Taxane versus vinorelbine in combination with trastuzumab and pertuzumab for first-line treatment of metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer: a retrospective two-center study.

BACKGROUND: The combination of a taxane with trastuzumab and pertuzumab is standard of care for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer. The combination of vinorelbine with trastuzumab and pertuzumab showed anti-tumor activity in a phase 2 trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The databases of two tertiary medical centers were retrospectively searched for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who underwent first-line treatment in 2013-2019 with a taxane or vinorelbine in combination with trastuzumab and pertuzumab. Groups were compared for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity profile. RESULTS: The study included 87 patients in the taxane group and 65 in the vinorelbine group. Overall median PFS was significantly longer in the taxane group [HR 0.56 (0.36-0.88), P = 0.01], but on multivariate analysis the difference was not statistically significant [HR 0.68 (0.4-1.1, P = 0.11)]. PFS was comparable in both groups of patients with recurrent disease [HR 0.94 (0.5-1.79), P = 0.85]. However, in patients with de novo metastatic disease, the difference in favor of the taxane group was pronounced [HR 0.4 (0.2-0.78), P = 0.007] and maintained significance on multivariate analysis [HR 0.46 (0.2-0.97, P = 0.04)]. There was no statistical significant difference in OS in the whole cohort [HR 0.69 (0.39-1.23)] or the subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer had similar survival with first-line treatment of taxane or vinorelbine combined with trastuzumab and pertuzumab. When the analysis was adjusted for prognostic factors, there was no PFS benefit for taxanes except in the subgroup with de novo disease.

Ten-year clinical outcomes in N0 ER+ breast cancer patients with Recurrence Score-guided therapy.

The 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) assay is a validated prognosticator/predictor of chemotherapy (CT) benefit in early-stage estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer (BC). Long-term data from real-life clinical practice where treatment was guided by the RS result are lacking. We performed exploratory analysis of the Clalit Health Services (CHS) registry, which included all CHS patients with node-negative ER+ HER2-negative BC who underwent RS testing between 1/2006 and 12/2009 to determine 10-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for distant recurrence/BC-specific mortality (BCSM) in this cohort. The analysis included 1365 patients. Distribution of RS results: RS 0-10, 17.8%; RS 11-25, 62.5%; RS 26-100, 19.7%. Corresponding CT use: 0, 9.4, and 69.9%. Ten-year distant recurrence rates in patients with RS 0-10, 11-25, and 26-100: 2.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-6.2%), 6.1% (95% CI, 4.4-8.6%), and 13.1% (95% CI, 9.4-18.3%), respectively (P < 0.001); corresponding BCSM rates: 0.7% (95% CI 0.1-5.1%), 2.2% (95% CI, 1.3-3.7%), and 9.5% (95% CI, 6.0-14.9%) (P < 0.001). When the analysis included patients treated with endocrine therapy alone (95.5/87.5% of patients with RS 0-10/11-25), 10-year distant recurrence and BCSM rates for RS 0-10 patients were 2.7% (95% CI, 1.1-6.5%) and 0.8% (95% CI, 0.1-5.3%), respectively, and for RS 11-25 patients, 5.7% (95% CI, 3.9-8.3%) and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.1-3.7%), respectively. For RS 11-25 patients, no statistically significant differences were observed in 10-year distant recurrence/BCSM rates between CT-treated and untreated patients; however, this should be interpreted cautiously since the number of events was low and patients were not randomized. In conclusion, in node-negative ER+ HER2-negative BC patients, where treatment decisions in real-life clinical practice incorporated the RS, patients with RS 0-25 (~80% of patients, <10% CT use) had excellent outcomes at 10 years. Patients with RS 26-100 had high distant recurrence risk despite CT use and are candidates for new treatment approaches.

Everolimus Plus Letrozole for Treatment of Patients With HR+, HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer Progressing on Endocrine Therapy: An Open-label, Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: In the Breast cancer trials of OraL EveROlimus-2 (BOLERO-2) trial, everolimus plus exemestane improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) recurring or progressing on/after prior endocrine therapy (ET), suggesting that dual blockade using targeted therapy and ET was an effective treatment option. Here, we investigated the clinical benefit of combining everolimus with different endocrine partner, letrozole, in a similar patient population. METHODS: In this phase II, open-label, single-arm, multicenter trial, postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC who had recurrence/progression on/after prior ET received everolimus 10 mg daily and letrozole 2.5 mg daily. The primary end point was objective response rate; key secondary end points included disease-control rate, PFS, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients were enrolled and followed-up for a median duration of 11.4 months. Everolimus plus letrozole achieved an overall response rate of 23.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.4%-36.0%). The median PFS was 8.8 months (95% CI, 6.6-11.0 months), and the overall survival was 22.9 months (95% CI, 18.5-28.9 months). Disease-control rate was achieved in 51 (85%) patients. The safety profile was consistent with previously published data: The most frequently reported any grade adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (61.1%), stomatitis (54.2%), and rash (33.4%). The most frequently reported grade 3 AEs were stomatitis and anemia (8.3% each), fatigue and diarrhea (5.6% each), and hyperglycemia (4.2%). Only 1 patient had grade 4 AE of anemia. CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus plus letrozole demonstrated clinical benefit and could be a valid treatment option for postmenopausal women recurring/progressing on prior endocrine therapy.

Clinical outcomes in ER+ HER2 -node-positive breast cancer patients who were treated according to the Recurrence Score results: evidence from a large prospectively designed registry.

The Recurrence Score® is increasingly used in node-positive ER+ HER2-negative breast cancer. This retrospective analysis of a prospectively designed registry evaluated treatments/outcomes in node-positive breast cancer patients who were Recurrence Score-tested through Clalit Health Services from 1/2006 through 12/2011 (N = 709). Medical records were reviewed to verify treatments/recurrences/survival. Median follow-up, 5.9 years; median age, 62 years; 53.9% grade 2; 69.8% tumors ≤ 2 cm; 84.5% invasive ductal carcinoma; 42.0% N1mi, and 37.2%/15.5%/5.2% with 1/2/3 positive nodes; 53.4% Recurrence Score < 18, 36.4% Recurrence Score 18-30, and 10.2% Recurrence Score ≥ 31. Overall, 26.9% received adjuvant chemotherapy: 7.1%, 39.5%, and 86.1% in the Recurrence Score < 18, 18-30, and ≥ 31 group, respectively. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for distant recurrence were 3.2%, 6.3%, and 16.9% for these respective groups and the corresponding 5-year breast cancer death estimates were 0.5%, 3.4%, and 5.7%. In Recurrence Score < 18 patients, 5-year distant-recurrence rates for N1mi/1 positive node/2-3 positive nodes were 1.2%/4.4%/5.4%. As patients were not randomized to treatment and treatment decision is heavily influenced by Recurrence Score, analysis of 5-year distant recurrence by chemotherapy use was exploratory and should be interpreted cautiously: In Recurrence Score < 18, recurrence rate was 7.7% in chemotherapy-treated (n = 27) and 2.9% in chemotherapy-untreated patients (n = 352); P = 0.245. In Recurrence Score 18-30, recurrence rate in chemotherapy-treated patients (n = 102) was significantly lower than in untreated patients (n = 156) (1.0% vs. 9.7% P = 0.019); in Recurrence Score ≤ 25 (the RxPONDER study cutoff), recurrence rate was 2.3% in chemotherapy-treated (n = 89) and 4.4% in chemotherapy-untreated patients (n = 488); P = 0.521. In conclusion, our findings support using endocrine therapy alone in ER+ HER2-negative breast cancer patients with micrometastases/1-3 positive nodes and Recurrence Score < 18.

Clinical outcomes in patients with node-negative breast cancer treated based on the recurrence score results: evidence from a large prospectively designed registry.

The 21-gene Recurrence Score® (RS) assay is a validated prognostic/predictive tool in ER + early-stage breast cancer. However, clinical outcome data from prospective studies in RS ≥ 11 patients are lacking, as are relevant real-life clinical practice data. In this retrospective analysis of a prospectively designed registry, we evaluated treatments/clinical outcomes in patients undergoing RS-testing through Clalit Health Services. The analysis included N0 ER + HER2-negative breast cancer patients who were RS-tested from 1/2006 through 12/2010. Medical records were reviewed to verify treatments/recurrences/survival. The cohort included 1801 patients (median follow-up, 6.2 years). Median age was 60 years, 50.4% were grade 2 and 81.1% had invasive ductal carcinoma; 48.9% had RS < 18, 40.7% RS 18-30, and 10.4% RS ≥ 31, with chemotherapy use of 1.4, 23.7, and 87.2%, respectively. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for distant recurrence were 0.8, 3.0, and 8.6%, for patients with RS < 18, RS 18-30 and RS ≥ 31, respectively; the corresponding 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for breast cancer death were 0.0, 0.9, and 6.2%. Chemotherapy-untreated patients with RS < 11 (n = 304) and 11-25 (n = 1037) (TAILORx categorization) had 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for distant recurrence risk/breast cancer death of 1.0%/0.0% and 1.3%/0.4%, respectively. Our results extend those of the prospective TAILORx trial: the 5-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for distant recurrence and breast cancer death rate for the RS < 18 patients were very low supporting the use of endocrine therapy alone. Furthermore, in chemotherapy-untreated patients with RS 11-25 (where TAILORx patients were randomized to chemoendocrine or endocrine therapy alone), 5-year distant recurrence rates were also very low, suggesting that chemotherapy would not have conferred clinically meaningful benefit.

Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (TURANDOT): primary endpoint results of a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomised phase 3 TURANDOT trial compared two approved bevacizumab-containing regimens for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in terms of efficacy, safety, and quality of life. The interim analysis did not confirm non-inferior overall survival (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 1·04; 97·5% repeated CI [RCI] -∞ to 1·69). Here we report final results of our study aiming to show non-inferior overall survival with first-line bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: In this multinational, open-label, randomised phase 3 TURANDOT trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 and measurable or non-measurable HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who had received no previous chemotherapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer were stratified and randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted blocks of size six to either bevacizumab plus paclitaxel (bevacizumab 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 plus paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) or bevacizumab plus capecitabine (bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1 plus capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Stratification factors were oestrogen or progesterone receptor status, country, and menopausal status. The primary objective was to show non-inferior overall survival with bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel in the per-protocol population by rejecting the null hypothesis of inferiority (HR ≥1·33) using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00600340. FINDINGS: Between Sept 10, 2008, and Aug 30, 2010, 564 patients were randomised, representing the intent-to-treat population. The per-protocol population comprised 531 patients (266 in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group and 265 in the bevacizumab plus capecitabine group). At the final overall survival analysis after 183 deaths (69%) in 266 patients receiving bevacizumab plus paclitaxel and 201 (76%) in 265 receiving bevacizumab plus capecitabine in the per-protocol population, median overall survival was 30·2 months (95% CI 25·6-32·6 months) versus 26·1 months (22·3-29·0), respectively. The stratified HR was 1·02 (97·5% RCI -∞ to 1·26; repeated p=0·0070), indicating non-inferiority. The unstratified Cox model (HR 1·13 [97·5% RCI -∞ to 1·39]; repeated p=0·061) did not support the primary analysis. Intent-to-treat analyses were consistent with the per-protocol results. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (54 [19%] of 284 patients in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group vs 5 [2%] of 277 patients in the bevacizumab plus capecitabine group), hand-foot syndrome (1 [<1%] vs 43 [16%]), peripheral neuropathy (39 [14%] vs 1 [<1%]), leucopenia (20 [7%] vs 1 [<1%]), and hypertension (12 [4%] vs 16 [6%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 65 (23%) of 284 patients receiving bevacizumab plus paclitaxel and 68 (25%) of 277 receiving bevacizumab plus capecitabine. Deaths in two (1%) of 284 patients in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group were deemed by the investigator to be treatment-related. No treatment-related deaths occurred in the bevacizumab plus capecitabine group. INTERPRETATION: Bevacizumab plus capecitabine represents a valid first-line treatment option for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, offering good tolerability without compromising overall survival compared with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel. Although progression-free survival with the bevacizumab plus capecitabine combination is inferior to that noted with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel, we suggest that physicians should consider possible predictive risk factors for overall survival, individual's treatment priorities, and the differing safety profiles. FUNDING: Roche.

Postoperative chemoradiation for resected gastric cancer--is the Macdonald Regimen Tolerable? a retrospective multi-institutional study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative chemoradiation as per Intergroup-0116 trial ("Macdonald regimen") is considered standard for completely resected high risk gastric cancer. However, many concerns remain with regards to the toxicity of this regimen. To evaluate the safety and tolerability of this regimen in a routine clinical practice setting, we analyzed our experience with its use. As we did not expect a different toxic profile in patients (pts) with positive margins (R1 resection), these were studied together with pts after complete resection (R0). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postoperative chemoradiation therapy was given according to the original Intergroup-0116 regimen. Overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison of OS and DFS between R0 and R1 pts was done using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Between 6/2000 and 12/2007, 166 pts after R0 (129 pts) or R1 (37 pts) resection of locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma received postoperative chemoradiation; 61% were male and the median age was 63 years (range, 23-86); 78% had T ≥ 3 tumors and 81% had N+ disease; 87% of the pts completed radiotherapy and 54% completed the entire chemoradiation plan; 46.4% had grade ≥ 3 toxicity and 32% were hospitalized at least once for toxicity. Three pts (1.8%) died of toxicity: diarrhea (1), neutropenic sepsis (1) and neutropenic sepsis complicated by small bowel gangrene (1). The most common hematological toxicity was neutropenia, grade ≥ 3 in 30% of pts and complicated by fever in 15%. The most common non-hematological toxicities were nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. With a median follow-up of 51 months (range, 2-100), 62% of the R0 patients remain alive and 61% are free of disease. Median DFS and OS for R0 were not reached. R0 pts had a significantly higher 3-year DFS (60% vs. 29%, p = 0.001) and OS (61% vs. 33%, p = 0.01) compared with R1 pts. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, postoperative chemoradiation as per Intergroup-0116 seems to be substantially toxic, with a mortality rate which seems higher than reported in that trial. Efficacy data appears comparable to the original report. Following postoperative chemoradiation, involvement of surgical margins still has a detrimental impact on patient outcome.

Final overall survival results and effect of prolonged (≥ 1 year) first-line bevacizumab-containing therapy for metastatic breast cancer in the ATHENA trial.

The ATHENA study expanded on the safety and efficacy data derived from first-line trials of bevacizumab combined with standard chemotherapy for locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC). In ATHENA, 2,264 patients received first-line bevacizumab-containing therapy in routine oncology practice. Overall survival (OS) data are now mature; additional analyses from this large data set can provide insights into treatment duration and the effect of prolonged bevacizumab exposure, where data are currently limited. Patients with HER2-negative LR/mBC received first-line bevacizumab with standard chemotherapy until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or physician/patient decision. We performed subgroup analyses on data from patients treated for ≥12 months and those who continued single-agent bevacizumab after stopping chemotherapy. After median follow-up of 20.1 months, median OS was 25.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.0-26.3 months) in the entire population. Median OS was 30.0 months (95% CI 28.5-32.7 months) in 1,205 patients who continued bevacizumab after discontinuation of chemotherapy and 18.4 months (95% CI 17.2-19.7 months) in 1,058 patients who discontinued bevacizumab before or at the same time as stopping chemotherapy. Bevacizumab treatment was continued for ≥12 months in 473 patients (21%). In most, bevacizumab was administered as monotherapy for extended periods after stopping chemotherapy. In the subgroup of patients treated for ≥12 months, the median time to onset of grade 3-5 adverse events was 5.0 months. There was no evidence that first onset of adverse events of special interest, except for proteinuria, was more common in later than earlier cycles. No relationship was detected between development of hypertension and OS. Findings from these analyses suggest that patients with LR/mBC can receive bevacizumab for prolonged periods without major toxicity or progression of disease. In the absence of progression, continuation of single-agent bevacizumab appears to be a reasonable approach, with minimal toxicity and the possibility of long-term disease control.

[Cancer of unknown primary site origin--advances in diagnosis and therapy].

Cancer of unknown primary site (CUP) is defined as a metastatic disease, identified on biopsy, with it's origin remaining unknown despite extensive clinical, laboratory and imaging studies. As much as 3% to 10% of all cancers can be defined as CUP. The primary workup includes history taking, a full physical examination, basic laboratory studies, imaging studies and immunohistochemical staining or genetic analysis of biopsy material. The diagnostic yield of such studies is about 20% to 30% of cases. New advanced techniques can be used to define the genetic profile of the tumor cells. Comparing such profiles to those originating from known tumors may markedly improve our ability to detect the origin of CUP in up to 90% of cases. The treatment of CUP is based on the regimen given for cancer of the presumed origin, and in many cases is completely empiric. The prognosis for patients with CUP is dismal partially due to the late stages in which the disease is diagnosed and the aggressiveness of the tumor. The median survival is 10-12 months and the 2 year survival is 20%-25%. This is a case report demonstrating the dilemmas in managing such patients, followed by a review of the recent medical literature covering the topic.