Activity and safety of enobosarm, a novel, oral, selective androgen receptor modulator, in androgen receptor-positive, oestrogen receptor-positive, and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (Study G200802): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, multinational, parallel design, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The androgen receptor is a tumour suppressor in oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. The activity and safety of enobosarm, an oral selective androgen receptor modulator, was evaluated in women with oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative, and androgen receptor (AR)-positive disease. METHODS: Women who were postmenopausal (aged ≥18 years) with previously treated ER-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled in a randomised, open-label, multicentre, multinational, parallel design, phase 2 trial done at 35 cancer treatment centres in nine countries. Participants were stratified on the setting of immediately preceding endocrine therapy and the presence of bone-only metastasis and randomly assigned (1:1) to 9 mg or 18 mg oral enobosarm daily using an interactive web response system. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate at 24 weeks in those with centrally confirmed AR-positive disease (ie, the evaluable population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02463032). FINDINGS: Between Sept 10, 2015, and Nov 28, 2017, 136 (79%) of 172 patients deemed eligible were randomly assigned to 9 mg (n=72) or 18 mg (n=64) oral enobosarm daily. Of these 136 patients, 102 (75%) patients formed the evaluable population (9 mg, n=50; 18 mg, n=52). The median age was 60·5 years (IQR 52·3-69·3) in the 9 mg group and 62·5 years (54·0-69·3) in the 18 mg group. The median follow-up was 7·5 months (IQR 2·9-14·1). At 24 weeks, 16 (32%, 95% CI 20-47) of 50 in the 9 mg group and 15 (29%, 17-43) of 52 in the 18 mg group had clinical benefit. Six (8%) of 75 patients who received 9 mg and ten (16%) of 61 patients who received 18 mg had grade 3 or grade 4 drug-related adverse events, most frequently increased hepatic transaminases (three [4%] of 75 in the 9 mg group and two [3%] of 61 in the 18 mg group), hypercalcaemia (two [3%] and two [3%]), and fatigue (one [1%] and two [3%]). Four deaths (one in the 9 mg group and three in the 18 mg group) were deemed unrelated to the study drug. INTERPRETATION: Enobosarm has anti-tumour activity in patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, showing that AR activation can result in clinical benefit, supporting further clinical investigation of selective AR activation strategies for the treatment of AR-positive, ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. FUNDING: GTx.

Duration of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) as a Predictor of Recurrent CINV in Later Cycles.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between CINV duration and recurrence in subsequent cycles is largely unstudied. Our objective was to determine if patients experiencing CINV in their first cycle of chemotherapy (C1) would face increased risk of CINV in later cycles and whether the duration of the CINV would predict increased risk of recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using data from a previously reported phase III trial, we assessed patients' recurrence of breakthrough CINV after antiemetic prophylaxis for anthracycline+cyclophosphamide (AC) for breast cancer, comparing C1 short CINV vs. extended CINV as a secondary analysis. Complete response (CR) and CINV duration were primary and secondary endpoints, respectively. CR was considered prophylaxis success; lack of CR was considered treatment failure (TF). RESULTS: Among 402 female patients, 99 (24.6%) had TF in C1 (TF1). The remaining 303 patients (CR1) had ≥93% CR rates in each subsequent cycle, while the 99 patients with TF1 had TF rates of 49.8% for cycles 2-4 (P < .001). The 51 patients with extended TF (≥3 days) in C1 had recurrent TF in 73/105 later cycles (69.5%, P < .001), while the 48 patients with short TF (1-2 days) in C1 had recurrent TF in 33/108 later cycles (30.6%). The relative risk of recurrence after C1 extended TF was 2.28 (CI 1.67-3.11; P < .001) compared to short TF. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis success in C1 led to >90% repeat success across cycles of AC-based chemotherapy. For patients with breakthrough CINV, extended duration strongly predicted recurrent CINV. The duration of CINV should be closely monitored, and augmenting antiemetic prophylaxis considered for future cycles when extended CINV occurs.

Improving biomarker testing in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and metastatic colorectal cancer: experience from a large community oncology network in the USA.

Aim: Biomarker testing detects actionable driver mutations to inform first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This study evaluated biomarker testing in a nationwide database (NAT) versus the OneOncology (OneOnc) community network. Patients & methods: Patients with aNSCLC or mCRC with ≥1 biomarker test in a de-identified electronic health record-derived database were evaluated. OneOnc oncologists were surveyed. Results: Biomarker testing rates were high and comparable between OneOnc and NAT; next-generation sequencing (NGS) rates were higher at OneOnc. Patients with NGS versus other biomarker testing were more likely to receive targeted treatment. Operational challenges and insufficient tissue were barriers to NGS testing. Conclusion: Community cancer centers delivered personalized healthcare through biomarker testing.

What is this article about? Cancer therapies often work better in certain subgroups of patients. Tumors may have characteristics that can predict which therapies may be more likely to work. These cancer biomarkers may be identified by special testing, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS). If a biomarker is detected, the patient can potentially be treated with medicine that targets that biomarker. This study looked at biomarker testing of lung and colon cancers in two community cancer practices (OneOncology [OneOnc] and nationwide database [NAT]). What were the results? The biomarker testing rates were high (≥81%) and similar between OneOnc and NAT. NGS testing rates were higher at OneOnc than at NAT (58 vs 49% for non-small-cell lung cancer, 55 vs 42% for metastatic colorectal cancer [mCRC]), suggesting the success of OneOnc's networkwide educational, pathway and operational programs. NGS testing was lower in community practices due to operational challenges and insufficient tissue collection. Patients who had NGS versus other biomarker testing were more likely to receive treatment specifically for that biomarker. However, some patients started treatment before their biomarker results were reported, usually because of their disease and a long wait time for biomarker test results. What do the results of the study mean? Community cancer centers can treat patients with targeted medicine based on biomarker testing results. There are opportunities to increase the number of patients getting NGS testing, shorten turnaround times and reduce the number of patients who start treatment before getting their biomarker test results.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: controlling nausea and vomiting with chemotherapy of low or minimal emetic potential.

PURPOSE: Review the literature to update the MASCC guidelines from 2016 for controlling nausea and vomiting with systemic cancer treatment of low and minimal emetic potential. METHODS: A working group performed a systematic literature review using Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases between June 2015 and January 2023 of the management of antiemetic prophylaxis for anticancer therapy of low or minimal emetic potential. A consensus committee reviewed recommendations and required a consensus of 67% or greater and a change in outcome of at least 10%. RESULTS: Of 293 papers identified, 15 had information about managing systemic cancer treatment regimens of low or minimal emetic potential and/or compliance with previous management recommendations. No new evidence was reported that would change the current MASCC recommendations. No antiemetic prophylaxis is recommended for minimal emetic potential therapy, and single agents recommended for low emetic potential chemotherapy for acute emesis, but no prophylaxis is recommended for delayed emesis. Commonly, rescue medication includes antiemetics prescribed for the next higher level of emesis. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient data to change the current guidelines. Future studies should seek to more accurately determine the risk of emesis with LEC beyond the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy to include patient-related risk assessment.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO Consensus recommendations: Prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetic risk antineoplastic agents.

PURPOSE: Review the literature to update the MASCC guidelines from 2015 for controlling nausea and vomiting with systemic cancer treatment of moderate emetic potential. METHODS: A systematic literature review was completed using Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases. The literature search was done from June 2015 to January 2023 of the management of antiemetic prophylaxis for anticancer therapy of moderate emetic potential. RESULTS: Of 342 papers identified, 19 were relevant to update recommendations about managing antiemetic prophylaxis for systemic cancer treatment regimens of moderate emetic potential. Important practice changing updates include the use of emetic prophylaxis based on a triple combination of neurokinin (NK)1 receptor antagonist, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and steroids for patients undergoing carboplatin (AUC ≥ 5) and women < 50 years of age receiving oxaliplatin-based treatment. A double combination of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and steroids remains the recommended prophylaxis for other MEC. Based on the data in the literature, it is recommended that the administration of steroids should be limited to day 1 in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, due to the demonstration of non-inferiority between the different regimens. More data is needed on the emetogenicity of new agents at moderate emetogenic risk. Of particular interest would be antiemetic studies with the agents sacituzumab-govitecan and trastuzumab-deruxtecan. Experience to date with these agents indicate an emetogenic potential comparable to carboplatin > AUC 5. Future studies should systematically include patient-related risk assessment in order to define the risk of emesis with MEC beyond the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy and improve the guidelines for new drugs. CONCLUSION: This antiemetic MASCC-ESMO guideline update includes new recommendations considering individual risk factors and the optimization of supportive anti-emetic treatments.

Work loss and activity impairment due to extended nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer receiving CINV prophylaxis.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)'s impact on work loss remains poorly described. We evaluated associations between the duration of CINV episodes, CINV-related work loss (CINV-WL), and CINV-related activity impairment (CINV-AI) in patients with breast cancer receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. METHODS: We analyzed data from a prospective CINV prophylaxis trial of netupitant/palonestron and dexamethasone for patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) for breast cancer (NCT0340371). Over the observed CINV duration (0-5 days), we analyzed patient-reported CINV-WL and CINV-AI for the first two chemotherapy cycles. We categorized patients as having either extended (≥ 3 days) or short (1-2 days) CINV duration and quantified its impact on work using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI). RESULTS: Overall, we captured data for 792 cycles in 402 women, including 136 (33.8%) employed patients with 35.3% reporting CINV. Of those with CINV, patients reported CINV-WL in 26 cycles and CINV-AI in 142 cycles. Of those with CINV, 55.3% of extended CINV cycles experienced CINV-WL compared to 16.7% of short CINV cycles (p < 0.001). The relative risk of CINV-WL between extended and short CINV was 3.32 (p < 0.01) for employed patients. The mean difference in CINV-AI scores (higher = worse) between extended and short duration CINV was 5.0 vs. 3.0 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Extended (≥ 3 days) CINV was associated with more than triple the risk of CINV-WL and higher CINV-AI compared with short CINV.

Ovarian Function Suppression: A Deeper Consideration of the Role in Early Breast Cancer and its Potential Impact on Patient Outcomes: A Consensus Statement from an International Expert Panel.

It has been suggested that the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) early breast cancer may be related, at least in part, to CT-induced ovarian function suppression (OFS) in this subgroup of patients. Although this hypothesis has not been directly tested in large randomized clinical trials, the observations from prospective studies have been remarkably consistent in showing a late benefit of CT among the subgroup of patients who benefit (ie, women who were close to menopause). The hypothesis has important clinical implications, as it may be possible to spare the associated adverse effects of adjuvant CT in a select group of women with early breast cancer, in favor of optimizing OFS and endocrine therapy (ET), without compromising clinical outcomes. Such an approach has the added benefit of preserving the key quality of life outcomes in premenopausal women, particularly by preventing the irreversible loss of ovarian function that may result from CT use. For this reason, we convened an international panel of clinical experts in breast cancer treatment to discuss the key aspects of the available data in this area, as well as the potential clinical implications for patients. This article summarizes the results of these discussions and presents the consensus opinion of the panel regarding optimizing the use of OFS for premenopausal women with HR+, HER2- early breast cancer.

Molecular characterization of ESR1 variants in breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) mutations and fusions typically arise in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer after aromatase inhibitor therapy, whereby ESR1 is constitutively activated in a ligand-independent manner. These variants can impact treatment response. Herein, we characterize ESR1 variants among molecularly profiled advanced breast cancers. METHODS: DNA next-generation sequencing (592-gene panel) data from 9860 breast cancer samples were retrospectively reviewed. Gene fusions were detected using the ArcherDx fusion assay or whole transcriptome sequencing (n = 344 and n = 4305, respectively). Statistical analyses included Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: An ESR1 ligand-binding domain (LBD) mutation was detected in 8.6% of tumors evaluated and a pathogenic ESR1 fusion was detected in 1.6%. Most ESR1 LBD mutations/fusions were from estrogen receptor (ER)-positive samples (20.1% and 4.9%, respectively). The most common ESR1 LBD mutations included D538G (3.3%), Y537S (2.3%), and E380Q (1.1%) mutations. Among biopsy sites, ESR1 LBD mutations were most observed in liver metastases. Pathogenic ESR1 fusions were identified in 76 samples (1.6%) with 40 unique fusion partners. Evaluating co-alterations, ESR1 variant (mutation/fusion) samples more frequently expressed androgen receptor (78.0% vs 58.6, P < 0.0001) and less frequently immune checkpoint proteins than ESR1 wild-type (PD-1 20.0% vs 53.4, P < 0.05; immune cell PD-L1 10.0% vs 30.2, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: We have described one of the largest series of ESR1 fusions reported. ESR1 LBD mutations were commonly identified in ER-positive disease. Limited data exists regarding the clinical impact of ESR1 fusions, which could be an area for future therapeutic exploration.

An examination of health care utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic among women with early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Women undergoing treatment for breast cancer require frequent clinic visits for maintenance of therapy. With COVID-19 causing health care disruptions, it is important to learn about how this population's access to health care has changed. This study compares self-reported health care utilization and changes in factors related to health care access among women treated at a cancer center in the mid-South US before and during the pandemic. METHODS: Participants (N = 306) part of a longitudinal study to improve adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) adherence completed pre-intervention baseline surveys about their health care utilization prior to AET initiation. Questions about the impact of COVID-19 were added after the pandemic started assessing financial loss and factors related to care. Participants were categorized into three time periods based on the survey completion date: (1) pre-COVID (December 2018 to March 2020), (2) early COVID (April 2020 - December 2020), and later COVID (January 2021 to June 2021). Negative binomial regression analyses used to compare health care utilization at different phases of the pandemic controlling for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Adjusted analyses indicated office visits declined from pre-COVID, with an adjusted average of 17.7 visits, to 12.1 visits during the early COVID period (p = 0.01) and 9.9 visits during the later COVID period (p < 0.01). Hospitalizations declined from an adjusted average 0.45 admissions during early COVID to 0.21 during later COVID, after vaccines became available (p = 0.05). Among COVID period participants, the proportion reporting changes/gaps in health insurance coverage increased from 9.5% participants during early-COVID to 14.8% in the later-COVID period (p = 0.05). The proportion reporting financial loss due to the pandemic was similar during both COVID periods (34.3% early- and 37.7% later-COVID, p = 0.72). The proportion of participants reporting delaying care or refilling prescriptions decreased from 15.2% in early-COVID to 4.9% in the later-COVID period (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 caused disruptions to routine health care for women with breast cancer. Patients reported having fewer office visits at the start of the pandemic that continued to decrease even after vaccines were available. Fewer patients reported delaying in-person care as the pandemic progressed.

Avoidable Acute Care Use Associated with Nausea and Vomiting Among Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy or Oxaliplatin.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) contributes to avoidable acute care, a metric now tracked in Medicare's oncology outcome measure. CINV is preventable, yet guidelines are often not followed. We sought to quantify acute care involving CINV and other avoidable toxicities after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to identify excess risk and assess clinician adherence to antiemesis guidelines for HEC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated U.S. electronic health records (2012-2018) using Medicare's OP-35 outcome measure to identify avoidable acute care involving any of 10 toxicities, including CINV, after HEC regimens relative to non-HEC. Antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as use ofneurokinin-1 (NKl) receptor antagonists Q5 (RAs) plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA+ dexamethasone at HEC initiation. RESULTS: Among 17,609 patients receiving HEC, acute care rates associated with HEC chemotherapy included 32% cisplatin, 31% carboplatin, and 21% anthracycline/cyclosphospharnide (AC), with 76% meeting the criteria as avoidable events. Oxaliplatin rates were 29%. Avoidable acute care occurred 1.83 times (95% confidence interval, 1.76-1.91, p < .0001) as often after HEC versus non-HEC excluding oxaliplatin; CINV-related acute care occurred 2.29 times as often. Nonadherence to antiemesis guidelines occurred in 34% and 24% of cisplatin and AC courses, respectively, because of omission of a NKl RA. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with HEC regimens experienced high avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. Nonadherence to guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis highlights the need to ensure adherence to antiemetic guidelines, including the use of NKl RA in HEC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: After survival, perhaps the most important goal in oncology is limiting avoidable acute care, a goal now used by Medicare to impact cancer reimbursement. This study found that patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimens had high rates of avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. A substantial proportion of the avoidable acute care involved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results showed that incomplete adherence to national antiemetic guidelines for HEC regimens primarily driven by omission of upfront neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist use, suggesting that improved adherence can meaningfully resolve this gap in quality and cost of care.

Real-world effectiveness outcomes in patients diagnosed with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

Aim: This study examined treatment patterns and effectiveness outcomes of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) from US community oncology centers. Materials & methods: Eligible patients were females, aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with mTNBC between 1 January 2010 and 31 January 2016. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods were used. Results: Sample comprised 608 patients with average age of 57.5 years and 505/608 patients (83.1%) received systemic treatment. Overall survival (OS) from first-line treatment found that African-American patients had shorter OS than White (9.3 vs 13.7 months; hazard ratio: 1.35; p = 0.006). Conclusion: More than 15% of women with mTNBC were not treated, indicating a high unmet need. Overall prognosis remains poor, which highlights the opportunity for newer therapies to improve progression-free survival and OS.

Real-world treatment patterns and effectiveness outcomes in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer.

Background: This retrospective, observational study examined real-world treatment patterns and effectiveness outcomes in 450 patients with stage II-IIIB early-stage triple-negative breast cancer treated in the community oncology setting. Methods: Kaplan-Meier methods were used to evaluate event-free survival (EFS), time to recurrence and overall survival (OS). Cox regression models were used to evaluate predictors of EFS and OS by pathological complete response (pCR) status. Results: Among patients receiving neoadjuvant systemic therapy only, pCR was a predictor of EFS and OS. Conclusion: These results highlight the unmet need for therapies that improve outcomes for patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer including increasing rates of pCR among patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy.

Lay abstract This study included 450 patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer treated in the USA at community oncology practices. Patients were female, 18 years or older, diagnosed with stage II, IIIA or IIIB breast cancer between March 2008 and March 2016, and the breast cancer was determined to be triple negative (i.e., negative for estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors and excess HER2 protein). The study looked at the treatments received, whether those treatments worked and the response to treatment at the time of surgery. The study findings align with findings from other studies that complete response in tissue samples is associated with improved clinical outcomes. Triple-negative breast cancer remains challenging to treat, and there is a clear need for innovation in treatment options. Intervening in the early stages of triple-negative breast cancer is critical to improving outcomes.

Healthcare resource utilization and cost among patients treated for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer.

Background: This retrospective, observational study examined real-world healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in 308 patients diagnosed with early-stage (II-IIIB) triple-negative breast cancer between 1 March 2008 and 31 March 2016. Methods: HCRU and costs were evaluated for two time periods: from neoadjuvant treatment start date to surgery (Time 1) and after surgery to recurrence or death (Time 2). Results: The sample included 236 patients who received neoadjuvant treatment without subsequent adjuvant treatment (Neo) and 72 patients who received neoadjuvant treatment followed by adjuvant treatment (Neo + adj). Mean monthly HCRU events and mean monthly costs per patient were higher in Time 1 compared with Time 2 for both groups. Conclusion: These results demonstrate the economic burden of early-stage triple-negative breast cancer especially during neoadjuvant treatment phase.

Lay abstract This study included 308 patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer treated in the USA at community oncology practices. Patients were female, 18 years or older and diagnosed with stage II, IIIA or IIIB breast cancer between March 2008 and March 2016, and the breast cancer was determined to be triple negative (i.e., negative for estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors and excess HER2 protein). There were 236 patients who received neoadjuvant treatment without subsequent adjuvant treatment (the Neo group) and 72 patients who received neoadjuvant treatment followed by adjuvant treatment (the Neo + adj group). The study looked at healthcare resource use and costs of care during two time periods: from neoadjuvant treatment start date to surgery (Time 1) and after surgery to recurrence or death (Time 2). Average monthly healthcare resource use and average monthly costs of care per patient were higher in Time 1 compared with Time 2 for both groups. These results demonstrate the economic and resource burden of early-stage triple-negative breast cancer especially in the time from neoadjuvant treatment initiation until surgery.

"Nobody Will Tell You. You've Got to Ask!": An Examination of Patient-Provider Communication Needs and Preferences among Black and White Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Patient-provider communication is a critical component of healthcare and is associated with treatment quality and outcomes for women with breast cancer. This qualitative study examines similarities and differences in patient perspectives of communication needs between Black and White breast cancer survivors. We conducted four focus groups (N = 28) involving women with early-stage breast cancer on adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET), stratified by race and length of time on AET (< 6 months and >6 months). Each group was moderated by a race-concordant moderator and analyzed by emergent themes. Participants expressed common patient-provider communication needs, namely increased sensitivity from oncologists during the initial cancer diagnosis, personalized information to facilitate treatment decisions, emotional support during the transition from active treatment to maintenance, and rapid provider responses to mobile app-based queries. Communication differences by race also emerged. Black women were less likely than White women to describe having their informational needs met. White women praised longstanding relationships with providers, while Black women shared personal stories of disempowered interactions and noted the importance of patient advocates. White women more often reported privacy concerns about technology use. Unlike White women, Black women reported willingness to discuss sensitive topics, both online and offline, but believed those discussions made their providers feel uncomfortable. Early-stage breast cancer patients on AET, regardless of race, have similar needs for patient-centered communication with their oncologists. However, Black women were more likely to report experiencing poorer communication with providers than White women, which may be improved by technology and advocates.

Eflapegrastim, a Long-Acting Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor for the Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia: Results of a Phase III Trial.

BACKGROUND: Eflapegrastim, a novel, long-acting recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF), consists of a rhG-CSF analog conjugated to a human IgG4 Fc fragment via a short polyethylene glycol linker. Preclinical and phase I and II pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data showed increased potency for neutrophil counts for eflapegrastim versus pegfilgrastim. This open-label phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim with pegfilgrastim for reducing the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with early-stage breast cancer were randomized 1:1 to fixed-dose eflapegrastim 13.2 mg (3.6 mg G-CSF) or standard pegfilgrastim (6 mg G-CSF) following standard docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for 4 cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate the noninferiority of eflapegrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN; grade 4) in cycle 1. RESULTS: Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to study arms (eflapegrastim, n = 196; pegfilgrastim, n = 210). The incidence of cycle 1 severe neutropenia was 16% (n = 31) for eflapegrastim versus 24% (n = 51) for pegfilgrastim, reducing the relative risk by 35% (p = .034). The difference in mean cycle 1 DSN (-0.148 day) met the primary endpoint of noninferiority (p < .0001) and also showed statistical superiority for eflapegrastim (p = .013). Noninferiority was maintained for the duration of treatment (all cycles, p < .0001), and secondary efficacy endpoints and safety results were also comparable for study arms. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate noninferiority and comparable safety for eflapegrastim at a lower G-CSF dose versus pegfilgrastim. The potential for increased potency of eflapegrastim to deliver improved clinical benefit warrants further clinical study in patients at higher risk for CIN. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) remains a significant clinical dilemma for oncology patients who are striving to complete their prescribed chemotherapy regimen. In a randomized, phase III trial comparing eflapegrastim to pegfilgrastim in the prevention of CIN, the efficacy of eflapegrastim was noninferior to pegfilgrastim and had comparable safety. Nevertheless, the risk of CIN remains a great concern for patients undergoing chemotherapy, as the condition frequently results in chemotherapy delays, dose reductions, and treatment discontinuations.

Phase IIIb Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous NEPA for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Initial and Repeat Cycles of Anthracycline and Cyclophosphamide (AC) Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: NEPA, a combination antiemetic of a neurokinin-1 (NK1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) (netupitant [oral]/fosnetupitant [intravenous; IV]) and 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron] offers 5-day CINV prevention with a single dose. Fosnetupitant solution contains no allergenic excipients, surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer. A phase III study of patients receiving cisplatin found no infusion-site or anaphylactic reactions related to IV NEPA. However, hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1 RAs, particularly fosaprepitant in patients receiving anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of IV NEPA in the AC setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This phase IIIb, multinational, randomized, double-blind study enrolled females with breast cancer naive to highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single 30-minute infusion of IV NEPA or single oral NEPA capsule on day 1 prior to AC, in repeated (up to 4) cycles. Oral dexamethasone was given to all patients on day 1 only. RESULTS: A total of 402 patients were included. The adverse event (AE) profiles were similar for IV and oral NEPA and consistent with those expected. Most AEs were mild or moderate with a similarly low incidence of treatment-related AEs in both groups. There were no treatment-related injection-site AEs and no reports of hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis. The efficacy of IV and oral NEPA were similar, with high complete response (no emesis/no rescue) rates observed in cycle 1 (overall [0-120 hours] 73.0% IV NEPA, 77.3% oral NEPA) and maintained over subsequent cycles. CONCLUSION: IV NEPA was highly effective and safe with no associated hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions in patients receiving AC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: As a combination of a neurokinin-1 (NK1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) and 5-HT3 RA, NEPA offers 5-day chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention with a single dose and an opportunity to improve adherence to antiemetic guidelines. In this randomized multinational phase IIIb study, intravenous (IV) NEPA (fosnetupitant/palonosetron) was safe and highly effective in patients receiving multiple cycles of anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. Unlike other IV NK1 RAs, the IV NEPA combination solution does not require any surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer and contains no allergenic excipients. Hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1 RAs, most commonly with fosaprepitant in the AC setting. Importantly, there were no injection-site or hypersensitivity reactions associated with IV NEPA.

Real-world evaluation of effectiveness and tolerance of chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer in older women.

PURPOSE: Older patients with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) tend to receive less aggressive treatment, have higher mortality rates, and are underrepresented in clinical trials. Outcomes, tolerance and toxicity of chemotherapy are underreported. Thus, we assessed the outcomes of chemotherapy in the real-world in a community oncology setting. METHODS: We retrospectively chart reviewed consecutive older patients (≥ 70 years) with ESBC diagnosed between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016, who received chemotherapy at our institution. Study outcomes were survival estimates. Logistic regression determined associations with measures of intolerance. RESULTS: Of 1296 patients, 229 received chemotherapy. Overall, 24% had early chemotherapy cessation; 18% had dose reductions; and 27% had dose delays. Severe, life threatening and lethal toxicities occurred in 38%, 1.3%, and 2.2%, respectively; constitutional toxicity (37%) was the most common. The 1- and 3-year overall survivals were 94% and 79%; 1- and 3-year breast-specific survivals were 96% and 89%, while 1- and 3-year disease-free survivals were 95% and 82%, respectively. Anthracyclines were the most poorly tolerated regimen having associations with hospital visits (OR 10.97, 95% CI 2.10-57.23) and severe toxicities (OR 5.28, 95% CI 1.27-21.89). Anti-HER2 therapies (OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.18-7.78) and poorer performance status (PS) (OR 7.48, 95% CI 1.75-31.98) were associated with severe toxicities. Older age (> 80 years) was associated with early cessation of therapy (OR 3.64, 95% CI 1.34-9.83). CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy can be effectively delivered to older patients with ESBC and is reasonably well tolerated. The high rate of anthracycline intolerability, poorer PS, and advanced age should be considered when tailoring treatment regimens.

Actionable co-alterations in breast tumors with pathogenic mutations in the homologous recombination DNA damage repair pathway.

PURPOSE: Homologous recombination (HR)-deficient breast tumors may have genomic alterations that predict response to treatment with PARP inhibitors and other targeted therapies. METHODS: Comprehensive molecular profiles of 4647 breast tumors performed at Caris Life Sciences using 592-gene NGS were reviewed to identify somatic pathogenic mutations in HR genes ARID1A, ATM, ATRX, BAP1, BARD1, BLM, BRCA1/2, BRIP1, CHEK1/2, FANCA/C/D2/E/F/G/L, KMT2D, MRE11, NBN, PALB2, RAD50/51/51B, and WRN, as well as 41 markers that may be associated with treatment response to targeted anticancer therapies. RESULTS: 17.9% of breast tumors had HR mutations (HR-MT, 831/4647) [ER/PR+ , HER2- 18.3%, n = 2183; TNBC 18.2%, n = 1568; ER/PR+ , HER2+ 15.6%, n = 237; ER/PR-, HER2+ 12.9%, n = 217; unknown n = 442]. Mean TMB was higher for HR-MT tumors across subtypes (9.2 mut/Mb vs 7.6 h-wild type (HR-WT), p ≤ 0.0001) and independent of microsatellite status. MSI-H/dMMR was more frequent among HR-MT tumors (2.1% HR-MT vs 0.2% HR-WT, p ≤ 0.0001), as was tumor PD-L1 overexpression (13.2% HR-MT vs 11.0% HR-WT, p = 0.08). Additional co-alterations were similar between HR-MT and HR-WT, with the exception of PIK3CA (30.3% HR-WT vs 26.4% HR-MT, p = 0.024) and AKT1 (3.7% HR-WT vs 2.1% HR-MT, p = 0.021). AR overexpression and PIK3CA mutations were more common among ER/PR+ tumors. ERBB2 mutations were seen in both HER2+ and HER2- tumors. CONCLUSIONS: HR-MT was common across breast cancer subtypes and co-occurred more frequently with markers of response to immunotherapy (MSI-H/dMMR, TMB) compared to HR-WT tumors. Mutations were identified in both HR-MT and HR-WT tumors that suggest other targets for treatment. Clinical trials combining HRD-targeted agents and immunotherapy are underway and could be enriched through comprehensive molecular profiling.

Evaluation of the 12-Gene Molecular Score and the 21-Gene Recurrence Score as Predictors of Response to Neo-adjuvant Chemotherapy in Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NaCT) facilitates complete surgical resection in locally advanced breast cancer. Due to its association with improved outcome, complete pathologic response (pCR) to neo-adjuvant treatment has been accepted as a surrogate for long-term outcome in clinical trials of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive, triple-negative, or luminal B breast cancer patients. In contrast, NaCT is effective in only ~ 7-10% of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative disease. Response biomarkers would enable such patients to be selected for NaCT. METHODS: Two commercially available breast cancer prognostic signatures [12-gene molecular score (MS) and the 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS)] were compared in their ability to predict pCR to NaCT in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in six public RNA expression microarray data sets. Scores were approximated according to published algorithms and analyzed by logistic regression. RESULTS: Expression data were available for 764 ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer samples, including 59 patients with pCR. The two scores were well correlated. Either score was a significant predictor of pCR (12-gene MS p = 9.4 × 10-5; 21-gene RS p = 0.0041). However, in a model containing both scores, the 12-gene MS remained significant (p = 0.0079), while the 21-gene RS did not (p = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: In this microarray study, two commercial breast cancer prognostic scores were significant predictors of response to NaCT. In direct comparison, the 12-gene MS outperformed the 21-gene RS as a predictive marker for NaCT. Considering pCR as surrogate for improved survival, these results support the ability of both scores to predict chemotherapy sensitivity.

What the HEC? Clinician Adherence to Evidence-Based Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Clinician adherence to antiemetic guidelines for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) remains poorly characterized. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate individual clinician adherence to HEC antiemetic guidelines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients receiving HEC was conducted using the IBM Watson Explorys Electronic Health Record Database (2012-2018). HEC antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as prescription of triple prophylaxis (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1 RA], serotonin type-3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone) at initiation of cisplatin or anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC). Clinicians who prescribed ≥5 HEC courses were included and individual guideline adherence was assessed, noting the number of prescribing clinicians with >90% adherence. RESULTS: A total of 217 clinicians were identified who prescribed 2,543 cisplatin and 1,490 AC courses. Patients (N=4,033) were primarily women (63.3%) and chemotherapy-naïve (92%) with a mean age of 58.6 years. Breast (36%) and thoracic (19%) cancers were the most common tumor types. Guideline adherence rates of >90% were achieved by 35% and 58% of clinicians using cisplatin or AC, respectively. Omission of an NK1 RA was the most common practice of nonadherence. Variation in prophylaxis guideline adherence was considerable for cisplatin (mean, 71%; SD, 29%; coefficient of variation [CV], 0.40) and AC (mean, 84%; SD, 26%; CV, 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Findings showed substantial gaps in clinician adherence to HEC CINV guidelines, including a high variability across clinicians. Clinicians should review their individual clinical practices and ensure adherence to evidence-based CINV guidelines to optimize patient care.