Capivasertib and fulvestrant for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (CAPItello-291): patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: CAPItello-291 is an ongoing phase 3 trial in which capivasertib-fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo-fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after aromatase inhibitor treatment, in both the overall population and in patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. This study further explored patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functioning, symptoms, and symptom tolerability in CAPItello-291. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, which was conducted across 193 hospitals and cancer centres in 19 countries, enrolled women with any menopausal status or men, aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Japan), with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4 or 6 inhibitor therapy. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/WHO performance score of 0 or 1 and could have received up to two previous lines of endocrine therapy and up to one previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using block randomisation (stratified according to the presence or absence of liver metastases, previous use of a CDK4/6 inhibitor [yes vs no], and geographical region) to receive oral capivasertib 400 mg (twice daily for 4 days, followed by 3 days off) plus intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (every 14 days for the first three injections, then every 28 days) or placebo with matching fulvestrant dosing. The dual primary endpoint of the trial was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module (QLQ-C30) and breast module (QLQ-BR23), Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Patient Global Impression of Treatment Tolerability (PGI-TT) questionnaires were used to assess patient-reported outcomes. Evaluation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 were secondary endpoints and evaluation of PRO-CTCAE and PGI-TT were pre-defined exploratory endpoints, and these endpoints are the subject of analysis in this Article. Data were collected at baseline and prespecified timepoints. Patient-reported outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients with an evaluable baseline assessment and at least one evaluable post-baseline assessment. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed model with repeated measures for EORTC QLQ-C30 and summarised for QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration was described using the Kaplan-Meier method. PGI-TT and PRO-CTCAE responses were summarised at each treatment cycle. Patient-reported outcomes were not prospectively powered for statistical comparison. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04305496. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2020, and Oct 13, 2021, 901 patients were enrolled, of whom 708 patients were randomly assigned to receive capivasertib-fulvestrant (n=355) or placebo-fulvestrant (n=353). The median age of the patients was 59 years (IQR 51-67) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 58 years (IQR 49-66) in the placebo-fulvestrant group. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2022), the median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival in censored patients was 13·0 months (IQR 9·1-16·7) for capivasertib-fulvestrant and 12·7 months (IQR 2·0-16·4) for placebo-fulvestrant in the overall population. EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL) scores were maintained from baseline and were similar between treatment groups throughout the study period (difference in mean change from baseline of -2·5 [95% CI -4·5 to -0·6] with capivasertib-fulvestrant vs -5·6 [-7·9 to -3·4] with placebo-fulvestrant; treatment difference 3·1 [95% CI 0·2 to 6·0]). Median time to deterioration in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL was 24·9 months (95% CI 13·8 to not reached) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 12·0 months (10·2 to 15·7) in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·53 to 0·92). Time to deterioration HRs for all EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 subscale scores showed little difference between the treatment groups, except for diarrhoea, which was worse in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group (HR 2·75, 95% CI 2·01-3·81). In PRO-CTCAE symptom assessment, the proportion of patients reporting loose and watery stools "frequently" or "almost constantly" was 29% higher at cycle 1, day 15 in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group, decreasing at subsequent cycles. Other PRO-CTCAE-reported symptoms (rash, mouth or throat sores, itchy skin, and numbness or tingling in hands or feet) were absent or mild in most patients in both groups throughout treatment. According to the PGI-TT, most patients in both groups reported "not at all" or "a little bit" of bother from treatment side-effects. INTERPRETATION: Patient-reported outcomes from CAPItello-291 demonstrated that capivasertib-fulvestrant delayed time to deterioration of GHS/QOL and maintained other dimensions of HRQOL (except symptoms of diarrhoea) similarly to fulvestrant. With the clinical efficacy and manageable safety profile, these exploratory results further support the positive benefit-risk profile of capivasertib-fulvestrant in this population. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Selecting postoperative adjuvant systemic therapy for early-stage breast cancer: An updated assessment and systematic review of leading commercially available gene expression assays.

Gene expression assays (GEAs) can guide treatment for early-stage breast cancer. Several large prospective randomized clinical trials, and numerous additional studies, now provide new information for selecting an appropriate GEA. This systematic review builds upon prior reviews, with a focus on five widely commercialized GEAs (Breast Cancer Index®, EndoPredict®, MammaPrint®, Oncotype DX®, and Prosigna®). The comprehensive dataset available provides a contemporary opportunity to assess each GEA's utility as a prognosticator and/or predictor of adjuvant therapy benefit.

A plain language summary of the CAPItello-291 study: Capivasertib in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of the article discussing the results of the CAPItello-291 study. In the study, participants had advanced breast cancer that could not be completely removed with surgery, and that was diagnosed as a type of breast cancer where tumor cells had hormone receptors (HR-positive) but did not have HER2 receptors (HER2-negative). All participants were also required to have previously received treatment with a type of therapy called an aromatase inhibitor (with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor), but over time their cancer cells had still grown or spread. The CAPItello-291 study researchers wanted to find out if a treatment combination of the medications capivasertib plus fulvestrant worked better than placebo plus fulvestrant. Capivasertib is a drug that blocks the activity of a protein called AKT, which is found inside breast cancer cells. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: The main finding was that participants who took capivasertib plus fulvestrant lived longer without their disease getting worse (progressing) compared with those treated with placebo plus fulvestrant. This is called progression-free survival. This result was seen across all participants (median progression-free survival of 7.2 months with capivasertib plus fulvestrant vs 3.6 months with placebo plus fulvestrant). It was also seen in participants whose tumors had detectable genetic alterations in genes called PIK3CA, AKT1, and/ or PTEN (median progression-free survival of 7.3 months with capivasertib plus fulvestrant vs 3.1 months with placebo plus fulvestrant). The most common side effects experienced by participants included diarrhea and different types of rash. These were as expected (given how capivasertib works). The CAPItello-291 study is still ongoing, and more results are expected to be released in the future. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: Results from the CAPItello-291 study showed that capivasertib plus fulvestrant compared with placebo plus fulvestrant improved progression-free survival in participants with HR-positive/ HER2-negative advanced breast cancer whose cancer had grown or spread despite hormone therapy (with/without a CDK4/6 inhibitor).Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04305496 (CAPItello-291) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Tailoring Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Premenopausal Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) and the Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial (TEXT), the 5-year rates of recurrence of breast cancer were significantly lower among premenopausal women who received the aromatase inhibitor exemestane plus ovarian suppression than among those who received tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression. The addition of ovarian suppression to tamoxifen did not result in significantly lower recurrence rates than those with tamoxifen alone. Here, we report the updated results from the two trials. METHODS: Premenopausal women were randomly assigned to receive 5 years of tamoxifen, tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, or exemestane plus ovarian suppression in SOFT and to receive tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression or exemestane plus ovarian suppression in TEXT. Randomization was stratified according to the receipt of chemotherapy. RESULTS: In SOFT, the 8-year disease-free survival rate was 78.9% with tamoxifen alone, 83.2% with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, and 85.9% with exemestane plus ovarian suppression (P=0.009 for tamoxifen alone vs. tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression). The 8-year rate of overall survival was 91.5% with tamoxifen alone, 93.3% with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, and 92.1% with exemestane plus ovarian suppression (P=0.01 for tamoxifen alone vs. tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression); among the women who remained premenopausal after chemotherapy, the rates were 85.1%, 89.4%, and 87.2%, respectively. Among the women with cancers that were negative for HER2 who received chemotherapy, the 8-year rate of distant recurrence with exemestane plus ovarian suppression was lower than the rate with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression (by 7.0 percentage points in SOFT and by 5.0 percentage points in TEXT). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 24.6% of the tamoxifen-alone group, 31.0% of the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group, and 32.3% of the exemestane-ovarian suppression group. CONCLUSIONS: Among premenopausal women with breast cancer, the addition of ovarian suppression to tamoxifen resulted in significantly higher 8-year rates of both disease-free and overall survival than tamoxifen alone. The use of exemestane plus ovarian suppression resulted in even higher rates of freedom from recurrence. The frequency of adverse events was higher in the two groups that received ovarian suppression than in the tamoxifen-alone group. (Funded by Pfizer and others; SOFT and TEXT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00066690 and NCT00066703 , respectively.).

Correction: Quality of life under extended continuous versus intermittent adjuvant letrozole in lymph node-positive, early breast cancer patients: the SOLE randomised phase 3 trial.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Quality of life under extended continuous versus intermittent adjuvant letrozole in lymph node-positive, early breast cancer patients: the SOLE randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III SOLE trial, the extended use of intermittent versus continuous letrozole for 5 years did not improve disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Intermittent therapy with 3-month breaks may be beneficial for patients' quality of life (QoL). METHODS: In the SOLE QoL sub-study, 956 patients completed the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (BCPT) symptom and further QoL scales up to 24 months after randomisation. Differences in change of QoL from baseline between the two administration schedules were tested at 12 and 24 months using repeated measures mixed-models. The primary outcome was change in hot flushes at 12 months. RESULTS: There was no difference in hot flushes at 12 months between the two schedules, but patients receiving intermittent letrozole reported significantly more improvement at 24 months. They also indicated less worsening in vaginal problems, musculoskeletal pain, sleep disturbance, physical well-being and mood at 12 months. Overall, 25-30% of patients reported a clinically relevant worsening in key symptoms and global QoL. CONCLUSION: Less symptom worsening was observed during the first year of extended treatment with the intermittent administration. For women experiencing an increased symptom burden of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy, an intermittent administration is a safe alternative. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: Clinical trial information: NCT00651456.

Goserelin for ovarian protection during breast-cancer adjuvant chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian failure is a common toxic effect of chemotherapy. Studies of the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to protect ovarian function have shown mixed results and lack data on pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: We randomly assigned 257 premenopausal women with operable hormone-receptor-negative breast cancer to receive standard chemotherapy with the GnRH agonist goserelin (goserelin group) or standard chemotherapy without goserelin (chemotherapy-alone group). The primary study end point was the rate of ovarian failure at 2 years, with ovarian failure defined as the absence of menses in the preceding 6 months and levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) in the postmenopausal range. Rates were compared with the use of conditional logistic regression. Secondary end points included pregnancy outcomes and disease-free and overall survival. RESULTS: At baseline, 218 patients were eligible and could be evaluated. Among 135 with complete primary end-point data, the ovarian failure rate was 8% in the goserelin group and 22% in the chemotherapy-alone group (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09 to 0.97; two-sided P=0.04). Owing to missing primary end-point data, sensitivity analyses were performed, and the results were consistent with the main findings. Missing data did not differ according to treatment group or according to the stratification factors of age and planned chemotherapy regimen. Among the 218 patients who could be evaluated, pregnancy occurred in more women in the goserelin group than in the chemotherapy-alone group (21% vs. 11%, P=0.03); women in the goserelin group also had improved disease-free survival (P=0.04) and overall survival (P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although missing data weaken interpretation of the findings, administration of goserelin with chemotherapy appeared to protect against ovarian failure, reducing the risk of early menopause and improving prospects for fertility. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; POEMS/S0230 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00068601.).

Adjuvant exemestane with ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor improves outcomes, as compared with tamoxifen, in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS: In two phase 3 trials, we randomly assigned premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer to the aromatase inhibitor exemestane plus ovarian suppression or tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression for a period of 5 years. Suppression of ovarian estrogen production was achieved with the use of the gonadotropin-releasing-hormone agonist triptorelin, oophorectomy, or ovarian irradiation. The primary analysis combined data from 4690 patients in the two trials. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 68 months, disease-free survival at 5 years was 91.1% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 87.3% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence, second invasive cancer, or death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.85; P<0.001). The rate of freedom from breast cancer at 5 years was 92.8% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, as compared with 88.8% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.80; P<0.001). With 194 deaths (4.1% of the patients), overall survival did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio for death in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.51; P=0.37). Selected adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported for 30.6% of the patients in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 29.4% of those in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group, with profiles similar to those for postmenopausal women. CONCLUSIONS: In premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer, adjuvant treatment with exemestane plus ovarian suppression, as compared with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, significantly reduced recurrence. (Funded by Pfizer and others; TEXT and SOFT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00066703 and NCT00066690, respectively.).

Selecting postoperative adjuvant systemic therapy for early stage breast cancer: A critical assessment of commercially available gene expression assays.

Risk stratification of patients with early stage breast cancer may support adjuvant chemotherapy decision-making. This review details the development and validation of six multi-gene classifiers, each of which claims to provide useful prognostic and possibly predictive information for early stage breast cancer patients. A careful assessment is presented of each test's analytical validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility, as well as the quality of evidence supporting its use.

Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of Trastuzumab: a minimization cost analysis with real world data from a reference cancer centre in Peru.

Breast cancer (BC) is a global concern, with Peru experiencing a high incidence and mortality. Trastuzumab, a crucial treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive BC, is administered intravenously or subcutaneously (SC). This study evaluates the costs associated with both methods at Peru's Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas. Real data indicate that SC administration reduces treatment costs by approximately S/15,049.09. Cross-continental comparisons highlight a global trend favouring SC administration for efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The analysis provides insights for informed decision-making in resource-constrained healthcare settings like Peru, emphasising the need to consider local contexts in optimising oncology care.

Subcutaneous Trastuzumab: An Observational Study of Safety and Tolerability in Patients With Early HER2-Positive Breast Cancer.

Purpose: In Peru, breast cancer (BC) stands as the most predominant malignancy neoplasm among women. Trastuzumab has marked a significant milestone in the management of this disease. It has been shown to improve prognosis in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-expressing female patients, but its repercussions and efficacy are yet to be analyzed in a context with limited resources. Methods: The study population is made of woman patients aged 18 years and older diagnosed with HER2-positive BC at Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas (INEN, Lima, Peru) during 2019-2021 and treated with at least one dose of subcutaneous trastuzumab. We reviewed medical records to register treatment characteristics, adverse events (AEs), disease progression, and survival status. We considered a median follow-up time of 36 and 45 months for progression and survival status. Results: The majority of patients were over 50 years old (54.29%). Tumor size averaged 19.7 ± 16.1 mm. Lymph nodes were present in 44.78% of patients. Most patients received adjuvant chemotherapy (63.8%) as first-line treatment. Descriptive analyses of treatment outcomes revealed a 30% toxicity rate, primarily attributed to arthralgia (47.62%), followed by diarrhea, fatigue, and injection site reactions, with relatively lower discontinuation rates compared to larger scale studies. Differences in demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics were not statistically significant concerning the emergence of AEs (p > 0.05). Progression appeared in nine patients, and the overall survival (OS) rate stood at 98.6% and 92.8%, respectively, during a median follow-up of 36 and 45 months. Conclusion: The research suggests that subcutaneous trastuzumab is comparable in effectiveness and safety to the intravenous administration. Regional-specific studies may provide valuable insights into demographic factors influencing treatment outcomes in Peru or other countries. Furthermore, it could represent a more accessible alternative, potentially enhancing patient adherence and optimizing healthcare resource logistics.

Advanced Breast Cancer Guidelines in Latin America: Assessment, Adaptation, and Implementation of Fifth Advanced Breast Cancer Consensus Guidelines.

PURPOSE: As the fifth international consensus on advanced breast cancer (ABC5) established guidelines for the management of this disease, the aim of this article was to present the applicability of the consensus recommendations and to generate knowledge to improve access. METHODS: Sixty-one recommendation statements were selected and discussed by 15 breast cancer experts from Latin America (LA). After the discussion, the level of consensus was determined through a vote. In addition to this, the level of access to each of the recommendations presented, according to the country and health system, was exposed. RESULTS: Latin American experts had a high level of agreement with the ABC5 consensus recommendations (range, 83%-100%). Twelve of 61 statements are not available for all patients in LA. Among the limitations to access, the following ones are described: limited access to certain technologies (stereotactic body radiotherapy, positron emission tomography-computed tomography), the high costs of drugs that limits access to treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors, pertuzumab, or poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, and the lack of molecular tests for access to therapeutic targets, as well as the difficult geography and cultural diversity of our continent. CONCLUSION: Despite the great relevance of the recommendations of the ABC5 consensus guidelines, we highlight that we still need to improve access for all patients, regardless of the country or health system they are in, for which we call to action to policy makers and patient groups to improve clinical outcomes of patients with advanced breast cancer in our region.

Somatic Mutations in Latin American Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

(1) Background: Somatic mutations may be connected to the exposome, potentially playing a role in breast cancer's development and clinical outcomes. There needs to be information regarding Latin American women specifically, as they are underrepresented in clinical trials and have limited access to somatic analysis in their countries. This study aims to systematically investigate somatic mutations in breast cancer patients from Latin America to gain a better understanding of tumor biology in the region. (2) Methods: We realize a systematic review of studies on breast cancer in 21 Latin American countries using various databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, RedAlyc, Dianlet, and Biblioteca Virtual en Salud. Of 392 articles that fit the criteria, 10 studies have clinical data which can be used to create a database containing clinical and genetic information. We compared mutation frequencies across different breast cancer subtypes using statistical analyses and meta-analyses of proportions. Furthermore, we identified overexpressed biological processes and canonical pathways through functional enrichment analysis. (3) Results: 342 mutations were found in six Latin American countries, with the TP53 and PIK3CA genes being the most studied mutations. The most common PIK3CA mutation was H1047R. Functional analysis provided insights into tumor biology and potential therapies. (4) Conclusion: evaluating specific somatic mutations in the Latin American population is crucial for understanding tumor biology and determining appropriate treatment options. Combining targeted therapies may improve clinical outcomes in breast cancer. Moreover, implementing healthy lifestyle strategies in Latin America could enhance therapy effectiveness and clinical outcomes.

Adjuvant Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab in Early Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer in the APHINITY Trial: Third Interim Overall Survival Analysis With Efficacy Update.

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.The APHINITY trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01358877) previously demonstrated that pertuzumab added to adjuvant trastuzumab and chemotherapy improved invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) for patients with early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC). Here, we report the preplanned third interim analysis of overall survival (OS) and a descriptive updated iDFS analysis with 8.4 years of median follow-up of 4,804 patients in the intent-to-treat population. The 8-year OS was 92.7% in the pertuzumab versus 92.0% in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.02]; P = .078, above the 0.006 significance threshold). The HR was 0.80 [95% CI 0.63 to 1.00] in the node-positive cohort and 0.99 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.55] in the node-negative cohort. Updated results of 8-year iDFS in the node-positive cohort showed an absolute improvement of 4.9% favoring pertuzumab (86.1% v 81.2%; HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.87]). The node-negative cohort did well without adding pertuzumab (8-year iDFS and OS in the placebo group were 93.3% and 96.4%, respectively). The iDFS benefit was seen in the hormone receptor-negative (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.06]) and HR+ cohorts (HR of 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.92]). Despite improvement in overall iDFS, the addition of pertuzumab did not improve OS at this third interim analysis.

A randomized phase II study of lapatinib + pazopanib versus lapatinib in patients with HER2+ inflammatory breast cancer.

This multi-center Phase II study evaluated lapatinib, pazopanib, and the combination in patients with relapsed HER2+ inflammatory breast cancer. In Cohort 1, 76 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive lapatinib 1,500 mg + placebo or lapatinib 1,500 mg + pazopanib 800 mg (double-blind) once daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. Due to high-grade diarrhea observed with this dose combination in another study (VEG20007), Cohort 1 was closed. The protocol was amended such that an additional 88 patients (Cohort 2) were randomized in a 5:5:2 ratio to receive daily monotherapy lapatinib 1,500 mg, lapatinib 1,000 mg + pazopanib 400 mg, or monotherapy pazopanib 800 mg, respectively. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and safety. In Cohort 1, ORR for the lapatinib (n = 38) and combination (n = 38) arms was 29 and 45 %, respectively; median PFS was 16.1 and 14.3 weeks, respectively. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were more frequent in the combination arm (71 %) than in the lapatinib arm (24 %). Dose reductions and interruptions due to AEs were also more frequent in the combination arm (45 and 53 %, respectively) than in the lapatinib monotherapy arm (0 and 11 %, respectively). In Cohort 2, ORR for patients treated with lapatinib (n = 36), lapatinib + pazopanib (n = 38), and pazopanib (n = 13) was 47, 58, and 31 %, respectively; median PFS was 16.0, 16.0, and 11.4 weeks, respectively. In the lapatinib, combination, and pazopanib therapy arms, grade ≥3 AEs were reported for 17, 50, and 46 % of patients, respectively, and the incidence of discontinuations due to AEs was 0, 24, and 23 %, respectively. The lapatinib-pazopanib combination was associated with a numerically higher ORR but no increase in PFS compared to lapatinib alone. The combination also had increased toxicity resulting in more dose reductions, modifications, and treatment delays. Activity with single-agent lapatinib was confirmed in this population.

Severe cardiac events induced by combination immunotherapy in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis.

Introduction: The use of combined immunotherapy could increase non-severe and severe cardiac events in patients with cancer. To examine the occurrence of severe cardiac adverse events of combined immunotherapy compared to single immunotherapy, we analysed 4 electronic databases from inception to August 2021. Material and methods: We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing combined versus single immunotherapy, for the treatment of melanoma, oesophagogastric cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and non-small cell lung cancer. Pre-defined combined immunotherapy included monoclonal antibodies against programmed cell death 1 (PD-1 inhibitors) plus against cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4 inhibitors) or against programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1 inhibitors) plus CTLA-4 inhibitors. The pooled risk ratios (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using a random-effects model. Results: Four RCTs involving 1581 patients were included, with a follow-up time between 18 and 39 months. The use of combined immunotherapy in comparison with single immunotherapy was not associated with an increased risk of severe cardiac adverse events: acute coronary syndromes (RR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.29-10.83, very low certainty of evidence (CoE)), myocardial infarction (RR = 3.93, 95% CI: 0.44-35.39, very low CoE), heart failure (RR = 2.99, 95% CI: 0.61-14.79, very low CoE), and atrial fibrillation (RR = 2.26, 95% CI: 0.62-8.16, very low CoE). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis shows that the risk of severe cardiac adverse events with combined immunotherapy seems similar to single immunotherapy, but the evidence is very uncertain. Therefore, more RCTs with longer follow-ups and adequately powered to assess cardiac adverse events are needed to confirm these findings.

Subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot analysis: a prognostic model for distant recurrence-free survival to estimate delayed adjuvant chemotherapy initiation effect in triple-negative breast cancer.

Introduction: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a heterogeneous disease associated with a poor prognosis. Delaying in time to start adjuvant chemotherapy (TTC) has been related to an increased risk of distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS). We aimed to develop a prognostic model to estimate the effects of delayed TTC among TNBC risk subgroups. Materials and methods: We analyzed 687 TNBC patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy at the Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas (Lima, Peru). Database was randomly divided to create a discovery set (n=344) and a validation set (n=343). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were performed to identify prognostic factors for DRFS. Risk stratification was implemented through two models developed based on proportional hazard ratios from significant clinicopathological characteristics. Subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP) analysis was performed to determine the best prognostic cut-off points for stratifying TNBC subgroups according to risk scores and estimate Kaplan-Meier differences in 10-year DRFS comparing TTC (≤30 vs.>30 days). Results: In univariate analysis, patients aged ≥70 years (HR=4.65; 95% CI: 2.32-9.34; p=<0.001), those at stages pT3-T4 (HR=3.28; 95% CI: 1.57-6.83; p=0.002), and pN2-N3 (HR=3.00; 95% CI: 1.90-4.76; p=<0.001) were notably associated with higher risk. STEPP analysis defined three risk subgroups for each model. Model N°01 categorized patients into low (score: 0-31), intermediate (score:32-64), and high-risk (score: 65-100) cohorts; meanwhile, Model N°02: low (score: 0-26), intermediate (score: 27-55), and high (score: 56-100). Kaplan-Meier plots showed that in the discovery set, patients with TTC>30 days experienced a 17.5% decrease in 10-year DRFS rate (95%CI=6.7-28.3), and the impact was more remarkable in patients who belong to the high-risk subgroup (53.3% decrease in 10 years-DRFS rate). Similar results were found in the validation set. Conclusions: We developed two prognostic models based on age, pT, and pN to select the best one to classify TNBC. For Model N°02, delayed adjuvant chemotherapy conferred a higher risk of relapse in patients ≥70 years and who were characterized by pT3/T4 and pN2/N3. Thus, more efforts should be considered to avoid delayed TTC in TNBC patients, especially those in high-risk subgroups.

Adjuvant Exemestane With Ovarian Suppression in Premenopausal Breast Cancer: Long-Term Follow-Up of the Combined TEXT and SOFT Trials.

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.The combined analysis of SOFT-TEXT compared outcomes in 4,690 premenopausal women with estrogen/progesterone receptor-positive (ER/PgR+) early breast cancer randomly assigned to 5 years of exemestane + ovarian function suppression (OFS) versus tamoxifen + OFS. After a median follow-up of 9 years, exemestane + OFS significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), but not overall survival, compared with tamoxifen + OFS. We now report DFS, DRFI, and overall survival after a median follow-up of 13 years. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the 12-year DFS (4.6% absolute improvement, hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.90; P < .001) and DRFI (1.8% absolute improvement, HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.98; P = .03), but not overall survival (90.1% v 89.1%, HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.11), continued to be significantly improved for patients assigned exemestane + OFS over tamoxifen + OFS. Among patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative tumors (86.0% of the ITT population), the absolute improvement in 12-year overall survival with exemestane + OFS was 2.0% (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.04) and 3.3% in those who received chemotherapy (45.9% of the ITT population). Overall survival benefit was clinically significant in high-risk patients, eg, women age < 35 years (4.0%) and those with > 2 cm (4.5%) or grade 3 tumors (5.5%). These sustained reductions of the risk of recurrence with adjuvant exemestane + OFS, compared with tamoxifen + OFS, provide guidance for selecting patients for whom exemestane should be preferred over tamoxifen in the setting of OFS.[Media: see text].

Breast cancer subtype and clinical characteristics in women from Peru.

Introduction: Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease, and the distribution of the different subtypes varies by race/ethnic category in the United States and by country. Established breast cancer-associated factors impact subtype-specific risk; however, these included limited or no representation of Latin American diversity. To address this gap in knowledge, we report a description of demographic, reproductive, and lifestyle breast cancer-associated factors by age at diagnosis and disease subtype for The Peruvian Genetics and Genomics of Breast Cancer (PEGEN-BC) study. Methods: The PEGEN-BC study is a hospital-based breast cancer cohort that includes 1943 patients diagnosed at the Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas in Lima, Peru. Demographic and reproductive information, as well as lifestyle exposures, were collected with a questionnaire. Clinical data, including tumor Hormone Receptor (HR) status and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) status, were abstracted from electronic medical records. Differences in proportions and mean values were tested using Chi-squared and one-way ANOVA tests, respectively. Multinomial logistic regression models were used for multivariate association analyses. Results: The distribution of subtypes was 52% HR+HER2-, 19% HR+HER2+, 16% HR-HER2-, and 13% HR-HER2+. Indigenous American (IA) genetic ancestry was higher, and height was lower among individuals with the HR-HER2+ subtype (80% IA vs. 76% overall, p=0.007; 152 cm vs. 153 cm overall, p=0.032, respectively). In multivariate models, IA ancestry was associated with HR-HER2+ subtype (OR=1.38,95%CI=1.06-1.79, p=0.017) and parous women showed increased risk for HR-HER2+ (OR=2.7,95%CI=1.5-4.8, p<0.001) and HR-HER2- tumors (OR=2.4,95%CI=1.5-4.0, p<0.001) compared to nulliparous women. Multiple patient and tumor characteristics differed by age at diagnosis (<50 vs. >=50), including ancestry, region of residence, family history, height, BMI, breastfeeding, parity, and stage at diagnosis (p<0.02 for all variables). Discussion: The characteristics of the PEGEN-BC study participants do not suggest heterogeneity by tumor subtype except for IA genetic ancestry proportion, which has been previously reported. Differences by age at diagnosis were apparent and concordant with what is known about pre- and post-menopausal-specific disease risk factors. Additional studies in Peru should be developed to further understand the main contributors to the specific age of onset and molecular disease subtypes in this population and develop population-appropriate predictive models for prevention.