ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H) version 1.0.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) has been accepted as a robust tool to evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit reported in trials for oncological therapies. However, the ESMO-MCBS hitherto has only been validated for solid tumours. With the rapid development of novel therapies for haematological malignancies, we aimed to develop an ESMO-MCBS version that is specifically designed and validated for haematological malignancies. METHODS: ESMO and the European Hematology Association (EHA) initiated a collaboration to develop a version for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H). The process incorporated five landmarks: field testing of the ESMO-MCBS version 1.1 (v1.1) to identify shortcomings specific to haematological diseases, drafting of the ESMO-MCBS:H forms, peer review and revision of the draft based on re-scoring (resulting in a second draft), assessment of reasonableness of the scores generated, final review and approval by ESMO and EHA including executive boards. RESULTS: Based on the field testing results of 80 haematological trials and extensive review for feasibility and reasonableness, five amendments to ESMO-MCBS were incorporated in the ESMO-MCBS:H addressing the identified shortcomings. These concerned mainly clinical trial endpoints that differ in haematology versus solid oncology and the very indolent nature of nevertheless incurable diseases such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers presentation of mature data. In addition, general changes incorporated in the draft version of the ESMO-MCBS v2 were included, and specific forms for haematological malignancies generated. Here we present the final approved forms of the ESMO-MCBS:H, including instructions. CONCLUSION: The haematology-specific version ESMO-MCBS:H allows now full applicability of the scale for evaluating the magnitude of clinical benefit derived from clinical studies in haematological malignancies.

Methodological and reporting standards for quality-of-life data eligible for European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) credit.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) has been developed to grade clinical benefit of cancer therapies. Improvement in quality of life (QoL) is considered relevant, especially in the non-curative setting. This is reflected by an upgrade of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score if QoL is improved compared to the control arm or a downgrade if an improvement in progression-free survival is not paralleled by an improvement in QoL or overall survival. Given the importance of QoL for the final score, a need to ensure the robustness of QoL data was recognised. DESIGN: A checklist was created based on existing guidelines for QoL research. Field testing was carried out using clinical trials that either received an adjustment of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score based on QoL or had QoL as the primary endpoint. Several rounds of revision and re-testing of the checklist were undertaken until a final consensus was reached. RESULTS: The final checklist consists of four items and can be applied if three prerequisites are met: (i) QoL is at least a secondary endpoint, (ii) evidence of reliability and validity of the instrument is provided, and (iii) a statistically and clinically significant improvement in QoL is observed. The four items on the checklist pertain to the (i) hypothesis, (ii) compliance and missing data, (iii) presentation of the results, and (iv) statistical and clinical relevance. Field testing revealed that a clear QoL hypothesis and correction for multiple testing were mostly lacking, while the main statistical method was always described. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ESMO-MCBS QoL checklist will facilitate objective and transparent decision making on QoL data within the ESMO-MCBS scoring process. Trials published until 1 January 2025 will have to meet the prerequisites and at least two items for crediting QoL benefit in the final ESMO-MCBS score. Trials published thereafter will have to meet all four items.

Overall survival in the OlympiA phase III trial of adjuvant olaparib in patients with germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 and high-risk, early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, double-blind OlympiA trial compared 1 year of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, olaparib, to matching placebo as adjuvant therapy for patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (gBRCA1/2pv) and high-risk, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, early breast cancer (EBC). The first pre-specified interim analysis (IA) previously demonstrated statistically significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS). The olaparib group had fewer deaths than the placebo group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance for overall survival (OS). We now report the pre-specified second IA of OS with updates of IDFS, DDFS, and safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One thousand eight hundred and thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo following (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy if indicated. Endocrine therapy was given concurrently with study medication for hormone receptor-positive cancers. Statistical significance for OS at this IA required P < 0.015. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the second IA of OS demonstrated significant improvement in the olaparib group relative to the placebo group [hazard ratio 0.68; 98.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.97; P = 0.009]. Four-year OS was 89.8% in the olaparib group and 86.4% in the placebo group (Δ 3.4%, 95% CI -0.1% to 6.8%). Four-year IDFS for the olaparib group versus placebo group was 82.7% versus 75.4% (Δ 7.3%, 95% CI 3.0% to 11.5%) and 4-year DDFS was 86.5% versus 79.1% (Δ 7.4%, 95% CI 3.6% to 11.3%), respectively. Subset analyses for OS, IDFS, and DDFS demonstrated benefit across major subgroups. No new safety signals were identified including no new cases of acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome. CONCLUSION: With 3.5 years of median follow-up, OlympiA demonstrates statistically significant improvement in OS with adjuvant olaparib compared with placebo for gBRCA1/2pv-associated EBC and maintained improvements in the previously reported, statistically significant endpoints of IDFS and DDFS with no new safety signals.

Outcome without any adjuvant systemic treatment in stage I ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients included in the MINDACT trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant systemic treatments (AST) reduce mortality, but have associated short- and long-term toxicities. Careful selection of patients likely to benefit from AST is needed. We evaluated outcome of low-risk breast cancer patients of the EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT trial who received no AST. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, lymph node-negative tumors ≤2 cm who received no AST were matched 1 : 1 to patients with similar tumor characteristics treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET), using propensity score matching and exact matching on age, genomic risk (70-gene signature) and grade. In a post hoc analysis, distant metastasis-free interval (DMFI) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and hazard ratios (HR) by Cox regression. Cumulative incidences of locoregional recurrence (LRR) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) were assessed with competing risk analyses. RESULTS: At 8 years, DMFI rates were 94.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92.7% to 96.9%] in 509 patients receiving no AST, and 97.3% (95% CI 95.8% to 98.8%) in 509 matched patients who received only ET [absolute difference: 2.5%, HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.30-1.03)]. No statistically significant difference was seen in 8-year OS rates, 95.4% (95% CI 93.5% to 97.4%) in patients receiving no AST and 95.6% (95% CI 93.8% to 97.5%) in patients receiving only ET [absolute difference: 0.2%, HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.53-1.41)]. Cumulative incidence rates of LRR and CBC were 4.7% (95% CI 3.0% to 7.0%) and 4.6% (95% CI 2.9% to 6.9%) in patients receiving no AST versus 1.4% (95% CI 0.6% to 2.9%) and 1.5% (95% CI 0.6% to 3.1%) in patients receiving only ET. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stage I low-risk breast cancer, the effect of ET on DMFI was limited, but overall significantly fewer breast cancer events were observed in patients who received ET, after the relatively short follow-up of 8 years. These benefits and side-effects of ET should be discussed with all patients, even those at a very low risk of distant metastasis.

A plain language summary of the ASCENT study: Sacituzumab Govitecan for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

Sacituzumab Govitecan (also known by the brand name TRODELVY®) is a new and available treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, or mTNBC for short. Metastatic breast cancer means the breast cancer has spread to other parts of the body. Triple negative means the breast cancer does not have 3 common proteins on the cell surface called receptors. This is a summary of the ASCENT study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 2021. This study compared Sacituzumab Govitecan with standard chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is a treatment that kills cancer cells or stops them from dividing. 529 people with mTNBC took part in the study across 7 countries. All who took part had already received 2 previous chemotherapies, which stopped working for their cancer. The study showed that patients who took Sacituzumab Govitecan lived longer than those who took a different chemotherapy while on the study. Tumors shrank in more patients who took Sacituzumab Govitecan than in patients who took chemotherapy. In general, patients who took Sacituzumab Govitecan experienced more side effects. This included low levels of a type of white blood cell known as neutrophils (neutropenia) and loose or watery stool (diarrhea). Use of supportive care lessened these side effects. This summary also includes insights and perspectives from 2 breast cancer patient advocates. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT number: NCT02574455. To read the full Plain Language Summary of this article, click on the View Article button above and download the PDF. Link to original article here.

Biases in study design, implementation, and data analysis that distort the appraisal of clinical benefit and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scoring.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a validated, widely used tool developed to score the clinical benefit from cancer medicines reported in clinical trials. ESMO-MCBS scores assume valid research methodologies and quality trial implementation. Studies incorporating flawed design, implementation, or data analysis may generate outcomes that exaggerate true benefit and are not generalisable. Failure to either indicate or penalise studies with bias undermines the intention and diminishes the integrity of ESMO-MCBS scores. This review aimed to evaluate the adequacy of the ESMO-MCBS to address bias generated by flawed design, implementation, or data analysis and identify shortcomings in need of amendment. METHODS: As part of a refinement of the ESMO-MCBS, we reviewed trial design, implementation, and data analysis issues that could bias the results. For each issue of concern, we reviewed the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 approach against standards derived from Helsinki guidelines for ethical human research and guidelines from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, the Food and Drugs Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and European Network for Health Technology Assessment. RESULTS: Six design, two implementation, and two data analysis and interpretation issues were evaluated and in three, the ESMO-MCBS provided adequate protections. Seven shortcomings in the ability of the ESMO-MCBS to identify and address bias were identified. These related to (i) evaluation of the control arm, (ii) crossover issues, (iii) criteria for non-inferiority, (iv) substandard post-progression treatment, (v) post hoc subgroup findings based on biomarkers, (vi) informative censoring, and (vii) publication bias against quality-of-life data. CONCLUSION: Interpretation of the ESMO-MCBS scores requires critical appraisal of trials to understand caveats in trial design, implementation, and data analysis that may have biased results and conclusions. These will be addressed in future iterations of the ESMO-MCBS.

Flexible care in breast cancer.

Treatment of patients with cancer in hospitals or clinics is resource-intensive and imposes a burden on patients. 'Flexible care' is a term that can be used to describe treatment administered outside the oncology ward, oncological outpatient clinic or office-based oncologist setting. Programmes that reduce travel burden by bringing cancer treatment to the patient's home, workplace or closer to the patient's home, in the form of satellite clinics or mobile cancer units, expand treatment capacity and are well received. Clinical trial data show that, compared with intravenous administration, subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of trastuzumab is preferred by patients with breast cancer (BC), saves healthcare professionals' (HCPs) time, reduces drug preparation and administration time and reduces direct and indirect costs. As such, s.c. trastuzumab is well suited to flexible care. The results of a Belgian study (BELIS) show that home administration of s.c. trastuzumab is feasible and preferred by patients with BC. Numerous programmes and pilot studies in Europe show that s.c. trastuzumab can be administered effectively in the patient's home, in primary care settings or local hospitals. Such programmes require planning, training, careful patient selection and technology to link patients, caregivers and specialists in oncology clinics. Once these elements are in place, flexible care offers patients with BC a choice of how treatment may be delivered and lead to improved quality of life, while reducing pressure on HCPs and hospitals. The concept of flexible care is particularly relevant amid the COVID-19 pandemic where guidelines have been developed encouraging remote care.

Immunotherapy for early breast cancer: too soon, too superficial, or just right?

Immunotherapy emerged as a new treatment modality for breast cancer, and its use is approved in combination with chemotherapy for first-line therapy in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer overexpressing PD-L1. As immune checkpoint inhibitors alone have modest clinical activity in advanced breast cancer, there is a growing interest in combinatorial modalities, and particularly for their rapid development in the early disease setting. The plethora of ongoing immunotherapy trials in early breast cancer comes at a time when solid data in advanced disease are still imperfect. This review offers a perspective on the efforts to establish the efficacy and safety of immunotherapeutic agents in early breast cancer.

Trastuzumab versus observation for HER2 nonamplified early breast cancer with circulating tumor cells (EORTC 90091-10093, BIG 1-12, Treat CTC): a randomized phase II trial.

Background: Trastuzumab improves the outcome of women with HER2 positive breast cancer. We aimed to assess whether trastuzumab decreases the detection rate of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in women with high risk, HER2 nonamplified, early breast cancer. Patients and methods: The EORTC 90091-10093 BIG 1-12 Treat CTC is a phase II trial, conducted in 70 hospitals and 6 CTC laboratories across 5 European countries. Patients with centrally confirmed HER2 nonamplified breast cancer and ≥1 centrally confirmed CTC per 15 ml of blood by CellSearch® following surgery and (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy were randomized (1 : 1) to 6 cycles of trastuzumab intravenously versus 18 weeks of observation. Randomization was stratified for center, locally confirmed estrogen receptor status and adjuvant versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The primary end point was rate of detection of ≥1 CTC per 15 ml of blood at week 18. Secondary end points were invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and cardiac safety. Results: Between 30 April 2013 and 17 October 2016, 1317 patients were screened; 95 (7.2%) had detectable CTC(s), and 63 (4.8%) were randomized to trastuzumab (n = 31) or observation (n = 32). Fifty-eight patients were assessable for the primary end point, 29 in each arm. In 9 of the 58 patients, CTC(s) were still detected at week 18 : 5 in the trastuzumab and 4 in the observation arm (one-sided Fisher's exact test, P = 0.765). An Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended stopping further accrual for futility for the primary end point. Median follow-up at database lock was 13 months (IQR 4-16.5). The 1-year iDFS was 93.8% (95% CI 77.3-98.4) in the observation versus 84.8% (95% CI 63.4-94.2) in the trastuzumab arm. No grade 2-4 cardiac events were observed in the trastuzumab arm. Conclusion: Trastuzumab does not decrease the detection rate of CTCs in HER2 nonamplified, nonmetastatic breast cancer.

Unravelling triple-negative breast cancer molecular heterogeneity using an integrative multiomic analysis.

Background: Recent efforts of genome-wide gene expression profiling analyses have improved our understanding of the biological complexity and diversity of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) reporting, at least six different molecular subtypes of TNBC namely Basal-like 1 (BL1), basal-like 2 (BL2), immunomodulatory (IM), mesenchymal (M), mesenchymal stem-like (MSL) and luminal androgen receptor (LAR). However, little is known regarding the potential driving molecular events within each subtype, their difference in survival and response to therapy. Further insight into the underlying genomic alterations is therefore needed. Patients and methods: This study was carried out using copy-number aberrations, somatic mutations and gene expression data derived from the Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas. TNBC samples (n = 550) were classified according to Lehmann's molecular subtypes using the TNBCtype online subtyping tool (http://cbc.mc.vanderbilt.edu/tnbc/). Results: Each subtype showed significant clinic-pathological characteristic differences. Using a multivariate model, IM subtype showed to be associated with a better prognosis (HR = 0.68; CI = 0.46-0.99; P = 0.043) whereas LAR subtype was associated with a worst prognosis (HR = 1.47; CI = 1.0-2.14; P = 0.046). BL1 subtype was found to be most genomically instable subtype with high TP53 mutation (92%) and copy-number deletion in genes involved in DNA repair mechanism (BRCA2, MDM2, PTEN, RB1 and TP53). LAR tumours were associated with higher mutational burden with significantly enriched mutations in PI3KCA (55%), AKT1 (13%) and CDH1 (13%) genes. M and MSL subtypes were associated with higher signature score for angiogenesis. Finally, IM showed high expression levels of immune signatures and check-point inhibitor genes such as PD1, PDL1 and CTLA4. Conclusion: Our findings highlight for the first time the substantial genomic heterogeneity that characterize TNBC molecular subtypes, allowing for a better understanding of the disease biology as well as the identification of several candidate targets paving novel approaches for the development of anticancer therapeutics for TNBC.