A randomized phase II study of metronomic cyclophosphamide and methotrexate (CM) with or without bevacizumab in patients with advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Metronomic chemotherapy has the potential to offer tumor control with reduced toxicity when compared to standard dose chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. As metronomic chemotherapy may target the tumor microvasculature, it has the potential for synergistic effects with antiangiogenic agents such as the VEGF-A inhibitor bevacizumab. METHODS: In this randomized phase II study, patients with metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive metronomic oral cyclophosphamide and methotrexate (CM) combined with bevacizumab (Arm A) or CM alone (Arm B). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients were enrolled, with 34 patients treated on Arm A and 21 patients treated on Arm B. The ORR was modestly higher in Arm A (26%) than in Arm B (10%); neither met the 40% cutoff for further clinical evaluation. The median time to progression (TTP) was 5.52 months (3.22-13.6) on Arm A and 1.82 months (1.54-6.70) on Arm B (log-rank p = 0.008). The median OS was 29.6 months (17.2-NA) on Arm A and 16.2 months (15.7-NA) on Arm B (log-rank p = 0.7). Common all-grade adverse events in both arms included nausea, fatigue, and elevated AST. CONCLUSION: The combination of metronomic CM with bevacizumab significantly improved PFS over CM alone, although there was no significant difference in OS. Oral metronomic chemotherapy alone has limited activity in advanced breast cancer. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT00083031. Date of Registration: May 17, 2004.

Phase 2 study of buparlisib (BKM120), a pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for triple-negative breast cancer remain limited. Activation of the PI3K pathway via loss of PTEN and/or INPP4B is common. Buparlisib is an orally bioavailable, pan-class I PI3K inhibitor. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of buparlisib in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. METHODS: This was a single-arm phase 2 study enrolling patients with triple-negative metastatic breast cancer. Patients were treated with buparlisib at a starting dose of 100 mg daily. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit, defined as confirmed complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD) for ≥ 4 months, per RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. A subset of patients underwent pre- and on-treatment tumor tissue biopsies for correlative studies. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled. Median number of cycles was 2 (range 1-10). The clinical benefit rate was 12% (6 patients, all SD ≥ 4 months). Median PFS was 1.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-2.3). Median OS was 11.2 months (95% CI 6.2-25). The most frequent adverse events were fatigue (58% all grades, 8% grade 3), nausea (34% all grades, none grade 3), hyperglycemia (34% all grades, 4% grade 3), and anorexia (30% all grades, 2% grade 3). Eighteen percent of patients experienced depression (12% grade 1, 6% grade 2) and anxiety (10% grade 1, 8% grade 2). Alterations in PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN were present in 6/27 patients with available targeted DNA sequencing (MSK-IMPACT), 3 of whom achieved SD as best overall response though none with clinical benefit ≥ 4 months. Of five patients with paired baseline and on-treatment biopsies, reverse phase protein arrays (RPPA) analysis demonstrated reduction of S6 phosphorylation in 2 of 3 patients who achieved SD, and in none of the patients with progressive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Buparlisib was associated with prolonged SD in a very small subset of patients with triple-negative breast cancer; however, no confirmed objective responses were observed. Downmodulation of key nodes in the PI3K pathway was observed in patients who achieved SD. PI3K pathway inhibition alone may be insufficient as a therapeutic strategy for triple-negative breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01790932 . Registered on 13 February 2013; NCT01629615 . Registered on 27 June 2012.

Barriers to Clinical Trial Accrual: Perspectives of Community-Based Providers.

BACKGROUND: Only a small proportion of patients with cancer enroll onto clinical trials. Previous studies have explored patient-related barriers to trial participation; however, few studies have focused on the provider perspective. We aimed to describe referral practices and barriers to referrals of patients with breast cancer for clinical trials, including the utilization of web-based trial-matching tools. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2016, we distributed 120 surveys to attendees of a breast oncology continuing medical education course. The survey addressed referral patterns, trial knowledge, and perceptions of web-based trial-matching tools. After survey completion, participants were provided a link to the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute trial-matching tool. Three months later, a follow-up survey was sent to assess their use of this tool. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey data. RESULTS: Ninety-six (80%) participants completed the first survey; 5 respondents did not actively treat patients with breast cancer and were excluded. Respondents included medical (30%) and surgical (22%) oncologists, nurse practitioners/physician assistants (26%), and other (22%). Neoadjuvant and metastatic trials were deemed the highest priority. The primary reported barriers included perceived lack of patient interest, lack of trial awareness, and logistical barriers. Emailing trial investigators directly was the preferred method of trial referral. Although 80% indicated that web-based tools would increase trial referrals, our follow-up survey revealed that only 18% of respondents used our web-based tool. CONCLUSION: Our respondents valued trial participation for their patients but found it difficult to manage. Further research is needed regarding how to increase the likelihood that patients are presented with appropriate trial options.

The Immune Microenvironment in Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer Before and After Preoperative Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer is associated with low levels of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTIL) and PD-L1, and demonstrates poor responses to checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Evaluating the effect of standard chemotherapy on the immune microenvironment may suggest new opportunities for immunotherapy-based approaches to treating HR+/HER2- breast tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: HR+/HER2- breast tumors were analyzed before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. sTIL were assessed histologically; CD8+ cells, CD68+ cells, and PD-L1 staining were assessed immunohistochemically; whole transcriptome sequencing and panel RNA expression analysis (NanoString) were performed. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were analyzed from two cohorts (n = 55, Dana-Farber cohort; n = 41, MD Anderson cohort). sTIL, CD8, and PD-L1 on tumor cells were higher in tumors with basal PAM50 intrinsic subtype. Higher levels of tissue-based lymphocyte (sTIL, CD8, PD-L1) and macrophage (CD68) markers, as well as gene expression markers of lymphocyte or macrophage phenotypes (NanoString or CIBERSORT), correlated with favorable response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, but not with improved distant metastasis-free survival in these cohorts or a large gene expression dataset (N = 302). In paired pre-/postchemotherapy samples, sTIL and CD8+ cells were significantly decreased after treatment, whereas expression analyses (NanoString) demonstrated significant increase of multiple myeloid signatures. Single gene expression implicated increased expression of immunosuppressive (M2-like) macrophage-specific genes after chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The immune microenvironment of HR+/HER2- tumors differs according to tumor biology. This cohort of paired pre-/postchemotherapy samples suggests a critical role for immunosuppressive macrophage expansion in residual disease. The role of macrophages in chemoresistance should be explored, and further evaluation of macrophage-targeting therapy is warranted.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of melatonin on breast cancer survivors: impact on sleep, mood, and hot flashes.

The purpose is to examine the effects of melatonin supplementation on sleep, mood, and hot flashes in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 95 postmenopausal women with a prior history of stage 0-III breast cancer, who had completed active cancer treatment (including hormonal therapy) were randomly assigned 1:1 to either 3 mg oral melatonin (n = 48) or placebo daily (n = 47) for 4 months. Sleep, mood, and hot flashes were assessed at baseline and 4 months via self-administered questionnaire using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D), and the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) hot flash diary, respectively. Eighty-six women (91 %) completed the study and provided pre- and post-questionnaires. At baseline, 52 % of participants reported poor sleep in the month prior to enrollment. Compared to subjects on placebo, subjects randomized to melatonin experienced significantly greater improvements in subjective sleep quality as measured by the PSQI, including domains on sleep quality, daytime dysfunction and total score. For example, the mean change in PSQI score was -0.1 in the placebo group compared to -1.9 in the melatonin group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in measures of depression or hot flashes. Sleep disturbances are common among breast cancer survivors, even after completion of active cancer treatment. This is the first randomized placebo-controlled study among breast cancer survivors to demonstrate that melatonin was associated with an improvement in subjective sleep quality, without any significant adverse effects.

VEGF as a marker for outcome among advanced breast cancer patients receiving anti-VEGF therapy with bevacizumab and vinorelbine chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy (VEGF) is an important new treatment modality in oncology. We sought to determine the efficacy and safety of the humanized monoclonal anti-VEGF antibody, bevacizumab, and vinorelbine as treatment for refractory breast cancer and to explore the role of plasma VEGF as a predictor of treatment outcome. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Eligible patients had received one or two prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic breast cancer or recurred within 12 months of adjuvant therapy and had measurable disease and adequate end-organ function. Patients received bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks, and vinorelbine each week, until tumor progression or prohibitive toxicity. Plasma VEGF was measured at baseline. RESULTS: Among 56 women treated on protocol, bevacizumab and vinorelbine yielded a 34% response rate (95% confidence interval, 22-48%) and median time to progression of 5.5 months. Activity was observed regardless of tumor hormone receptor status or type or extent of prior chemotherapy. Side effects included uncomplicated neutropenia, hypertension, nasal congestion/epistaxis, and neuropathy, consistent with well-described side effects of the respective agents. Three patients had impaired wound healing following surgical procedures. There were only rare instances of thrombosis or clinically significant proteinuria. Lower levels of baseline VEGF were associated with longer time to progression. CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab and vinorelbine are well tolerated and effective as treatment for refractory breast cancer. Plasma VEGF warrants further evaluation as a prognostic marker for treatment outcome in advanced breast cancer patients receiving anti-VEGF therapy.

Rebeccamycin analog for refractory breast cancer: a randomized phase II trial of dosing schedules.

Rebeccamycin analog (NSC 655649) is a synthetic antibiotic cytotoxic agent thought to inhibit topoisomerase function. We sought to determine the response rate to rebeccamycin analog among patients with refractory advanced breast cancer using two different treatment schedules. Eligible patients had measurable disease, central venous access, and one or two prior chemotherapy regimens for advanced cancer, or recurrence within 12 months of adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to rebeccamycin analog on one of two treatment schedules: arm 1, 500 mg/m2 IV bolus every 21 days; arm 2, 140 mg/m2 IV bolus daily x 5 days, every 21 days. The primary study endpoint was response rate; a two stage accrual design evaluated each schedule separately. Forty-two women entered the trial, 21 on each arm. Prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic breast cancer were: 0, n=4; 1, n=21; 2, n=17. Prior treatments (including adjuvant therapy) anthracyclines: 88%, taxanes 67%, 5FU-based therapy, 50%. There were 5 partial responses (overall response rate 12%), two in arm 1 and 3 in arm 2, all in patients with prior anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy. Median time to progression was 2.1 months (range 1-14+ months). An additional 9 patients had stable disease as best response. Grade 3 or 4 toxicity rates were: anemia 5%, neutropenia 33%, thrombocytopenia 12%, RBC transfusion 14%, nausea/vomiting 10%. Toxicity profiles were similar between the treatment arms. Rebeccamycin analog is reasonably well tolerated on two different treatment schedules for advanced breast cancer, with modest clinical activity in this heavily pretreated population.