Long-term outcomes of high-risk HR-positive and HER2-negative early breast cancer patients from GEICAM adjuvant studies and El Álamo IV registry.

PURPOSE: The monarchE trial showed that the addition of abemaciclib improves efficacy in patients with high-risk early breast cancer (EBC). We analyzed the long-term outcomes of a population similar to the monarchE trial to put into context the potential benefit of abemaciclib. METHODS: HR-positive/HER2-negative EBC patients eligible for the monarchE study were selected from 3 adjuvant clinical trials and a breast cancer registry. Patients with ≥ 4 positive axillary lymph nodes (N +) or 1-3 N + with tumor size ≥ 5 cm and/or histologic grade 3 and/or Ki67 ≥ 20%, who had undergone surgery with curative intent and had received anthracyclines ± taxanes and endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant and /or adjuvant setting were included. We performed analysis of Invasive Disease-Free Survival (iDFS), Distant Disease-Free Survival (dDFS) and Overall Survival (OS) at 5 and 10 years, as well as yearly (up to 10) of Invasive Relapse Rate (IRR), Distant Relapse Rate (DRR) and Death Rate (DR). RESULTS: A total of 1,617 patients were analyzed from the GEICAM-9906 (312), GEICAM-2003-10 (210), and GEICAM-2006-10 (160) trials plus 935 from El Álamo IV. With a median follow-up of 10.1 years, the 5 and 10 years iDFS rates were 75.2% and 57.0%, respectively. The dDFS and OS rates at 5 years were 77.4% and 88.8% and the respective figures at 10 years were 59.7% and 70.9%. CONCLUSIONS: This data points out the need for new therapies for those patients. A longer follow-up of the monarchE study to see the real final benefit with abemaciclib is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinTrials.gov: GEICAM/9906: NCT00129922; GEICAM/ 2003-10: NCT00129935 and GEICAM/ 2006-10: NCT00543127.

A phase III trial of alpelisib + trastuzumab ± fulvestrant versus trastuzumab + chemotherapy in HER2+ PIK3CA-mutated breast cancer.

ALPHABET is a randomized phase III trial assessing alpelisib + trastuzumab with or without fulvestrant in previously treated HER2-positive PIK3CA-mutated advanced breast cancer. Patients will be included in two cohorts according to hormone receptor (HR) status. In the experimental arms, patients in the HR-negative cohort will receive trastuzumab + alpelisib, and patients in the HR-positive cohort will receive the same treatment plus fulvestrant. Patients in the control arms will receive trastuzumab + physician's choice chemotherapy (eribuline, capecitabine or vinorelbine). Key eligibility criteria include 1-4 previous lines of anti-HER2 therapy and prior trastuzumab emtansine. The primary end point is investigator-assessed progression-free survival. The study aims to recruit a total of 300 patients.

ALPHABET is a clinical study investigating the potential use of alpelisib for the treatment of certain subtypes of breast cancer. Alpelisib is a novel drug that is given orally. It specifically targets a protein called PI3K. PI3K is hyperactivated in some tumors, allowing uncontrolled growth. This study is enrolling patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer whose tumor tests positive for a mutation in the PIK3CA gene, which encodes PI3K. Patients are allocated at random to receive either a combination treatment of trastuzumab (an anti-HER2-targeted therapy) with alpelisib or standard chemotherapy and trastuzumab without alpelisib. The efficacy of each treatment will be determined by comparing how long patients in each group live for without further tumor growth. Additional analyses will also look at the side effects experienced by patients, as well as their quality of life.

Phase III study to evaluate patient's preference of subcutaneous versus intravenous trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients: Results from the ChangHER study (GEICAM/2012-07).

OBJECTIVE: We compared patients' preferences for intravenous (IV-t) versus subcutaneous (SC-t) trastuzumab administration. METHODS: Phase III, open-label, multicentre study in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Patients were receiving IV-t for at least 4 months without progression. Randomisation was 1:1 to administer 2 cycles of SC-t with vial followed by 2 cycles with single injection device (SID) or the reverse sequence (600mg SC-t every 3 weeks for 4 cycles). PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: patients' preference for IV-t versus SC-t; secondary objectives: patients' preference for vial versus SID, healthcare professional (HCP) preference and safety. RESULTS: We randomised 166 patients in 26 sites. Median number of previous lines of chemotherapy and/or endocrine therapy was 1 (1-7). Median duration of prior IV-t was 1.8 years (0.3-14). Of the159 patients completing the questionnaires, 86.2% preferred SC-t, 6.9% preferred IV-t, and 6.9% had no preference. Patients preferred SID (59.2%) over vial (26.3%). Most (87.2%) HCP preferred SC-t of whom 51.3% and 28.2% preferred SID and vial respectively. Related adverse events included G1-2 injection site reactions in 18 patients (10.8%), G1 pain in 8 (4.8%), G1-2 allergic reaction in 2 (1.2%), one G3 heart failure and 1 G2 ejection fraction decrease. CONCLUSIONS: SC-t is preferred with no safety impact.

Efficacy and safety of dasatinib with trastuzumab and paclitaxel in first line HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: results from the phase II GEICAM/2010-04 study.

BACKGROUND: An important proportion of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients do not respond to trastuzumab. The combination of dasatinib and trastuzumab has shown to be synergistic in preclinical models. METHODS: We conducted a phase II trial combining dasatinib 100 mg once daily with trastuzumab 2 mg/kg and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly. Primary objective was objective response rate (ORR) and secondary included safety, other efficacy parameters and pharmacodynamics in tumour tissue, blood samples and skin biopsies. RESULTS: From June 2013 to December 2015, 29 patients were included. Median number of cycles was 12 (1-49). Only 6 patients discontinued due to adverse events. ORR was 79.3% (95% CI 60.3-92), clinical benefit rate 82.8% (95% CI 64.2-94.2). Median time to progression 23.9 months (95% CI 14.9-not reached [NR]), median progression-free survival 23.9 months (95% CI 10.3-NR). No grade 4 toxicity was seen. Grade 3 toxicities included: ejection fraction decrease, neutropenia, hyponatremia, fatigue and sensory neuropathy and one left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Phosphorylated (p)-SRC was reduced in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Phosphorylated SRC, ERK and AKT were also reduced in epidermal keratinocytes. CONCLUSIONS: Dasatinib can be safely combined with trastuzumab and paclitaxel. The combination is active with an ORR of almost 80%. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01306942, EudraCT 2010-023304-27.

Phase III evaluating the addition of fulvestrant (F) to anastrozole (A) as adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) early breast cancer (EBC): results from the GEICAM/2006-10 study.

PURPOSE: GEICAM/2006-10 compared anastrozole (A) versus fulvestrant plus anastrozole (A + F) to test the hypothesis of whether a complete oestrogen blockade is superior to aromatase inhibitors alone in breast cancer patients receiving hormone adjuvant therapy. METHODS: Multicenter, open label, phase III study. HR+/HER2- EBC postmenopausal patients were randomized 1:1 to adjuvant A (5 years [year]) or A + F (A plus F 250 mg/4 weeks for 3 year followed by 2 year of A). Stratification factors: prior chemotherapy (yes/no); number of positive lymph nodes (0/1-3/≥ 4); HR status (both positive/one positive) and site. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: disease-free survival (DFS). Planned sample size: 2852 patients. RESULTS: The study has an early stop due to the financer decision with 870 patients (437 randomized to A and 433 to A + F). Patient characteristics were well balanced. After a median follow-up of 6.24y and 111 DFS events (62 in A and 49 in A + F) the Hazard Ratio for DFS (combination vs. anastrozole) was 0.84 (95% CI 0.58-1.22; p = 0.352). The proportion of patients disease-free in arms A and A + F at 5 year and 7 year were 90.8% versus 91% and 83.6% versus 86.7%, respectively. Most relevant G2-4 toxicities (≥ 5% in either arm) with A versus A + F were joint pain (14.7%; 13.7%), fatigue (2.5%; 7.2%), bone pain (3%; 6.5%), hot flushes (3.5%; 5%) and muscle pain (2.8%; 5.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The GEICAM/2006-10 study did not show a statistically significant increase in DFS by adding adjuvant F to A, though no firm conclusions can be drawn because of the limited sample size due to the early stop of the trial. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00543127.

A phase Ib study of sonidegib (LDE225), an oral small molecule inhibitor of smoothened or Hedgehog pathway, in combination with docetaxel in triple negative advanced breast cancer patients: GEICAM/2012-12 (EDALINE) study.

Up-regulation of the Hedgehog (Hh) pathway is implicated in the genesis of a wide range of tumors including triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Sonidegib is a potent and selective oral inhibitor of Smo, a key component of the Hh signaling pathway. We designed a phase I clinical study to explore the combination of sonidegib plus docetaxel (fixed dose at 75 mg/m2) in advanced TNBC patients. The primary objective was to ascertain the combination's maximum tolerated dose and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), based on dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) in the first 2 cycles. A standard "3 + 3" design was followed including three dose levels (DL) of sonidegib: 400 mg (DL1), 600 mg (DL2), and 800 mg (DL3). Twelve patients were included. Sonidegib 800 mg orally q.d. plus docetaxel 75 mg/m2 given intravenously on day 1 of 21-day cycles was established as the RP2D. No DLTs were observed at any DL. The median number of administered cycles at DL3 was 8 (range: 6 to 9). Grade 3 adverse events (AEs) at DL3 were neutropenia (66.7%), CPK increase (33.3%), leukopenia (33.3%), and paresthesia (33.3%), grade 4 AEs were not reported at this DL. At the RP2D, the combination showed antitumor activity in three out of 10 patients with measurable disease. Median time to progression for the overall study was 42.5 days (95% Confidence Interval: 29-155), and 188 days at DL3. No drug-to-drug interactions between sonidegib and docetaxel were found in the PK assessment. Trial Registration: EudraCT study number: 2013-001750-96. Study GEICAM/2012-12. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT study number: 2013-001750-96. Study GEICAM/2012-12. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02027376.

Neoadjuvant Therapy with Weekly Nanoparticle Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel for Luminal Early Breast Cancer Patients: Results from the NABRAX Study (GEICAM/2011-02), a Multicenter, Non-Randomized, Phase II Trial, with a Companion Biomarker Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-Paclitaxel) is an alternative to standard taxanes for breast cancer (BC) treatment. We evaluated nab-Paclitaxel efficacy as neoadjuvant treatment for early estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women with ER+, HER2-, stage II-III BC were treated preoperatively with four cycles of weekly nab-Paclitaxel (150 mg/m2), 3 weeks on and 1 week off. We hypothesized that poor pathological response rate (residual cancer burden [RCB] III; Symmans criteria) would be ≤16%. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients with a median age of 47 years were treated; 64.2% were premenopausal, and 69% of tumors were stage II. Residual cancer burden III rate was 28.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.6%-38.2%), RCB 0+I (good response) rate was 24.7% (95% CI: 15.3%-34.1%) and RCB 0 (complete response) rate was 7.4% (95% CI: 1.7%-13.1%). Objective response rate by magnetic resonance imaging was 76.5% and rate of conversion to breast conserving surgery was 40.0%. The most frequent grade 3 and 4 toxicity was neutropenia (12.3% and 3.7% of patients, respectively), without any febrile neutropenia. Sensory neuropathy grade 2 and 3 were seen in 25.9% and 2.5% of patients, respectively. Tumor secreted protein, acidic, cysteine-rich (SPARC) overexpression was significantly associated with RCB 0 (odds ratio: 0.079; 95% CI: 0.009-0.689; p = .0216). CONCLUSION: Despite failing to confirm an RCB III rate ≤16% in nab-Paclitaxel-treated patients, the RCB 0+I rate indicates a significant drug antitumor activity with low rates of grade 3-4 toxicity. Our exploratory biomarker analysis suggests a potential predictive role of complete response for SPARC. Confirmatory analyses are warranted, adapting dose and schedule to decrease peripheral neurotoxicity. (Trial registration: European Clinical Trials Database study number: 2011-004476-10; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01565499). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The pathological response rate (residual cancer burden [RCB]; Symmans criteria) of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel administered as neoadjuvant treatment for early estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative disease was evaluated. Whereas poor response (RCB III) was 24.7%, similar to that for docetaxel, good response (RCB 0+I) reached 23.0%, far superior to the 13% for docetaxel, while keeping toxicity low. Exploratory biomarker analysis suggests secreted protein, acidic, cysteine-rich overexpression in tumor cells as a potential predictor of complete response (RCB 0). Findings point to an encouraging single-agent neoadjuvant treatment with low toxicity, which warrants future research and development.

Physical activity and breast cancer risk by pathological subtype.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of physical activity on breast cancer risk and evaluate whether adherence to international recommendations is associated with a decreased risk. METHODS: This is a multicenter matched case-control study where 698 pairs completed a physical activity questionnaire. Recreational physical activity during the last year was quantified in metabolic equivalent hours per week (MET-h/week) and categorized in activities of moderate (3.0-5.9 MET) and vigorous (>6 MET) intensity. The adherence to World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research recommendation was also assessed. The association with breast cancer risk, overall and by pathologic subtype, was evaluated using conditional and multinomial logistic regression models. RESULTS: Mean MET-h/week was 16.6 among cases and 20.4 among controls. Premenopausal breast cancer risk decreased by 5% (P=0.007) for every 6 MET-h/week increase in energy expenditure. By contrast, postmenopausal women needed to do more intense exercise to observe benefits. The protection was more pronounced for nulliparous women, as well as for hormone receptor positive and HER2+ tumors. Physically inactive women displayed a 71% increased risk when compared with those who met the international recommendation (P=0.001). Finally, women who were inactive during the previous year, regardless of the overall physical activity reported in previous periods, showed an increased risk when compared to always active women. CONCLUSIONS: Women who report adherence to international physical activity recommendations entail a significant decrease in risk for all pathologic breast cancer subtypes. This is of particular interest in Spain, where a significant increase in overweight and obesity in recent decades is observed.

High Proliferation Predicts Pathological Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Early Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the neoadjuvant setting, changes in the proliferation marker Ki67 are associated with primary endocrine treatment efficacy, but its value as a predictor of response to chemotherapy is still controversial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 262 patients with centralized basal Ki67 immunohistochemical evaluation derived from 4 GEICAM (Spanish Breast Cancer Group) clinical trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. The objective was to identify the optimal threshold for Ki67 using the receiver-operating characteristic curve method to maximize its predictive value for chemotherapy benefit. We also evaluated the predictive role of the defined Ki67 cutoffs for molecular subtypes defined by estrogen receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). RESULTS: A basal Ki67 cutpoint of 50% predicted pathological complete response (pCR). Patients with Ki67 >50% achieved a pCR rate of 40% (36 of 91) versus a pCR rate of 19% in patients with Ki67 ≤ 50% (33 of 171) (p = .0004). Ki67 predictive value was especially relevant in ER-HER2- and ER-HER2+ patients (pCR rates of 42% and 64%, respectively, in patients with Ki67 >50% versus 15% and 45%, respectively, in patients with Ki67 ≤ 50%; p = .0337 and .3238, respectively). Both multivariate analyses confirmed the independent predictive value of the Ki67 cutpoint of 50%. CONCLUSION: Basal Ki67 proliferation index >50% should be considered an independent predictive factor for pCR reached after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, suggesting that cell proliferation is a phenomenon closely related to chemosensitivity. These findings could help to identify a group of patients with a potentially favorable long-term prognosis. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The use of basal Ki67 status as a predictive factor of chemotherapy benefit could facilitate the identification of a patient subpopulation with high probability of achieving pathological complete response when treated with primary chemotherapy, and thus with a potentially favorable long-term prognosis.

Prognostic ability of EndoPredict compared to research-based versions of the PAM50 risk of recurrence (ROR) scores in node-positive, estrogen receptor-positive, and HER2-negative breast cancer. A GEICAM/9906 sub-study.

There are several prognostic multigene-based tests for managing breast cancer (BC), but limited data comparing them in the same cohort. We compared the prognostic performance of the EndoPredict (EP) test (standardized for pathology laboratory) with the research-based PAM50 non-standardized qRT-PCR assay in node-positive estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) and HER2-negative (HER2-) BC patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy (ET) in the GEICAM/9906 trial. EP and PAM50 risk of recurrence (ROR) scores [based on subtype (ROR-S) and on subtype and proliferation (ROR-P)] were compared in 536 ER+/HER2- patients. Scores combined with clinical information were evaluated: ROR-T (ROR-S, tumor size), ROR-PT (ROR-P, tumor size), and EPclin (EP, tumor size, nodal status). Patients were assigned to risk-categories according to prespecified cutoffs. Distant metastasis-free survival (MFS) was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier. ROR-S, ROR-P, and EP scores identified a low-risk group with a relative better outcome (10-year MFS: ROR-S 87 %; ROR-P 89 %; EP 93 %). There was no significant difference between tests. Predictors including clinical information showed superior prognostic performance compared to molecular scores alone (10-year MFS, low-risk group: ROR-T 88 %; ROR-PT 92 %; EPclin 100 %). The EPclin-based risk stratification achieved a significantly improved prediction of MFS compared to ROR-T, but not ROR-PT. All signatures added prognostic information to common clinical parameters. EPclin provided independent prognostic information beyond ROR-T and ROR-PT. ROR and EP can reliably predict risk of distant metastasis in node-positive ER+/HER2- BC patients treated with chemotherapy and ET. Addition of clinical parameters into risk scores improves their prognostic ability.

Defining breast cancer intrinsic subtypes by quantitative receptor expression.

PURPOSE: To determine intrinsic breast cancer subtypes represented within categories defined by quantitative hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 expression. METHODS: We merged 1,557 cases from three randomized phase III trials into a single data set. These breast tumors were centrally reviewed in each trial for quantitative ER, PR, and HER2 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) stain and by reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), with intrinsic subtyping by research-based PAM50 RT-qPCR assay. RESULTS: Among 283 HER2-negative tumors with <1% HR expression by IHC, 207 (73%) were basal-like; other subtypes, particularly HER2-enriched (48, 17%), were present. Among the 1,298 HER2-negative tumors, borderline HR (1%-9% staining) was uncommon (n = 39), and these tumors were heterogeneous: 17 (44%) luminal A/B, 12 (31%) HER2-enriched, and only 7 (18%) basal-like. Including them in the definition of triple-negative breast cancer significantly diminished enrichment for basal-like cancer (p < .05). Among 106 HER2-positive tumors with <1% HR expression by IHC, the HER2-enriched subtype was the most frequent (87, 82%), whereas among 127 HER2-positive tumors with strong HR (>10%) expression, only 69 (54%) were HER2-enriched and 55 (43%) were luminal (39 luminal B, 16 luminal A). Quantitative HR expression by RT-qPCR gave similar results. Regardless of methodology, basal-like cases seldom expressed ER/ESR1 or PR/PGR and were associated with the lowest expression level of HER2/ERBB2 relative to other subtypes. CONCLUSION: Significant discordance remains between clinical assay-defined subsets and intrinsic subtype. For identifying basal-like breast cancer, the optimal HR IHC cut point was <1%, matching the American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists guidelines. Tumors with borderline HR staining are molecularly diverse and may require additional assays to clarify underlying biology.

Standard versus continuous administration of capecitabine in metastatic breast cancer (GEICAM/2009-05): a randomized, noninferiority phase II trial with a pharmacogenetic analysis.

BACKGROUND: The approved capecitabine regimen as monotherapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is 1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily for 2 weeks on and 1 week off (Cint). Dose modifications are often required because of severe hand-foot syndrome (HFS). We tested a continuous regimen with a lower daily dose but a similar cumulative dose in an attempt to reduce the severity of adverse events (AEs) while maintaining efficacy. METHODS: We randomized 195 patients with HER-2/neu-negative MBC to capecitabine 800 mg/m(2) twice daily throughout the 21-day cycle (Ccont) or to Cint to assess noninferiority in the percentage of patients free of progression at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included efficacy and safety. Associations between polymorphisms in capecitabine metabolism-related genes and drug response were assessed. RESULTS: The percentage of patients free of progression at 1 year was 27.3% with Cint versus 25.3% with Ccont (difference of -2.0%; 95% confidence interval: -15.5% to 11.5%, exceeding the 15% deemed noninferior). Differences regarding other efficacy variables were also not found. Grade 3-4 HFS was the most frequent AE (41.1% in Cint vs. 42.3% in Ccont). Grade 3-4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, and stomatitis were more frequent with Cint. A 5' untranslated region polymorphism in the carboxylesterase 2 gene was associated with HFS. One polymorphism in cytidine deaminase and two in thymidine phosphorylase were associated with survival. CONCLUSION: Our study was unable to show noninferiority with the continuous capecitabine regimen (Ccont) compared with the approved intermittent regimen (Cint). Further investigation is required to improve HFS. Polymorphisms in several genes might contribute to interindividual differences in response to capecitabine.

Clinical validation of the EndoPredict test in node-positive, chemotherapy-treated ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients: results from the GEICAM 9906 trial.

INTRODUCTION: EndoPredict (EP) is an RNA-based multigene test that predicts the likelihood of distant recurrence in patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer (BC) who are being treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy. Herein we report the prospective-retrospective clinical validation of EP in the node-positive, chemotherapy-treated, ER+/HER2- BC patients in the GEICAM 9906 trial. METHODS: The patients (N = 1,246) were treated either with six cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (FEC) or with four cycles of FEC followed by eight weekly courses of paclitaxel (FEC-P), as well as with endocrine therapy if they had hormone receptor-positive disease. The patients were assigned to EP risk categories (low or high) according to prespecified cutoff levels. The primary endpoint in the clinical validation of EP was distant metastasis-free survival (MFS). Metastasis rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariate analysis was performed using Cox regression. RESULTS: The molecular EP score and the combined molecular and clinical EPclin score were successfully determined in 555 ER+/HER2- tumors from the 800 available samples in the GEICAM 9906 trial. On the basis of the EP, 25% of patients (n = 141) were classified as low risk. MFS was 93% in the low-risk group and 70% in the high-risk group (absolute risk reduction = 23%, hazard ratio (HR) = 4.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.5 to 9.5; P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that, in this ER+/HER2- cohort, EP results are an independent prognostic parameter after adjustment for age, grade, lymph node status, tumor size, treatment arm, ER and progesterone receptor (PR) status and proliferation index (Ki67). Using the predefined EPclin score, 13% of patients (n = 74) were assigned to the low-risk group, who had excellent outcomes and no distant recurrence events (absolute risk reduction vs high-risk group = 28%; P < 0.0001). Furthermore, EP was prognostic in premenopausal patients (HR = 6.7, 95% CI = 2.4 to 18.3; P = 0.0002) and postmenopausal patients (HR = 3.3, 95% CI = 1.3 to 8.5; P = 0.0109). There were no statistically significant differences in MFS between treatment arms (FEC vs FEC-P) in either the high- or low-risk groups. The interaction test results between the chemotherapy arm and the EP score were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: EP is an independent prognostic parameter in node-positive, ER+/HER2- BC patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy followed by hormone therapy. EP did not predict a greater efficacy of FEC-P compared to FEC alone.

Obesity and survival in operable breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant anthracyclines and taxanes according to pathological subtypes: a pooled analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Obesity is an unfavorable prognostic factor in breast cancer (BC) patients regardless of menopausal status and treatment received. However, the association between obesity and survival outcome by pathological subtype requires further clarification. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis including 5,683 operable BC patients enrolled in four randomized clinical trials (GEICAM/9906, GEICAM/9805, GEICAM/2003-02, and BCIRG 001) evaluating anthracyclines and taxanes as adjuvant treatments. Our primary aim was to assess the prognostic effect of body mass index (BMI) on disease recurrence, breast cancer mortality (BCM), and overall mortality (OM). A secondary aim was to detect differences of such prognostic effects by subtype. RESULTS: Multivariate survival analyses adjusting for age, tumor size, nodal status, menopausal status, surgery type, histological grade, hormone receptor status, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, chemotherapy regimen, and under-treatment showed that obese patients (BMI 30.0 to 34.9) had similar prognoses to that of patients with a BMI < 25 (reference group) in terms of recurrence (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 1.08, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.90 to 1.30), BCM (HR = 1.02, 0.81 to 1.29), and OM (HR = 0.97, 0.78 to 1.19). Patients with severe obesity (BMI ≥ 35) had a significantly increased risk of recurrence (HR = 1.26, 1.00 to 1.59, P = 0.048), BCM (HR = 1.32, 1.00 to 1.74, P = 0.050), and OM (HR = 1.35, 1.06 to 1.71, P = 0.016) compared to our reference group. The prognostic effect of severe obesity did not vary by subtype. CONCLUSIONS: Severely obese patients treated with anthracyclines and taxanes present a worse prognosis regarding recurrence, BCM, and OM than patients with BMI < 25. The magnitude of the harmful effect of BMI on survival-related outcomes was similar across subtypes.

PAM50 proliferation score as a predictor of weekly paclitaxel benefit in breast cancer.

To identify a group of patients who might benefit from the addition of weekly paclitaxel to conventional anthracycline-containing chemotherapy as adjuvant therapy of node-positive operable breast cancer. The predictive value of PAM50 subtypes and the 11-gene proliferation score contained within the PAM50 assay were evaluated in 820 patients from the GEICAM/9906 randomized phase III trial comparing adjuvant FEC to FEC followed by weekly paclitaxel (FEC-P). Multivariable Cox regression analyses of the secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) were performed to determine the significance of the interaction between treatment and the (1) PAM50 subtypes, (2) PAM50 proliferation score, and (3) clinical and pathological variables. Similar OS analyses were performed in 222 patients treated with weekly paclitaxel versus paclitaxel every 3 weeks in the CALGB/9342 and 9840 metastatic clinical trials. In GEICAM/9906, with a median follow up of 8.7 years, OS of the FEC-P arm was significantly superior compared to the FEC arm (unadjusted HR = 0.693, p = 0.013). A benefit from paclitaxel was only observed in the group of patients with a low PAM50 proliferation score (unadjusted HR = 0.23, p < 0.001; and interaction test, p = 0.006). No significant interactions between treatment and the PAM50 subtypes or the various clinical-pathological variables, including Ki-67 and histologic grade, were identified. Finally, similar OS results were obtained in the CALGB data set, although the interaction test did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.109). The PAM50 proliferation score identifies a subset of patients with a low proliferation status that may derive a larger benefit from weekly paclitaxel.

Exemestane versus anastrozole as front-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer: final results from the Spanish Breast Cancer Group 2001-03 phase 2 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Several aromatase inhibitor studies have reported variations in the inhibitory potency of these agents that could lead to differences in clinical outcomes. In the current study, the authors formally evaluated the activity of anastrozole and exemestane in postmenopausal women with hormone-responsive, advanced breast cancer. METHODS: Postmenopausal women who had measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and had not received previous endocrine therapy for advanced breast cancer were randomized to receive either oral exemestane 25 mg daily or oral anastrozole 1 mg daily until they had disease progression. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR), and secondary endpoints included the clinical benefit rate (CBR), time to progression (TTP), overall survival, and safety. Crossover to the other aromatase inhibitor was permitted at the time of disease progression; ORR, CBR, and TTP after second-line treatment also were explored. RESULTS: In total, 103 patients were enrolled. The median patient age was 71.6 years, 52.4% of patients had visceral disease, and 75.8% of patients had ≥ 2 disease sites. Half of the patients had received previous tamoxifen, and 60% had received previous chemotherapy. The efficacy observed in the exemestane and anastrozole groups was an ORR of 36.2% and 46%, respectively; a CBR of 59.6% and 68%, respectively, and a TTP of 6.1 months and 12.1 months, respectively. At progression, 28 patients crossed over to the other aromatase inhibitor, including 16 patients who switched to exemestane (CBR, 43.7%; TTP, 4.4 months) and 12 patients who switched to anastrozole (CBR, 8.3%; TTP, 2 months). Both drugs were generally well tolerated, and no study drug-related serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 2 randomized trial, no significant differences in clinical activity were observed in favor of exemestane to justify a superiority phase 3 trial design in the first-line setting.

Bilateral kidney pseudotumor due to sarcoidosis: a radiological study case.

OBJECTIVE: To report one case of bilateral kidney pseudotumor due to sarcoidosis in a 75 year-old man with prostatic carcinoma and hypertrophic pachymeningitis. METHODS: Renal Doppler, body CT, CT-guided renal biopsy, blood analysis including angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE), blood levels and test-treatment (corticosteroid response) were performed. RESULTS: The radiological studies performed showed bilateral kidney masses and pulmonary calcified hilar adenopathies. Blood analysis showed renal failure and increased ACE levels. Renal biopsy showed non-caseating granulomas. Neurological symptoms and renal failure improved with corticosteroid therapy. CONCLUSION: Bilateral kidney pseudotumor due to sarcoidosis is a rare pathology. Sarcoidosis must be included in the differential diagnosis work up of patients with inflammatory or autoimmune disease and bilateral kidney pseudotumors. Radiological findings of kidney sarcoidosis are quite unspecific. Histological diagnosis with CT guided biopsy or US guided biopsy of kidney masses may be performed.

Sapanisertib plus Fulvestrant in Postmenopausal Women with Estrogen Receptor-Positive/HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer after Progression on Aromatase Inhibitor.

PURPOSE: This phase II study investigated daily or weekly sapanisertib (a selective dual inhibitor of mTOR complexes 1 and 2) in combination with fulvestrant. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer following progression during/after aromatase inhibitor treatment were randomized to receive fulvestrant 500 mg (28-day treatment cycles), fulvestrant plus sapanisertib 4 mg daily, or fulvestrant plus sapanisertib 30 mg weekly, until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, consent withdrawal, or study completion. RESULTS: Among 141 enrolled patients, baseline characteristics were balanced among treatment arms, including prior cyclin-dependent kinase-4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor treatment in 33% to 35% of patients. Median progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint) was 3.5 months in the single-agent fulvestrant arm, compared with 7.2 months for fulvestrant plus sapanisertib daily [HR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47-1.26] and 5.6 months for fulvestrant plus sapanisertib weekly (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.53-1.45). The greatest PFS benefits were seen in patients who had previously received CDK4/6 inhibitors. The most common adverse events were nausea, vomiting, and hyperglycemia, all occurring more frequently in the combination therapy arms. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events occurred more frequently in the two combination therapy arms than with single-agent fulvestrant (32% and 36% vs. 4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Fulvestrant plus sapanisertib daily/weekly resulted in numerically longer PFS in patients with ER+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer, compared with single-agent fulvestrant. The combination was associated with increased toxicity. Further development of sapanisertib using these dosing schedules in this setting is not supported by these data.

Overall survival with palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the PEARL study.

BACKGROUND: An earlier analysis of the PEARL phase III study showed that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) does not improve progression-free survival (PFS) over capecitabine in aromatase inhibitor-resistant, hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. Here, we report the final overall survival (OS) analysis. METHODS: Postmenopausal patients (N = 601) were randomized 1:1 to capecitabine or palbociclib plus ET (exemestane, Cohort 1; fulvestrant, Cohort 2). OS was analysed in Cohort 2, the wild-type ESR1 population and the overall population. Additionally, we analysed subsequent systemic therapies and explored PFS2 (time from randomization to the end of the first subsequent therapy/death). RESULTS: OS was 31.1 months for palbociclib plus fulvestrant and 32.8 months for capecitabine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.50, P = 0.550). In the wild-type ESR1 population, OS was 37.2 months for palbociclib plus ET and 34.8 months for capecitabine (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.37, P = 0.683). In OS analyses, no subgroup showed superiority for palbociclib plus ET over capecitabine. OS in the overall population was 32.6 months for palbociclib plus ET and 30.9 months for capecitabine (P = 0.995). Subsequent systemic therapy was given to 79.8% and 82.9% of patients with palbociclib plus ET and capecitabine, respectively. Median PFS2 was similar between study arms (Cohort 2, P = 0.941; wild-type ESR1 population, P = 0.827). No new safety findings were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Palbociclib plus ET did not show a statistically superior OS compared to capecitabine in MBC patients progressing on aromatase inhibitors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02028507 (ClinTrials.gov), 2013-003170-27 (EudraCT).