RESUMO
PURPOSE: Although patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have been living longer with the advent of more effective treatments such as targeted therapy and immunotherapy, the disease remains incurable, and most patients will undergo therapy indefinitely. When beginning therapy, patients are typically prescribed dose often based upon the maximum tolerated dose identified in phase I clinical trials. However, patients' perspectives about tolerability and willingness to discuss individualized dosing of drugs upon initiation of a new regimen and throughout the course of treatment have not been comprehensively evaluated. METHODS: Patient advocates and medical oncologists from the Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative (PCDI) developed a survey to ascertain the prevalence and severity of MBC patients' treatment-related side effects, the level of patient-physician communication, mitigation strategies, perception about the relative efficacy of higher versus lower doses, and willingness to discuss alternative dosing. The PCDI distributed the anonymous confidential online survey in August 2020 to individuals with self-reported MBC. RESULTS: One thousand and two hundred twenty-one patients with MBC completed the survey. 86.1% (n = 1,051) reported experiencing at least one significant treatment-related side effect, and of these, 20.3% (n = 213) visited the emergency room/hospital and 43.2% (n = 454) missed at least one treatment. Nearly all patients with side effects (97.6%, n = 1,026) informed their doctor and 81.7% (n = 838) received assistance. Of the 556 patients given a dose reduction for side-effect mitigation, 82.6% (n = 459) reported relief. Notably, majority of patients (53.3%, n = 651) do not believe that higher dose is always more effective than lower dose, and 92.3% (n = 1,127) would be willing to discuss flexible dosing options with their physicians based upon personal characteristics to optimize quality of life. CONCLUSION: Given that the majority of patients with MBC experienced at least one substantial treatment-related side effect and most patients given a dose reduction reported improvement, innovative dosage-related strategies are warranted to sustain and improve patients' well-being. Patient-physician discussions in which the patient's unique attributes and circumstances are assessed upon initiation of new treatment and throughout the course of therapy may facilitate the identification of the most favorable dose for each patient, and the majority of patients would be receptive to this approach.
RESUMO
PIK3CA mutations occur in â¼8% of cancers, including â¼40% of HR-positive breast cancers, where the PI3K-alpha (PI3Kα)-selective inhibitor alpelisib is FDA approved in combination with fulvestrant. Although prior studies have identified resistance mechanisms, such as PTEN loss, clinically acquired resistance to PI3Kα inhibitors remains poorly understood. Through serial liquid biopsies and rapid autopsies in 39 patients with advanced breast cancer developing acquired resistance to PI3Kα inhibitors, we observe that 50% of patients acquire genomic alterations within the PI3K pathway, including PTEN loss and activating AKT1 mutations. Notably, although secondary PIK3CA mutations were previously reported to increase sensitivity to PI3Kα inhibitors, we identified emergent secondary resistance mutations in PIK3CA that alter the inhibitor binding pocket. Some mutations had differential effects on PI3Kα-selective versus pan-PI3K inhibitors, but resistance induced by all mutations could be overcome by the novel allosteric pan-mutant-selective PI3Kα-inhibitor RLY-2608. Together, these findings provide insights to guide strategies to overcome resistance in PIK3CA-mutated cancers. SIGNIFICANCE: In one of the largest patient cohorts analyzed to date, this study defines the clinical landscape of acquired resistance to PI3Kα inhibitors. Genomic alterations within the PI3K pathway represent a major mode of resistance and identify a novel class of secondary PIK3CA resistance mutations that can be overcome by an allosteric PI3Kα inhibitor. See related commentary by Gong and Vanhaesebroeck, p. 204 . See related article by Varkaris et al., p. 240 . This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 201.
