Impact of COVID-19 on patients with metastatic breast cancer: REthink Access to Care and Treatment survey results.

Aim: Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) may be vulnerable to changes in healthcare management, safety standards and protocols that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials & methods: The REthink Access to Care & Treatment (REACT) survey assessed USA-based patient perspectives on COVID-19-related impacts to their MBC treatment experience between 27 April 2021 and 17 August 2021. Results: Participants (n = 341; 98.5% females, mean age 50.8 years) reported that overall oncology treatment quality was maintained during the pandemic. Delayed/canceled diagnostic imaging was reported by 44.9% of participants while telemedicine uptake was high among participants (80%). Conclusion: Overall, MBC care was minimally affected by the pandemic, possibly due to the expanded use of telemedicine, informing MBC management for future public health emergencies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced healthcare providers to change the way that healthcare is delivered. These changes could particularly affect people with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), an advanced stage of cancer that has spread to other parts of the body. The authors of this study used a web-based survey to ask 341 volunteers with MBC how the pandemic has affected their cancer treatment. The authors found that people with MBC thought that the quality of their care stayed the same during the pandemic. Most people (80%) surveyed were able to use telemedicine, the remote delivery of care by phone or computer, to replace in-person visits to their doctor. However, almost half of people surveyed reported delays or cancellation of their diagnostic imaging appointments. Overall, this study shows that the COVID-19 pandemic did not affect peoples' opinions of their MBC care. Increased use of telemedicine may have contributed to the lack of disruption in care. These findings will help guide MBC care during future public health emergencies.

Bridging the Gap: Innovative 'Center for Precision Oncology' in Missouri.

Background: Next generation sequencing (NGS) has become standard practice for identification and treatment of targetable driver mutations in advanced cancer. However, NGS interpretation of clinical applicability can be challenging to clinician, with potential impact on patient's outcome. Specialized precision medicine services are poised to bridge this gap by creating collaborative frameworks to formulate and deliver genomic patient care plans. Methods: Saint Luke's Cancer Institute in Kansas City, Missouri, (SLCI) instituted the Center for Precision Oncology (CPO) in 2017. The program accepts patient referrals for a multidisciplinary molecular tumor board and offers CPO clinic visits. An Institutional Review Board-approved molecular registry was initiated. It catalogues genomic files along with patient demographics, treatment and outcomes. CPO patient volumes, recommendation acceptance, clinical trial matriculation and funding for drug procurement were closely tracked. Results: In 2020 there were 93 referrals to the CPO with 29 patient clinic visits. 20 patients matriculated to CPO-recommended therapies. Two patients were successfully enrolled in Expanded Access Programs (EAPs). CPO successfully procured eight off-label treatments. Treatments initiated per CPO recommendations totaled over $1 million in drug costs. Conclusion: Precision medicine services are essential tool for oncology clinicians. In addition to expert NGS analysis interpretation, precision medicine programs provide crucial multidisciplinary support for patients to understand the implications of their genomic report and pursue targeted treatment as indicated. Molecular registries associated with these services offer valuable opportunities for research.

Molecular Tumor Board Case Series: Targeting KRAS G12C in Lung Cancer.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) identifies biomarkers with prognostic and predictive importance in patients with cancer. The enormous amounts of data generated by comprehensive NGS adds complexity to the identification of valid drug therapy targets. Rapid progress made in targeted drug development creates the need for novel methods to access these treatments for patients. Molecular tumor boards (MTB) not only aid in identifying targetable gene mutations by carefully reviewing NGS data, they can also take lead in creating patient access to the appropriate targeted therapy. Here we describe two patients with Kirsten Rat Sarcoma (KRAS) G12C mutation positive lung adenocarcinoma for whom MTB was able to procure AMG510 or sotorasib, a covalent KRAS G12C inhibitor, by expanded access program ahead of FDA approval.

Trilaciclib plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Trilaciclib is an intravenous cell-cycle inhibitor that transiently maintains immune cells and haemopoietic stem and progenitor cells in G1 arrest. By protecting the immune cells and bone marrow from chemotherapy-induced damage, trilaciclib has the potential to optimise antitumour activity while minimising myelotoxicity. We report safety and activity data for trilaciclib plus gemcitabine and carboplatin chemotherapy in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with evaluable, biopsy-confirmed, locally recurrent or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who had no more than two previous lines of chemotherapy were recruited from 26 sites in the USA, three in Serbia, two in North Macedonia, one in Croatia, and one in Bulgaria; sites were academic and community hospitals. Availability of diagnostic samples of tumour tissue confirming triple-negative breast cancer was a prerequisite for enrolment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by an interactive web-response system, stratified by number of previous lines of systemic therapy and the presence of liver metastases, to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and intravenous carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve 2 µg × h/mL) on days 1 and 8 (group 1), gemcitabine and carboplatin plus intravenous trilaciclib 240 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 (group 2), or gemcitabine and carboplatin on days 2 and 9 plus trilaciclib on days 1, 2, 8, and 9 (group 3) of 21-day cycles. Patients continued treatment until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or discontinuation by the investigator. The primary objective was to assess the safety and tolerability of combining trilaciclib with gemcitabine and carboplatin chemotherapy. The primary endpoints were duration of severe neutropenia during cycle 1 and the occurrence of severe neutropenia during the treatment period. Overall survival was included as a key secondary endpoint. Analyses were in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with EudraCT, 2016-004466-26, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02978716, and is ongoing but closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7, 2017, and May 15, 2018, 142 patients were assessed for eligibility and 102 were randomly assigned to group 1 (n=34), group 2 (n=33), or group 3 (n=35). Of all patients, 38 (37%) had received one or two lines of previous chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Median follow-up was 8·4 months (IQR 3·8-13·6) for group 1, 12·7 months (5·5-17·4) for group 2, and 12·9 months (6·7-16·8) for group 3. Data cutoff for myelosuppression endpoints was July 30, 2018, and for antitumour activity endpoints was May 17, 2019. During cycle 1, mean duration of severe neutropenia was 0·8 day (SD 2·4) in group 1, 1·5 days (3·5) in group 2, and 1·0 day (2·6) in group 3 (group 3 vs group 1 one-sided adjusted p=0·70). Severe neutropenia occurred in nine (26%) of 34 patients in group 1, 12 (36%) of 33 patients in group 2, and eight (23%) of 35 patients in group 3 (p=0·70). Overall survival was 12·6 months (IQR 5·8-15·6) in group 1, 20·1 months (9·4-not reached) in group 2, and 17·8 months (8·8-not reached) in group 3 (group 3 vs group 1 two-sided p=0·0023). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (22 [73%] of 34), neutropenia (21 [70%]), and thrombocytopenia (18 [60%]) in group 1; neutropenia (27 [82%] of 33), thrombocytopenia (18 [55%]) and anaemia (17 [52%]) in group 2; and neutropenia (23 [66%] of 35), thrombocytopenia (22 [63%]), and nausea (17 [49%]) in group 3. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: No significant differences were observed in myelosuppression endpoints with trilaciclib plus gemcitabine and carboplatin in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer; however, the regimen was generally well tolerated and overall survival results were encouraging. Further studies of trilaciclib in this setting are warranted. FUNDING: G1 Therapeutics.

Balixafortide plus eribulin in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: a phase 1, single-arm, dose-escalation trial.

BACKGROUND: The C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4)-stromal cell-derived factor-1α (SDF-1α) axis regulates function and trafficking of immune cells and the tumour microenvironment. CXCR4 antagonists have been shown to enhance the activity of different anticancer treatments in preclinical models. We assessed the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary phase 1 activity of the CXCR4 antagonist, balixafortide, in combination with eribulin chemotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: This single-arm, dose-escalation, phase 1 trial enrolled patients at 11 sites in Spain and the USA. Eligible patients were women aged 18 years or older who had histologically confirmed HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, evidence of tumour cell CXCR4 expression, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had previously received between one and three chemotherapy regimens for metastatic breast cancer, and at least one endocrine therapy if they had hormone receptor-positive disease, unless they were considered unsuitable for endocrine therapy. A standard 3+3 dose-escalation design was used, followed by an expanded cohort at the established maximum tolerated dose or highest dose if no dose-limiting toxicity was observed for the combination. After a treatment-related fatal adverse event in the first cohort who received 21-day cycles of treatment with eribulin and balixafortide, a protocol amendment modified the study design to be done in two parts. Patients enrolled to part 1 received an initial 28-day run-in cycle, with some cohorts receiving de-escalated doses of eribulin plus balixafortide to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of the combination. The evaluation of part 1 did not confirm any dose-limiting toxicities or eribulin-balixafortide interactions, and therefore part 2 started enrolling patients to receive eribulin at the originally planned dose of 1·4 mg/m2 on days 2 and 9 of a 21-day cycle and balixafortide from a starting dose of 2 mg/kg with dose increments of 0·5 or 1 mg/kg on days 1-3 and 8-10 of the 21-day cycle. Both drugs were administered as intravenous infusions. All patients were to receive treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events, and the establishment of a maximum tolerated dose or recommended phase 2 dose, and pharmacokinetic parameters. Safety analysis was done in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Analysis of antitumour activity was done in all patients who received at least one full cycle of study treatment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01837095, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Jan 28, 2014, and Oct 4, 2016, 56 patients were enrolled into the trial. No dose-limiting toxicities were confirmed and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The highest dose was established as eribulin 1·4 mg/m2 on days 2 and 9, and balixafortide 5·5 mg/kg on days 1-3 and 8-10 of the 21-day cycle. Objective responses (all partial responses) were observed in 16 (30%; 95% CI 18-44) of 54 patients who were evaluable for antitumour activity. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were fatigue (44 [79%] of 56 patients), neutropenia (32 [57%]), infusion-related reactions (27 [48%]), alopecia (26 [46%]), constipation (26 [46%]), and nausea (25 [45%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 21 (38%) of 56 patients, including febrile neutropenia in five (9%) of 56 patients, neutrophil count decrease in two (4%) patients, constipation in two (4%) patients, pneumonia in two (4%) patients, and urinary tract infection in three (5%) patients. Two (4%) of 56 patients died while receiving study treatment; one from septic shock and one from pneumonia. INTERPRETATION: The safety and tolerability of balixafortide plus eribulin seems to be similar to that of eribulin or balixafortide monotherapy, and the preliminary activity of the combination seems promising in patients with HER-negative metastatic breast cancer. The results suggest that balixafortide plus eribulin has potential to provide a new therapeutic option in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer and warrants further investigation in randomised trials. FUNDING: Polyphor.

Comparative proteogenomic analysis of right-sided colon cancer, left-sided colon cancer and rectal cancer reveals distinct mutational profiles.

Right-sided colon cancer (RCC) has worse prognosis compared to left-sided colon cancer (LCC) and rectal cancer. The reason for this difference in outcomes is not well understood. We performed comparative somatic and proteomic analyses of RCC, LCC and rectal cancers to understand the unique molecular features of each tumor sub-types. Utilizing a novel in silico clonal evolution algorithm, we identified common tumor-initiating events involving APC, KRAS and TP53 genes in RCC, LCC and rectal cancers. However, the individual role-played by each event, their order in tumor development and selection of downstream somatic alterations were distinct in all three anatomical locations. Some similarities were noted between LCC and rectal cancer. Hotspot mutation analysis identified a nonsense mutation, APC R1450* specific to RCC. In addition, we discovered new significantly mutated genes at each tumor location, Further in silico proteomic analysis, developed by our group, found distinct central or hub proteins with unique interactomes among each location. Our study revealed significant differences between RCC, LCC and rectal cancers not only at somatic but also at proteomic level that may have therapeutic relevance in these highly complex and heterogeneous tumors.

First-line ribociclib plus letrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ , HER2- advanced breast cancer: Tumor response and pain reduction in the phase 3 MONALEESA-2 trial.

PURPOSE: The phase 3 MONALEESA-2 study demonstrated that addition of ribociclib (RIB) to letrozole (LET) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Here, we evaluated duration of response (DoR), tumor shrinkage, PFS by treatment-free interval (TFI), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: Postmenopausal women (N = 668) with HR+ , HER2- ABC and no prior systemic therapy for ABC were randomized to RIB (600 mg/day; 3 weeks on/1 week off) plus LET (2.5 mg/day; continuous) or placebo (PBO) plus LET. Primary end point was PFS; HRQoL was the secondary end point; DoR was exploratory end point and PFS by TFI was post hoc analysis. RESULTS: Of 501 pts with measurable disease and confirmed complete or partial response, median DoR was 26.7 months (95% CI, 24.0-NR) in the RIB arm versus 18.6 months (95% CI, 14.8-23.1) in the PBO arm. At 8 weeks, more pts in the RIB arm (32%) versus the PBO arm (17%) experienced best percentage change ≥ 60%. The average pain reduction was greater in the RIB arm (26%) versus the PBO arm (15%). PFS benefit was seen with RIB vs PBO, irrespective of TFI. CONCLUSION: RIB plus LET versus PBO plus LET is associated with earlier and more durable tumor response, greater degree of tumor shrinkage and pain reduction, and PFS benefit irrespective of TFI. These data further support RIB plus LET as a first-line treatment option for postmenopausal women with HR+ , HER2- ABC.

Prevention of everolimus-related stomatitis in women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer using dexamethasone mouthwash (SWISH): a single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Stomatitis is a class effect associated with the inhibition of mTOR and is associated with everolimus therapy for breast cancer. Topical steroids might reduce stomatitis incidence and severity, and the need for dose reductions and interruptions of everolimus. Anecdotal use of topical steroid oral prophylaxis has been reported in patients with breast cancer. We aimed to assess dexamethasone-based mouthwash for prevention of stomatitis in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: This US-based, multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 prevention study enrolled women aged 18 years and older with postmenopausal status who had histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. Beginning on day 1 of cycle 1, patients received everolimus 10 mg plus exemestane 25 mg daily, with 10 mL of alcohol-free dexamethasone 0·5 mg per 5 mL oral solution (swish for 2 min and spit, four times daily for 8 weeks). After 8 weeks, dexamethasone mouthwash could be continued for up to eight additional weeks at the discretion of the clinician and patient. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade 2 or worse stomatitis by 8 weeks assessed in the full analysis set (patients who received at least one dose of everolimus and exemestane and at least one confirmed dose of dexamethasone mouthwash) versus historical controls from the BOLERO-2 trial (everolimus and exemestane treatment in patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer who were not given dexamethasone mouthwash for prevention of stomatitis). This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02069093. FINDINGS: Between May 28, 2014, and Oct 8, 2015, we enrolled 92 women; 85 were evaluable for efficacy. By 8 weeks, the incidence of grade 2 or worse stomatitis was two (2%) of 85 patients (95% CI 0·29-8·24), versus 159 (33%) of 482 patients (95% CI 28·8-37·4) for the duration of the BOLERO-2 study. Overall, 83 (90%) of 92 patients had at least one adverse event. The most frequently reported grade 3 and 4 adverse events in the safety set were hyperglycaemia (seven [8%] of 92 patients), rash (four [4%]), and dyspnoea (three [3%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 20 (22%) patients; six (7%) were deemed treatment related, with dyspnoea (three [3%]) and pneumonia (two [2%]) reported most frequently. 12 (13%) of 92 patients had adverse events suspected to be related to treatment that led to discontinuation of everolimus and exemestane (the most common were rash, hyperglycaemia, and stomatitis, which each affected two [2%] patients). INTERPRETATION: Prophylactic use of dexamethasone oral solution substantially reduced the incidence and severity of stomatitis in patients receiving everolimus and exemestane and could be a new standard of oral care for patients receiving everolimus and exemestane therapy. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

A Phase I/II Study of GSK525762 Combined with Fulvestrant in Patients with Hormone Receptor-positive/HER2-negative Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Endocrine-based therapy is the initial primary treatment option for hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). However, patients eventually experience disease progression due to resistance to endocrine therapy. Molibresib (GSK525762) is a small-molecule inhibitor of bromodomain and extraterminal (BET) family proteins (BRD2, BRD3, BRD4, and BRDT). Preclinical data suggested that the combination of molibresib with endocrine therapy might overcome endocrine resistance. This study aimed to investigate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy [objective response rate (ORR)] of molibresib combined with fulvestrant in women with HR+/HER2- mBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase I/II dose-escalation and dose-expansion study, patients received oral molibresib 60 or 80 mg once daily in combination with intramuscular fulvestrant. Patients enrolled had relapsed/refractory, advanced/metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer with disease progression on prior treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor. RESULTS: The study included 123 patients. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AE) were nausea (52%), dysgeusia (49%), and fatigue (45%). At a 60-mg dosage of molibresib, >90% of patients experienced treatment-related AE. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related AE were observed in 47% and 48% of patients treated with molibresib 60 mg and molibresib 80 mg, respectively. The ORR was 13% [95% confidence interval (CI), 8-20], not meeting the 25% threshold for proceeding to phase II. Among 82 patients with detected circulating tumor DNA and clinical outcome at study enrollment, a strong association was observed between the detection of copy-number amplification and poor progression-free survival (HR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.73-4.83; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Molibresib in combination with fulvestrant did not demonstrate clinically meaningful activity in this study.

Managing hyperglycemia and rash associated with alpelisib: expert consensus recommendations using the Delphi technique.

Hyperglycemia and rash are expected but challenging adverse events of phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase inhibition (such as with alpelisib). Two modified Delphi panels were conducted to provide consensus recommendations for managing hyperglycemia and rash in patients taking alpelisib. Experts rated the appropriateness of interventions on a 1-to-9 scale; median scores and dispersion were used to classify the levels of agreement. Per the hyperglycemia panel, it is appropriate to start alpelisib in patients with HbA1c 6.5% (diabetes) to <8%, or at highest risk for developing hyperglycemia, if they have a pre-treatment endocrinology consult. Recommend prophylactic metformin in patients with baseline HbA1c 5.7% to 6.4%. Metformin is the preferred first-line anti-hyperglycemic agent. Per the rash panel, initiate prophylactic nonsedating H1 antihistamines in patients starting alpelisib. Nonsedating H1 antihistamines and topical steroids are the preferred initial management for rash. In addition to clinical trial evidence, these recommendations will help address gaps encountered in clinical practice.

A phase I trial of the IGF-1R antibody Cixutumumab in combination with temsirolimus in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) plays a critical role in promoting tumor cell growth and is frequently activated in breast cancer. In preclinical studies, the antitumor activity of mTOR inhibitors is attenuated by feedback up-regulation of AKT mediated in part by Insulin-like growth factor type 1 receptor (IGF-1R). We designed a phase I trial to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacodynamic effects of the IGF-1R antibody Cixutumumab in combination with temsirolimus in patients with metastatic breast cancer refractory to standard therapies. A 3 + 3 Phase I design was chosen. Temsirolimus and Cixutumumab were administered intravenously on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 4-week cycle. Of the 26 patients enrolled, four did not complete cycle 1 because of disease progression (n = 3) or comorbid condition (n = 1) and were replaced. The MTD was determined from the remaining 22 patients, aged 34-72 (median 48) years. Most patients (86 %) had estrogen receptor positive cancer. The median number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease was 3. The MTD was determined to be Cixutumumab 4 mg/kg and temsirolimus 15 mg weekly. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) included mucositis, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. Other adverse events included grade 1/2 fatigue, anemia, and hyperglycemia. No objective responses were observed, but four patients experienced stable disease that lasted for at least 4 months. Compared with baseline, there was a significant increase in the serum levels of IGF-1 (p < 0.001) and IGFBP-3 (p = 0.019) on day 2. Compared with day 2, there were significant increases in the serum levels of IGF-1 (p < 0.001), IGF-2 (p = 0.001), and IGFBP-3 (p = 0.019) on day 8. A phase II study in women with metastatic breast cancer is ongoing.

A phase II study of UCN-01 in combination with irinotecan in patients with metastatic triple negative breast cancer.

Mutations in TP53 lead to a defective G1 checkpoint and the dependence on checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1) for G2 or S phase arrest in response to DNA damage. In preclinical studies, Chk1 inhibition resulted in enhanced cytotoxicity of several chemotherapeutic agents. The high frequency of TP53 mutations in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC: negative for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2) make Chk1 an attractive therapeutic target. UCN-01, a non-selective Chk1 inhibitor, combined with irinotecan demonstrated activity in advanced TNBC in our Phase I study. The goal of this trial was to further evaluate this treatment in women with TNBC. Patients with metastatic TNBC previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes received irinotecan (100-125 mg/m(2) IV days 1, 8, 15, 22) and UCN-01 (70 mg/m(2) IV day 2, 35 mg/m(2) day 23 and subsequent doses) every 42-day cycle. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and tumor specimens were collected. Twenty five patients were enrolled. The overall response (complete response (CR) + partial response (PR)) rate was 4 %. The clinical benefit rate (CR + PR + stable disease ≥6 months) was 12 %. Since UCN-01 inhibits PDK1, phosphorylated ribosomal protein S6 (pS6) in PBMC was assessed. Although reduced 24 h post UCN-01, pS6 levels rose to baseline by day 8, indicating loss of UCN-01 bioavailability. Immunostains of γH2AX and pChk1(S296) on serial tumor biopsies from four patients demonstrated an induction of DNA damage and Chk1 activation following irinotecan. However, Chk1 inhibition by UCN-01 was not observed in all tumors. Most tumors were basal-like (69 %), and carried mutations in TP53 (53 %). Median overall survival in patients with TP53 mutant tumors was poor compared to wild type (5.5 vs. 20.3 months, p = 0.004). This regimen had limited activity in TNBC. Inconsistent Chk1 inhibition was likely due to the pharmacokinetics of UCN-01. TP53 mutations were associated with a poor prognosis in metastatic TNBC.

Germline BRCA-Mutated HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Overcoming Challenges in Genetic Testing and Clinical Considerations When Using Talazoparib.

Genetic testing is essential to the diagnosis and management of patients with breast cancer. For example, women who carry mutations in BRCA1/2 genes have an increased lifetime risk of breast cancer and the presence of these mutations may sensitize the patient to treatment with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Two PARP inhibitors are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with germline BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer (olaparib and talazoparib). The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Breast Cancer (Version 2.2023) recommend that all patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (mBC) be assessed for the presence of germline BRCA1/2 mutations. However, many women eligible for genetic testing do not receive it. Here, we provide our perspectives on both the importance of genetic testing and the challenges patients and community clinicians may face when trying to access genetic testing. We also present a hypothetical case study involving a female patient with germline BRCA-mutated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative mBC to highlight potential clinical considerations on the use of talazoparib, including the decision to initiate therapy, dosing considerations, potential drug-drug interactions, and managing side effects. This case illustrates the benefits of a multidisciplinary approach to managing patients with mBC and involving the patient in the decision-making process. This patient case is fictional and does not represent events or a response from an actual patient; this fictional case is for educational purposes only.

Margetuximab Versus Trastuzumab in Patients With Previously Treated HER2-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer (SOPHIA): Final Overall Survival Results From a Randomized Phase 3 Trial.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Final overall survival (OS) in SOPHIA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02492711), a study of margetuximab versus trastuzumab, both with chemotherapy, in patients with previously treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced breast cancer, is reported with updated safety. Overall, 536 patients in the intention-to-treat population were randomly assigned to margetuximab (15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks; n = 266) plus chemotherapy or trastuzumab (6 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks after a loading dose of 8 mg/kg; n = 270) plus chemotherapy. Primary end points were progression-free survival, previously reported, and OS. Final OS analysis was triggered by 385 prespecified events. The median OS was 21.6 months (95% CI, 18.89 to 25.07) with margetuximab versus 21.9 months (95% CI, 18.69 to 24.18) with trastuzumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.17; P = .620). Preplanned, exploratory analysis of CD16A genotyping suggested a possible improvement in OS for margetuximab in CD16A-158FF patients versus trastuzumab (median OS, 23.6 v 19.2 months; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.00) and a possible improvement in OS for trastuzumab in CD16A-158VV patients versus margetuximab (median OS, 31.1 v 22.0 months; HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.01 to 3.12). Margetuximab safety was comparable with trastuzumab. Final overall OS analysis did not demonstrate margetuximab advantage over trastuzumab. Margetuximab studies in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer with different CD16A allelic variants are warranted.

Phase II trial of temsirolimus in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Preclinical models suggested that activating mutations of the PIK3CA gene are associated with sensitivity to inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). In breast cancers, PIK3CA mutations are associated with estrogen receptor (ER) positivity. We therefore performed an open-label single arm phase II study of the rapamycin analog, temsirolimus, at a dose of 25 mg weekly, in women with pretreated breast cancers that were positive for ER, PR, or HER2. Archived formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tumor was collected for immunohistochemical evaluation of components of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway and PIK3CA mutation analysis. Thirty-one patients were enrolled. There were no major objective responses; however, three patients had stable disease for over 24 weeks. Twenty-three tumor samples were available for mutational analysis. There were five tumors with PIK3CA mutations; no association was found between prolonged stable disease and PIK3CA mutation or any immunohistochemical marker. There was a trend toward improved progression free survival (PFS) for patients with positive nuclear staining for phospho-Akt308. One patient remains on study four and a half years after starting therapy; her tumor did not have a PIK3CA mutation. We conclude that single agent temsirolimus has minimal activity in a population of women with heavily pretreated breast cancer. We found no evidence that either absence of immunohistochemical staining for PTEN or mutations in the hotspot domains of PIK3CA in the primary tumor were associated with clinical benefit.

Metastatic invasive breast cancer recurrence following curative-intent therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: The development of an invasive breast cancer recurrence outside of the breast parenchyma following curative-intent therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is rare. We describe the patient and tumor characteristics associated with such recurrences. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of 621 patients who were treated for DCIS between 2004 and 2009. Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were collected. Descriptive statistics were utilized for data summary and data were compared using χ(2), where appropriate. RESULTS: Of 621 patients who underwent curative-intent therapy for DCIS, 12 (1.9%) developed an invasive metastatic recurrence. Primary local therapy at the time of the initial DCIS diagnosis included 11 patients who underwent mastectomy and one who had lumpectomy and adjuvant radiotherapy. The metastatic recurrences were in chest wall and/or ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes only (n = 6) or distant sites with or without ipsilateral axillary or supraclavicular lymph nodes (n = 6). Of the 12 patients with invasive recurrence, eight had high grade DCIS with comedo necrosis at initial diagnosis. The biomarker profiles of the invasive recurrences included 55% estrogen receptor positivity, 45% progesterone receptor positivity, and 73% Her2/neu amplification. Patient age, tumor grade, presence of comedo necrosis, biomarker profile, and surgical treatment were not predictive of recurrence. CONCLUSION: Invasive metastatic recurrence following adequate local therapy for DCIS is uncommon and likely represents progression of unidentified invasive disease at the time of diagnosis. The majority of invasive recurrences were Her2/neu amplified. Further studies are necessary to determine if such a unique biomarker profile correlates with metastatic recurrence.

Hereditary Thrombophilia Testing Among Hospitalized Patients: Is It Warranted?

Background Hereditary thrombophilias (HTs) are a group of inherited disorders that predispose the carrier to venous thromboembolism (VTE). It is estimated that 7% of the population has some form of HT. Although testing for HT has become routine for many hospitalized patients, knowing when to order the tests and how to interpret the results remains challenging. In the United States, there are no clear guidelines regarding testing for HT. We conducted a study to evaluate the utilization of HT testing among hospitalized patients to examine its impact on immediate management decisions and overall cost burden. In addition, we discuss the common reasons for healthcare providers to order these tests and review the data behind these reasons in the literature. Methodology A retrospective analysis of 2,402 patients who underwent HT testing between February 1, 2016, and January 31, 2018, was conducted. Eligible patients had at least one HT test ordered during hospitalization. The primary outcome was to determine the incidence of positive actionable tests. A positive actionable test was defined as a positive result that changed the anticoagulation intensity, type, or duration. Patients with a history of previous VTE, ongoing medical conditions requiring life-long anticoagulation, or unprovoked VTE were considered non-actionable. Results Among the 2,402 patients, 954 patients met the inclusion criteria with a mean age of 54 years. A total of 397 (41.6%) tests were ordered for acute VTE, while the rest were for non-VTE conditions, such as stroke, pregnancy complications, peripheral artery diseases, and others. Only 89 positive tests were actionable (14% of the positive tests, and 9.3% of the total ordered tests). There was a statistically significant association between increasing age and having both a positive test result (p = 0.006) and an actionable test (p = 0.046). The total cost of ordering these tests was estimated to be $566,585. Conclusions HT testing in the inpatient setting did not alter management in many cases and was associated with increased healthcare costs. The decision to order these tests should be individualized based on the clinical scenario.

Trilaciclib Prior to Chemotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Final Efficacy and Subgroup Analysis from a Randomized Phase II Study.

PURPOSE: We report final antitumor efficacy results from a phase II study of trilaciclib, an intravenous cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor, administered prior to gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GCb) in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (NCT02978716). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to group 1 [GCb (days 1, 8); n = 34], group 2 [trilaciclib prior to GCb (days 1, 8); n = 33], or group 3 [trilaciclib (days 1, 8) and trilaciclib prior to GCb (days 2, 9); n = 35]. Subgroup analyses were performed according to CDK4/6 dependence, level of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, and RNA-based immune signatures using proportional hazards regression. T-cell receptor (TCR) ß CDR3 regions were amplified and sequenced to identify, quantify, and compare the abundance of each unique TCRß CDR3 at baseline and on treatment. RESULTS: Median overall survival (OS) was 12.6 months in group 1, not reached in group 2 (HR = 0.31; P = 0.0016), 17.8 months in group 3 (HR = 0.40; P = 0.0004), and 19.8 months in groups 2 and 3 combined (HR = 0.37; P < 0.0001). Efficacy outcomes were comparable regardless of cancer CDK4/6 dependence status and immune signatures. Administering trilaciclib prior to GCb prolonged OS irrespective of PD-L1 status but had greater benefit in the PD-L1-positive population. T-cell activation was enhanced in patients receiving trilaciclib. CONCLUSIONS: Administering trilaciclib prior to GCb enhanced antitumor efficacy, with significant improvements in OS. Efficacy outcomes in immunologic subgroups and enhancements in T-cell activation suggest these improvements may be mediated via immunologic mechanisms.

The Phase II MutHER Study of Neratinib Alone and in Combination with Fulvestrant in HER2-Mutated, Non-amplified Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: HER2 mutations (HER2mut) induce endocrine resistance in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this single-arm multi-cohort phase II trial, we evaluated the efficacy of neratinib plus fulvestrant in patients with ER+/HER2mut, HER2 non-amplified metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in the fulvestrant-treated (n = 24) or fulvestrant-naïve cohort (n = 11). Patients with ER-negative (ER-)/HER2mut MBC received neratinib monotherapy in an exploratory ER- cohort (n = 5). RESULTS: The clinical benefit rate [CBR (95% confidence interval)] was 38% (18%-62%), 30% (7%-65%), and 25% (1%-81%) in the fulvestrant-treated, fulvestrant-naïve, and ER- cohorts, respectively. Adding trastuzumab at progression in 5 patients resulted in three partial responses and one stable disease ≥24 weeks. CBR appeared positively associated with lobular histology and negatively associated with HER2 L755 alterations. Acquired HER2mut were detected in 5 of 23 patients at progression. CONCLUSIONS: Neratinib and fulvestrant are active for ER+/HER2mut MBC. Our data support further evaluation of dual HER2 blockade for the treatment of HER2mut MBC.

Effect of zoledronic acid on disseminated tumour cells in women with locally advanced breast cancer: an open label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with bisphosphonates decreases bone loss and can increase disease-free survival in patients with breast cancer. The aim of our study was to assess the effect of zoledronic acid on clearance of disseminated tumour cells (DTCs) from the bone marrow in women undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. METHODS: Patients were recruited for this open-label, phase 2 randomised trial between March 17, 2003, and May 19, 2006, at a single centre. Eligible patients had clinical stage II-III (> or = T2 and/or > or = N1) newly diagnosed breast cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and normal cardiac, renal, and liver function. 120 women were randomly assigned, using allocation concealment, to receive 4 mg zoledronic acid intravenously every 3 weeks (n=60), or no zoledronic acid (n=60), for 1 year concomitant with four cycles of neoadjuvant epirubicin (75 mg/m(2)) plus docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) and two cycles of adjuvant epirubicin plus docetaxel. The primary endpoint was the number of patients with detectable DTCs at 3 months. Final analysis was done 1 year after the last patient was enrolled. Analyses were done for all patients with available data at 3 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00242203. FINDINGS: Of the 120 patients initially enrolled, one withdrew after signing consent and one patient's baseline bone marrow was not available. Both of these patients were in the control group. At 3 months, 109 bone-marrow samples were available for analysis. In the zoledronic acid group, bone marrow was not collected from one patient because of disease progression, one patient was taken off study because of severe diarrhoea, and two patients had not consented at the time of surgery. In the control group, bone marrow was not collected from two patients because of disease progression, one patient withdrew consent, and three patients were not consented at the time of surgery. At baseline, DTCs were detected in 26 of 60 patients in the zoledronic acid group and 28 of 58 patients in the control group. At 3 months, 17 of 56 patients receiving zoledronic acid versus 25 of 53 patients who did not receive zoledronic acid had detectable DTCs (p=0.054). The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were infection (five of 60 patients in the zoledronic acid group and six of 59 in the control group) and thrombosis (five of 60 in the zoledronic acid and two of 59 in the control group). There was one documented case of osteonecrosis in the zoledronic acid group. INTERPRETATION: Zoledronic acid administered with chemotherapy resulted in a decreased proportion of patients with DTCs detected in the bone marrow at the time of surgery. Our study supports the hypothesis that the antimetastatic effects of zoledronic acid may be through effects on DTCs. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer Inc.