Should patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer and one or two positive sentinel nodes undergo axillary dissection to determine candidacy for adjuvant abemaciclib?

BACKGROUND: The monarchE trial demonstrated improved outcomes with the use of adjuvant abemaciclib in patients with high-risk hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer defined as ≥4 positive lymph nodes (+LNs) or one to three +LNs with one or more additional high-risk features (HRFs). The proportion of patients with one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes (+SLNs) without HRFs who had ≥4 +LNs at the time of completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND), and who therefore qualified for receipt of abemaciclib, was investigated. METHODS: Females with pathologically node-positive nonmetastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer stratified by the number of +SLNs and +LNs and the presence of one or more HRFs were identified from the National Cancer Database (2018-2019). The proportion of patients meeting the criteria for abemaciclib both before and after ALND was assessed. RESULTS: Of the 22,048 patients identified, 1578 patients underwent upfront surgery, had one or two +SLNs without HRFs, and went on to cALND. Only 213 (13%) of these patients had ≥4 +LNs; thus, cALND performed solely to determine abemaciclib candidacy would have constituted surgical overtreatment in 1365 patients (87%). When stratified by the number of +SLNs, only 10% of those with one +SLN and 24% of those with two +SLNs had ≥4 +LNs after cALND, which meets the criteria for abemaciclib. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with one +SLN without HRFs are unlikely to have ≥4 +LNs and should not be subjected to the morbidity of ALND in order to inform candidacy for abemaciclib. An individualized multidisciplinary discussion should be undertaken about the risk:benefit ratio of ALND and abemaciclib for those with two +SLNs.

Early Detection and Prognostic Assessment of Cutaneous Melanoma: Consensus on Optimal Practice and the Role of Gene Expression Profile Testing.

Importance: Therapy for advanced melanoma has transformed during the past decade, but early detection and prognostic assessment of cutaneous melanoma (CM) remain paramount goals. Best practices for screening and use of pigmented lesion evaluation tools and gene expression profile (GEP) testing in CM remain to be defined. Objective: To provide consensus recommendations on optimal screening practices and prebiopsy diagnostic, postbiopsy diagnostic, and prognostic assessment of CM. Evidence Review: Case scenarios were interrogated using a modified Delphi consensus method. Melanoma panelists (n = 60) were invited to vote on hypothetical scenarios via an emailed survey (n = 42), which was followed by a consensus conference (n = 51) that reviewed the literature and the rationale for survey answers. Panelists participated in a follow-up survey for final recommendations on the scenarios (n = 45). Findings: The panelists reached consensus (≥70% agreement) in supporting a risk-stratified approach to melanoma screening in clinical settings and public screening events, screening personnel recommendations (self/partner, primary care provider, general dermatologist, and pigmented lesion expert), screening intervals, and acceptable appointment wait times. Participants also reached consensus that visual and dermoscopic examination are sufficient for evaluation and follow-up of melanocytic skin lesions deemed innocuous. The panelists reached consensus on interpreting reflectance confocal microscopy and some but not all results from epidermal tape stripping, but they did not reach consensus on use of certain pigmented lesion evaluation tools, such as electrical impedance spectroscopy. Regarding GEP scores, the panelists reached consensus that a low-risk prognostic GEP score should not outweigh concerning histologic features when selecting patients to undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy but did not reach consensus on imaging recommendations in the setting of a high-risk prognostic GEP score and low-risk histology and/or negative nodal status. Conclusions and Relevance: For this consensus statement, panelists reached consensus on aspects of a risk-stratified approach to melanoma screening and follow-up as well as use of visual examination and dermoscopy. These findings support a practical approach to diagnosing and evaluating CM. Panelists did not reach consensus on a clearly defined role for GEP testing in clinical decision-making, citing the need for additional studies to establish the clinical use of existing GEP assays.

Phase I trial of pembrolizumab plus vemurafenib and cobimetinib in patients with metastatic melanoma.

Background: Preclinical and translational evidence suggest BRAF/MEK inhibitors modulate the tumor microenvironment (TME), providing rationale for combination with immunotherapy. Methods: This investigator-initiated, phase I trial evaluated pembrolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib in patients with untreated, BRAFV600E/K mutant advanced melanoma. The first 4 patients received vemurafenib with pembrolizumab, and the next 5 patients received vemurafenib and cobimetinib with pembrolizumab. Primary endpoints: safety and maximum tolerated dose of the triplet. Secondary endpoints: objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and quality of life (QoL). The trial was closed after enrollment of 9 (planned 30) patients due to dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Study NCT02818023 was approved by the IRB, and all patients provided informed consent. Results: Patients received a median of 6 cycles of therapy. 8 of 9 experienced drug-related grade 3/4 AEs. DLTs included dermatitis (n=8), hepatitis (n=1), QTc prolongation (n=1), and arthralgias (n=1 each). QoL assessments identified a clinically significant decrease in self assessed QoL at 1 year compared to baseline (0.38 v 0.43). Median PFS was 20.7 months and median OS was 23.8 months for vemurafenib with pembrolizumab. Median PFS and OS were not reached for patients receiving triple therapy. ORR in the overall cohort was 78% (7/9). 2 patients experienced a complete response, 5 had a partial response, 1 had stable disease, and 1 had progressive disease. 4 patients had ongoing responses at data analysis. Peripheral blood flow cytometry identified significantly decreased PD1 expression on CD4+ T-cells at 3 and 9 weeks compared to baseline, not corresponding to clinical response. Conclusions: Triple therapy with vemurafenib, cobimetinib and pembrolizumab is associated with high response rates but significant adverse events, leading to early study closure.

Current and emerging biologic therapies for triple negative breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Triple negative breast cancer, defined by a lack of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, or human epidermal growth factor2, accounts for approximately 15% of breast cancer patients. Treatment options have historically been limited to chemotherapy, which has significant toxicity and a suboptimal impact on the five-year relapse rate and survival. AREAS COVERED: Transcriptomic analyses reveal that TNBC is biologically heterogenous. Predictive biomarkers based on the distinct biology of the different subtypes of TNBC should identify patients that will derive the greatest benefit from a specifically targeted therapeutic agent. Two biomarker-driven treatments have recently been approved: poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors for patients with germline BRCA mutations and atezolizumab in combination with nab-paclitaxel for patients expressing PD-L1 on tumor-infiltrating immune cells. EXPERT OPINION: Identifying informative predictive biomarkers is critical for the optimal development of targeted drugs for TNBC. Some targeted agents, such as the antibody-drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan-hziy and the precision medicines capivasertib and ipatisertib, have already shown promising results in early clinical trials, and the results of definitive phase 3 trials are eagerly awaited. Additionally, testing novel immunotherapies and other targeted agents in earlier stages of disease, particularly the neoadjuvant setting, is a high priority.

Safety and Outcomes of Permanent and Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters in the Oncology Population.

BACKGROUND: The role for inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the oncology population is poorly defined. OBJECTIVES: Our primary endpoint was to determine the rate of filter placement in cancer patients without an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation and the rate of recurrent VTE after filter placement in both retrievable and permanent filter groups. Patients/. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective study of patients with active malignancies and acute VTE who received a retrievable or permanent IVC filter between 2009-2013. Demographics and outcomes were confirmed on independent chart review. Cost data were obtained using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. RESULTS: 179 patients with retrievable filters and 207 patients with permanent filters were included. Contraindication to anticoagulation was the most cited reason for filter placement; however, only 76% of patients with retrievable filters and 69% of patients with permanent filters had an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation. 20% of patients with retrievable filters and 24% of patients with permanent filters had recurrent VTE. The median time from filter placement to death was 8.9 and 3.2 months in the retrievable and permanent filter groups, respectively. The total cost of retrievable filters and permanent filters was $2,883,389 and $3,722,688, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The role for IVC filters in cancer patients remains unclear as recurrent VTE is common and time from filter placement to death is short. Filter placement is costly and has a clinically significant complication rate, especially for retrievable filters. More data from prospective, randomized trials are needed to determine the utility of IVC filters in cancer patients.