-pCR cohort 3-year iDFS was 76.3% versus 69.7% (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29-1.54). Multivariable analysis confirmed a durvalumab effect independent of the pCR effect. No new safety signals occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab added to NACT in TNBC significantly improved survival despite a modest pCR increase and no adjuvant component of durvalumab. Additional studies are needed to clarify the optimal duration and sequence of checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of early TNBC.

Long-term efficacy and safety of addition of carboplatin with or without veliparib to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer: 4-year follow-up data from BrighTNess, a randomized phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary analyses of the phase III BrighTNess trial showed addition of carboplatin with/without veliparib to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved pathological complete response (pCR) rates with manageable acute toxicity in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Here, we report 4.5-year follow-up data from the trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with untreated stage II-III TNBC were randomized (2 : 1 : 1) to paclitaxel (weekly for 12 doses) plus: (i) carboplatin (every 3 weeks for four cycles) plus veliparib (twice daily); (ii) carboplatin plus veliparib placebo; or (iii) carboplatin placebo plus veliparib placebo. All patients then received doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide every 2-3 weeks for four cycles. The primary endpoint was pCR. Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Since the co-primary endpoint of increased pCR with carboplatin plus veliparib with paclitaxel versus carboplatin with paclitaxel was not met, secondary analyses are descriptive. RESULTS: Of 634 patients, 316 were randomized to carboplatin plus veliparib with paclitaxel, 160 to carboplatin with paclitaxel, and 158 to paclitaxel. With median follow-up of 4.5 years, the hazard ratio for EFS for carboplatin plus veliparib with paclitaxel versus paclitaxel was 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-0.92, P = 0.02], but 1.12 (95% CI 0.72-1.72, P = 0.62) for carboplatin plus veliparib with paclitaxel versus carboplatin with paclitaxel. In post hoc analysis, the hazard ratio for EFS was 0.57 (95% CI 0.36-0.91, P = 0.02) for carboplatin with paclitaxel versus paclitaxel. OS did not differ significantly between treatment arms, nor did rates of myelodysplastic syndromes, acute myeloid leukemia, or other secondary malignancies. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in pCR with the addition of carboplatin was associated with long-term EFS benefit with a manageable safety profile, and without increasing the risk of second malignancies, whereas adding veliparib did not impact EFS. These findings support the addition of carboplatin to weekly paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage TNBC.

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.

Neoadjuvant paclitaxel/olaparib in comparison to paclitaxel/carboplatinum in patients with HER2-negative breast cancer and homologous recombination deficiency (GeparOLA study).

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and toxicity of olaparib as combination therapy in early breast cancer (BC) patients with homologous recombinant deficiency (HRD) [score high and/or germline (g) or tumour (t) BRCA1/2 mutation] is not well described. GeparOLA (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02789332) investigated olaparib in combination with paclitaxel in HER2-negative early BC with HRD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated primary HER2-negative cT2-cT4a-d or cT1c with either cN+ or pNSLN+ or cT1c and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or cT1c and Ki-67>20% BC with HRD were randomised either to paclitaxel (P) 80 mg/m2 weekly plus olaparib (O) 100 mg twice daily for 12 weeks or P plus carboplatinum (Cb) area under the curve 2 weekly for 12 weeks, both followed by epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (EC). Stratification factors were hormone receptor (HR) status (HR+ versus HR-) and age (<40 versus ≥40 years). The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR; ypT0/is ypN0). A two-sided one-group χ2-test was planned to exclude a pCR rate of ≤55% in the PO-EC arm. Secondary end points were other pCR definitions, breast conservation rate, clinical/imaging response, tolerability and safety. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were randomised between September 2016 and July 2018; 106 (PO N = 69; PCb N = 37) started treatment. Median age was 47.0 years (range 25.0-71.0); 36.2% had cT1, 61.0% cT2, 2.9% cT3, and 31.8% cN-positive tumours; grade 3 tumours: 86.8%; Ki-67>20%: 89.6%; TNBC: 72.6%; confirmed gBRCA1/2 mutation: 56.2%. The pCR rate with PO was 55.1% [90% confidence interval (CI) 44.5% to 65.3%] versus PCb 48.6% (90% CI 34.3% to 63.2%). Analysis for the stratified subgroups showed higher pCR rates with PO in the cohorts of patients <40 years and HR+ patients. CONCLUSION: GeparOLA could not exclude a pCR rate of ≤55% in the PO arm. PO was significantly better tolerated and the combination merits further evaluation.

Tumor mutational burden and immune infiltration as independent predictors of response to neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition in early TNBC in GeparNuevo.

BACKGROUND: The predictive value of tumor mutational burden (TMB), alone or in combination with an immune gene expression profile (GEP), for response to neoadjuvant therapy in early triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is currently not known, either for immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) or conventional chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We obtained both whole exome sequencing and RNA-Seq data from pretreatment samples of 149 TNBC of the recent neoadjuvant ICB trial, GeparNuevo. In a predefined analysis, we assessed the predictive value of TMB and a previously developed immune GEP for pathological complete remission (pCR). RESULTS: Median TMB was 1.52 mut/Mb (range 0.02-7.65) and was significantly higher in patients with pCR (median 1.87 versus 1.39; P = 0.005). In multivariate analysis, odds ratios for pCR per mut/Mb were 2.06 [95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.33-3.20, P = 0.001] among all patients, 1.77 (95% CI 1.00-3.13, P = 0.049) in the durvalumab treatment arm, and 2.82 (95% CI 1.21-6.54, P = 0.016) in the placebo treatment arm, respectively. We also found that both continuous TMB and immune GEP (or tumor infiltrating lymphocytes) independently predicted pCR. When we stratified patients in groups based on the upper tertile of TMB and median GEP, we observed a pCR rate of 82% (95% CI 60% to 95%) in the group with both high TMB and GEP in contrast to only 28% (95% CI 16% to 43%) in the group with both low TMB and GEP. CONCLUSIONS: TMB and immune GEP add independent value for pCR prediction. Our results recommend further analysis of TMB in combination with immune parameters to individually tailor therapies in breast cancer.

A randomised phase II study investigating durvalumab in addition to an anthracycline taxane-based neoadjuvant therapy in early triple-negative breast cancer: clinical results and biomarker analysis of GeparNuevo study.

BACKGROUND: Combining immune-checkpoint inhibitors with chemotherapy yielded an increased response rates in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Therefore, we evaluated the addition of durvalumab to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in primary TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: GeparNuevo is a randomised phase II double-blind placebo-controlled study randomising patients with TNBC to durvalumab or placebo given every 4 weeks in addition to nab-paclitaxel followed by standard EC. In the window-phase durvalumab/placebo alone was given 2 weeks before start of nab-paclitaxel. Randomisation was stratified by stromal tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte (sTILs). Patients with primary cT1b-cT4a-d disease, centrally confirmed TNBC and sTILs were included. Primary objective was pathological complete response (pCR) (ypT0 ypN0). RESULTS: A total of 174 patients were randomised, 117 participated in the window-phase. Median age was 49.5 years (range 23-76); 47 patients (27%) were younger than 40 years; 113 (65%) had stage ≥IIA disease, 25 (14%) high sTILs, 138 of 158 (87%) were PD-L1-positive. pCR rate with durvalumab was 53.4% (95% CI 42.5% to 61.4%) versus placebo 44.2% (95% CI 33.5% to 55.3%; unadjusted continuity corrected χ2P = 0.287), corresponding to OR = 1.45 (95% CI 0.80-2.63, unadjusted Wald P = 0.224). Durvalumab effect was seen only in the window cohort (pCR 61.0% versus 41.4%, OR = 2.22, 95% CI 1.06-4.64, P = 0.035; interaction P = 0.048). In both arms, significantly increased pCR (P < 0.01) were observed with higher sTILs. There was a trend for increased pCR rates in PD-L1-positive tumours, which was significant for PD-L1-tumour cell in durvalumab (P = 0.045) and for PD-L1-immune cell in placebo arm (P = 0.040). The most common immune-related adverse events were thyroid dysfunction any grade in 47%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the addition of durvalumab to anthracycline-/taxane-based NACT increases pCR rate particularly in patients treated with durvalumab alone before start of chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02685059.

Pelvic exenteration as ultimate ratio for gynecologic cancers: single-center analyses of 37 cases.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenterations are a last resort procedure for advanced gynecologic malignancies with elevated risks in terms of patients' morbidity. METHODS: This single-center analysis reports surgical details, outcome and survival of all patients treated with exenteration for non-ovarian gynecologic malignancies at our university hospital during a 13-year time period. We collected data regarding patients and tumor characteristics, surgical procedures, peri- and postoperative management, transfusions, complications, and analyzed the impact on survival outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 37 patients between 2005 and 2013 with primary or relapsed cervical cancer (59.5%), vulvar cancer (24.3%) or endometrial cancer (16.2%). Median age was 60 years and most patients (73%) had squamous cell carcinomas. Median progression-free survival was 26.2 months and median overall survival was 49.9 months. The 5-year survival rates were 34.4% for progression-free survival and 46.4% for overall survival. There were no significant differences in progression-free survival and overall survival with regard to disease entity. Patients with tumor at the resection margins (R1) had a nearly significantly worse progression-free survival (median: 28.5 vs. 7.3 months, HR 2.59, 95% CI 0.98-6.88, p = 0.056) and a significantly worse overall survival (median: not reached vs. 10.9 months, HR 4.04, 95% CI 1.40-11.64, p = 0.010) compared to patients with complete tumor resection (R0). In addition, patients without lymphovascular space invasion had a significantly better progression-free survival (p = 0.017) and overall survival (p = 0.034) then patients with lymphovascular space invasion. We observed complications in 14 patients (37.8%), 10 of those were classified as Clavien-Dindo 3 or 4. There was a trend to worse progression-free survival in patients that suffered complications (p = 0.052). Median total amount of transfused blood products was 4 (range 0-20). CONCLUSION: Pelvic exenteration is a procedure that provides substantial progression-free survival and overall survival improvement and-in selected patients-can even achieve cure in otherwise hopeless clinical situations. Patients need to be offered earnest counseling for sufficient informed consent with realistic expectations what to expect.

Expression of Cyclin D1 protein in residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer (BC) shows a poor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). New treatment targets like the Cyclin D1-CDK4/CDK6 complex are promising adjuvant/post-neoadjuvant therapeutic strategies. Evaluating Cyclin D1 overexpression in residual tumor could recognize those patients that benefit most from such post-neoadjuvant treatment. In this study, we determined Cyclin D1 expression in residual BC after NACT. Secondary aims were to correlate Cyclin D1 expression levels with clinicopathological parameters and to assess its prognostic value after NACT. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the nuclear expression of Cyclin D1 on tissue microarrays with residual tumor from 284 patients treated in the neoadjuvant GeparTrio (n = 186) and GeparQuattro (n = 98) trials. Evaluation was performed with a standardized immunoreactive score (IRS) after selecting a cut-off value. RESULTS: A high expression level (IRS ≥ 6) of Cyclin D1 was found in 37.3% of the assessed specimens. An increased Cyclin D1 expression was observed in HR-positive tumors, compared to HR-negative tumors (p = 0.02). Low Cyclin D1 levels correlated with clinical tumor stage 1-3 (p = 0.03). Among patients with HR-positive/Her2-negative tumors and high Cyclin D1 expression, a better disease-free survival (DFS) was graphically suggested, but not significant (p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates a measurable nuclear expression of Cyclin D1 in post-neoadjuvant residual tumor tissue of HR-positive BC. Cyclin D1 expression was not prognostic for DFS after NACT. Our results and defined cut-off suggest that the marker can be used to stratify tumors according to protein expression levels. Based on this, a prospective evaluation is currently performed in the ongoing Penelope-B trial.

Ten-year results of intense dose-dense chemotherapy show superior survival compared with a conventional schedule in high-risk primary breast cancer: final results of AGO phase III iddEPC trial.

Background: Primary breast cancer (BC) patients with extensive axillary lymph-node involvement have a limited prognosis. The Arbeitsgemeinschaft fuer Gynaekologische Onkologie (AGO) trial compared intense dose-dense (idd) adjuvant chemotherapy with conventionally scheduled chemotherapy in high-risk BC patients. Here we report the final, 10-year follow-up analysis. Patients and methods: Enrolment took place between December 1998 and April 2003. A total of 1284 patients with 4 or more involved axillary lymph nodes were randomly assigned to receive 3 courses each of idd sequential epirubicin, paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide (iddEPC) q2w or standard epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel (EC â†’ P) q3w. Event-free survival (EFS) was the primary end point. Results: A total of 658 patients were assigned to receive iddEPC and 626 patients were assigned to receive EC â†’ P. The median duration of follow-up was 122 months. EFS was 47% (95% CI 43% to 52%) in the standard group and 56% (95% CI 52% to 60%) in the iddEPC group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.87; log-rank P = 0.00014, one-sided]. This benefit was independent of menopausal, hormone receptor or HER2 status. Ten-year overall survival (OS) was 59% (95% CI 55% to 63%) for patients in the standard group and 69% (95% CI 65% to 73%) for patients in the iddEPC group (HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.87; log-rank P = 0.0007, two-sided). Nine versus two cases of secondary myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome were observed in the iddEPC and the EC â†’ P arm, respectively. Conclusion: The previously reported OS benefit of iddEPC in comparison to conventionally dosed EC â†’ P has been further increased and achieved an absolute difference of 10% after 10 years of follow-up.

The use of breast imaging for predicting response to neoadjuvant lapatinib, trastuzumab and their combination in HER2-positive breast cancer: Results from Neo-ALTTO.

AIM: To determine the value of mammography and breast ultrasound (US) in predicting outcomes in HER2 positive breast cancer patients (pts) within Neo-ALTTO trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Mammography and US were required at baseline, week 6 and surgery. Two independent blinded investigators reviewed the measurements and assigned the corresponding response category. Pts showing complete or partial response according to RECIST (v1.1) were classified as responders. The association between imaging response at week 6 or prior to surgery was evaluated with respect to pathological complete response (pCR) and event-free Survival (EFS). RESULTS: Of the 455 pts enrolled in the trial, 267 (61%) and 340 (77%) had evaluable mammography and US at week 6; 248 (56%) and 309 (70%) pts had evaluable mammography and US prior to surgery. At week 6, 32% and 43% of pts were classified as responders by mammography and US, respectively. pCR rates were twice as high for responders than non-responders (week 6: 46% versus 23% by US, p < 0.0001; 41% versus 24% by mammography, p = 0.007). Positive and negative predictive values of mammography and US prior to surgery were 37% and 35%, and 82% and 70%, respectively. No significant correlation was found between response by mammography and/or US at week 6/surgery and EFS. CONCLUSIONS: Mammography and US were underused in Neo-ALTTO although US had the potential to assess early response whereas mammography to detect residual disease prior to surgery. Our data still emphasise the need for further imaging studies on pts treated with neoadjuvant HER2-targeted therapy.

De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017.

The 15th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference 2017 in Vienna, Austria reviewed substantial new evidence on loco-regional and systemic therapies for early breast cancer. Treatments were assessed in light of their intensity, duration and side-effects, seeking where appropriate to escalate or de-escalate therapies based on likely benefits as predicted by tumor stage and tumor biology. The Panel favored several interventions that may reduce surgical morbidity, including acceptance of 2 mm margins for DCIS, the resection of residual cancer (but not baseline extent of cancer) in women undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, acceptance of sentinel node biopsy following neoadjuvant treatment of many patients, and the preference for neoadjuvant therapy in HER2 positive and triple-negative, stage II and III breast cancer. The Panel favored escalating radiation therapy with regional nodal irradiation in high-risk patients, while encouraging omission of boost in low-risk patients. The Panel endorsed gene expression signatures that permit avoidance of chemotherapy in many patients with ER positive breast cancer. For women with higher risk tumors, the Panel escalated recommendations for adjuvant endocrine treatment to include ovarian suppression in premenopausal women, and extended therapy for postmenopausal women. However, low-risk patients can avoid these treatments. Finally, the Panel recommended bisphosphonate use in postmenopausal women to prevent breast cancer recurrence. The Panel recognized that recommendations are not intended for all patients, but rather to address the clinical needs of the majority of common presentations. Individualization of adjuvant therapy means adjusting to the tumor characteristics, patient comorbidities and preferences, and managing constraints of treatment cost and access that may affect care in both the developed and developing world.

German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-positive Study (GAIN): a phase III trial comparing two dose-dense regimens (iddEPC versus ddEC-PwX) in high-risk early breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Dose-dense (dd) regimens are one of the preferred options for the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer patients with intermediate to high risk. The German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-positive trial aimed at optimizing intense dd (idd) strategies by evaluating drug combinations and the addition of capecitabine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women (aged 18 years and biologically <65 years) with histologically involved axillary lymph nodes were randomly assigned to receive three courses each of epirubicin (E) 150 mg/m2, paclitaxel (P) 225 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide (C) 2500 mg/m2 (reduced to 2000 mg/m2 after recruitment of 1200 patients) q2w intravenously (i.v.) (iddEPC-regimen) or ddEC (E 112.5 mg/m2 + C 600 mg/m2, i.v. q2w for 4 cycles) followed by paclitaxel weekly (Pw 67.5 mg/m2 i.v. q8d for 10 weeks) plus capecitabine (X 2000 mg/m2 p.o. days 1-14, q22 for 4 cycles) (ddEC-PwX-regimen). Further randomization assigned patients to ibandronate for 2 years versus observation and to pegfilgrastim day 2 versus 4. RESULTS: From June 2004 to August 2008, 2994 patients were randomized to either iddEPC (N = 1498), or ddEC-PwX (N = 1496) and started treatment. Median age was 50 years; pN1 (37.8%), pN2 (35.3%); pN3 (26.9%); 46.4% were G3 tumors; 76.9% hormone receptor-positive and 22% HER2-positive. After a median follow-up of 74 months, 645 events and 383 deaths were recorded. Hematological adverse events grades 3-4 were more common with iddEPC (P < 0.001), nonhematological with ddEC-PwX (P = 0.04), even if the toxicity profile of the two regimens was different. At 5 years, estimated disease-free survival rates for ddEC-PwX and iddEPC were 81.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 79.5-83.6] versus 80.2% (95% CI 78.0-82.2). Hazard ratio (HR)=0.95 (95% CI 0.81-1.11, log-rank P = 0.49). Five-year overall survival rates were 89.4% for ddEC-PwX (95% CI 87.7-91.0) and 89.0% for iddEPC (95% CI 87.2-90.6), HR = 0.85 (95% CI 0.69-1.04, log-rank P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Adding capecitabine to ddEC-Pw did not improve outcome in comparison to iddEPC but increased toxicity and should not be recommended for further use.

Zoledronate for patients with invasive residual disease after anthracyclines-taxane-based chemotherapy for early breast cancer - The Phase III NeoAdjuvant Trial Add-oN (NaTaN) study (GBG 36/ABCSG 29).

BACKGROUND: Patients with invasive residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) are considered to have chemo-resistant breast cancer. Bisphosphonates are an established treatment for bone metastases and are of potential benefit as adjuvant treatment in early breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who had invasive tumour residuals (ypT1-4 and/or ypN+) after a minimum of four cycles of anthracycline-taxane-containing NACT were eligible for the NeoAdjuvant Trial Add-oN study. Patients were randomised within 3 years after surgery to receive zoledronate 4 mg i.v. for 5 years versus observation. Zoledronate was given every 4 weeks for the first 6 months, every 3 months for the following 2 years, and every 6 months for the last 2.5 years. Primary objective was disease-free survival. RESULTS: After a median time of 54.7 months no difference in disease-free survival was observed between the zoledronate and observation groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0.960, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.709-1.30, log rank P=0.789). Various subgroups were examined without identifying a treatment effect of zoledronate. Patients over 55 years of age showed a HR of 0.832 in favour of zoledronate, but the result was not significant (P=0.480). A similar result was obtained for overall survival with a HR of 1.19 (95% CI 0.79-1.79; log rank P=0.408). Zoledronate was well tolerated and no new toxicity signal was identified. CONCLUSION: Postneoadjuvant treatment with zoledronate does not improve outcome in patients without pathological complete response after neoadjuvant anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy for early breast cancer.

Randomised phase III trial of FEC120 vs EC-docetaxel in patients with high-risk node-positive primary breast cancer: final survival analysis of the ADEBAR study.

BACKGROUND: Taxane-containing adjuvant chemotherapy has been established as standard treatment in node-positive breast cancer. This study compared efficacy and tolerability of epirubicin (E)/cyclophosphamide (C) followed by docetaxel (Doc) with a dose-dense 5-fluorouracil (F)+E+ C regimen. METHODS: The ADEBAR study was a randomised phase III trial for women with primary invasive breast cancer and ⩾4 metastatic axillary lymph nodes (n=1364). Treatment consisted of four 21-day cycles of E plus C, followed by four 21-day cycles of Doc (EC-Doc), or six 28-day cycles of E plus F plus C (FEC120). RESULTS: Disease-free survival (DFS) was similar in the two treatment arms as shown by multivariate Cox regression adjusted for other prognostic factors (EC-Doc vs FEC120, hazard ratio (HR): 1.087; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.878-1.346, P=0.444). In addition, there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between the two groups (HR: 0.974; 95% CI: 0.750-1.264, P=0.841). Haematologic toxicity was more common in FEC120 recipients; non-haematologic toxicities occurred more frequently in the EC-Doc arm. The serious adverse event rate was significantly higher in the FEC120 group (29.7% vs 22.5%). CONCLUSIONS: EC-Doc provides a feasible and effective alternative therapy option to FEC120 with a different safety profile in this high-risk breast cancer cohort.