Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points in Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: NeoSTEEP.

PURPOSE: The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007 and updated in 2021 (STEEP 2.0), provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer (BC) end points. STEEP 2.0 identified a need to separately address end points for neoadjuvant clinical trials. The multidisciplinary NeoSTEEP working group of experts was convened to critically evaluate and align neoadjuvant BC trial end points. METHODS: The NeoSTEEP working group concentrated on neoadjuvant systemic therapy end points in clinical trials with efficacy outcomes-both pathologic and time-to-event survival end points-particularly for registrational intent. Special considerations for subtypes and therapeutic approaches, imaging, nodal staging at surgery, bilateral and multifocal diseases, correlative tissue collection, and US Food and Drug Administration regulatory considerations were contemplated. RESULTS: The working group recommends a preferred definition of pathologic complete response (pCR) as the absence of residual invasive cancer in the complete resected breast specimen and all sampled regional lymph nodes (ypT0/Tis ypN0 per AJCC staging). Residual cancer burden should be a secondary end point to facilitate future assessment of its utility. Alternative end points are needed for hormone receptor-positive disease. Time-to-event survival end point definitions should pay particular attention to the measurement starting point. Trials should include end points originating at random assignment (event-free survival and overall survival) to capture presurgery progression and deaths as events. Secondary end points adapted from STEEP 2.0, which are defined from starting at curative-intent surgery, may also be appropriate. Specification and standardization of biopsy protocols, imaging, and pathologic nodal evaluation are also crucial. CONCLUSION: End points in addition to pCR should be selected on the basis of clinical and biologic aspects of the tumor and the therapeutic agent investigated. Consistent prespecified definitions and interventions are paramount for clinically meaningful trial results and cross-trial comparison

Optimizing (neo)adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer

The development of human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-directed therapy has resulted in significant improvement in outcomes for patients with early-stage HER2-overexpressing (HER2+) breast cancer. In recent years, newer HER2-directed agents and novel treatment strategies have been developed with ongoing improvements in overall outcomes. However, with the addition of newer agents, there is an increasing need to risk stratify patients to maximize efficacy and minimize toxicity of treatment. De-escalation of therapy with the potential to shorten the duration of adjuvant therapy and minimize chemotherapy administration in patients with favorable disease can be considered. On the other hand, escalation of therapy with the addition of novel HER2-directed agents and extended duration of therapy in patients at high risk of relapse can help improve long-term cure rates. Herein, we discuss recent developments in neoadjuvant and adjuvant strategies for the treatment of potentially curable HER2+ breast cancer

Adjuvant endocrine therapy is associated with improved overall survival in elderly hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients

There is controversy regarding the survival benefit of endocrine therapy (ET) in elderly patients with early invasive hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer. In this study, we characterize a single institution's practice patterns using adjuvant ET for these patients and evaluated the effect of ET on outcomes. A review of a prospectively maintained database identified 483 women ≥ 70 years old who underwent breast -conserving surgery (BCS) for stage I-III HR+ tumors from 2004-2013. We compared clinicopathologic characteristics, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), locoregional recurrence (LRR), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) in patients who did and did not receive ET. Compared to patients who did not get ET, patients who received ET were younger (median age 76 vs 78 years, p = 0.006), had larger tumors (median size 15 vs 14 mm, p = 0.016), underwent sentinel lymph node (LN) biopsy (83.7 vs 67.8%, p < 0.001), had positive LNs (25.5 vs 9.8%, p = 0.008), and received radiation (XRT, 76 vs 43%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for ASA score, age, LN status, tumor grade, and XRT, receipt of ET was associated with improved OS (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.25-0.77; p = 0.004) and DFS (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.28-0.64; p < 0.01). Receipt of ET was associated with improved LRR on univariate analysis (HR 0.25; 95% CI 0.09-0.70; p = 0.008); however, after adjusting for grade and XRT, this was not statistically significant on multivariable analysis (HR 0.38; 95% CI 0.13-1.08; p = 0.069) and was not associated with BCSS (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.16-2.16; p = 0.43). ET was associated with significant improvements in OS and DFS, regardless of clinicopathological features; however, receipt of ET did not impact LRR and BCSS

Breast cancer liver metastasis: Pathogenesis and clinical implications.

Breast cancer is the most common malignant disease in female patients worldwide and can spread to almost every place in the human body, most frequently metastasizing to lymph nodes, bones, lungs, liver and brain. The liver is a common metastatic location for solid cancers as a whole, and it is also the third most common metastatic site for breast cancer. Breast cancer liver metastasis (BCLM) is a complex process. Although the hepatic microenvironment and liver sinusoidal structure are crucial factors for the initial arrest of breast cancer and progression within the liver, the biological basis of BCLM remains to be elucidated. Importantly, further understanding of the interaction between breast cancer cells and hepatic microenvironment in the liver metastasis of breast cancer will suggest ways for the development of effective therapy and prevention strategies for BCLM. In this review, we provide an overview of the recent advances in the understanding of the molecular mechanisms of the hepatic microenvironment in BCLM formation and discuss current systemic therapies for treating patients with BCLM as well as potential therapeutic development based on the liver microenvironment-associated signaling proteins governing BCLM

A Case Series of Metastatic Metaplastic Breast Carcinoma Treated With Anti-PD-1 Therapy.

Metaplastic breast cancer is a rare and often chemo-refractory subtype of breast cancer with poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Recent studies have reported overexpression of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) in metaplastic breast cancers, and there are several reports of anti-PD-1/L1 being potentially active in this disease. In this case series, we present 5 patients with metastatic metaplastic breast cancer treated with anti-PD-1-based therapy at a single center, with 3 of 5 cases demonstrating a response to therapy, and one of the responding cases being a metaplastic lobular carcinoma with low-level hormone receptor expression. Cases were evaluated for PD-L1 expression, tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), DNA mutations, RNA sequencing, and T-cell receptor sequencing. Duration of the response in these cases was limited, in contrast to the more durable responses noted in other recently published reports

Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points in Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: NeoSTEEP.

PURPOSE: The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007 and updated in 2021 (STEEP 2.0), provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer (BC) end points. STEEP 2.0 identified a need to separately address end points for neoadjuvant clinical trials. The multidisciplinary NeoSTEEP working group of experts was convened to critically evaluate and align neoadjuvant BC trial end points. METHODS: The NeoSTEEP working group concentrated on neoadjuvant systemic therapy end points in clinical trials with efficacy outcomes-both pathologic and time-to-event survival end points-particularly for registrational intent. Special considerations for subtypes and therapeutic approaches, imaging, nodal staging at surgery, bilateral and multifocal diseases, correlative tissue collection, and US Food and Drug Administration regulatory considerations were contemplated. RESULTS: The working group recommends a preferred definition of pathologic complete response (pCR) as the absence of residual invasive cancer in the complete resected breast specimen and all sampled regional lymph nodes (ypT0/Tis ypN0 per AJCC staging). Residual cancer burden should be a secondary end point to facilitate future assessment of its utility. Alternative end points are needed for hormone receptor-positive disease. Time-to-event survival end point definitions should pay particular attention to the measurement starting point. Trials should include end points originating at random assignment (event-free survival and overall survival) to capture presurgery progression and deaths as events. Secondary end points adapted from STEEP 2.0, which are defined from starting at curative-intent surgery, may also be appropriate. Specification and standardization of biopsy protocols, imaging, and pathologic nodal evaluation are also crucial. CONCLUSION: End points in addition to pCR should be selected on the basis of clinical and biologic aspects of the tumor and the therapeutic agent investigated. Consistent prespecified definitions and interventions are paramount for clinically meaningful trial results and cross-trial comparison

A phase Ib trial of pembrolizumab plus paclitaxel or flat-dose capecitabine in 1st/2nd line metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

Chemoimmunotherapy with anti-programmed cell death 1/ligand 1 and cytotoxic chemotherapy is a promising therapeutic modality for women with triple-negative breast cancer, but questions remain regarding optimal chemotherapy backbone and biomarkers for patient selection. We report final outcomes from a phase Ib trial evaluating pembrolizumab (200 mg IV every 3 weeks) with either weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 weekly) or flat-dose capecitabine (2000 mg orally twice daily for 7 days of every 14-day cycle) in the 1st/2nd line setting. The primary endpoint is safety (receipt of 2 cycles without grade III/IV toxicities requiring discontinuation or ≥21-day delays). The secondary endpoint is efficacy (week 12 objective response). Exploratory aims are to characterize immunologic effects of treatment over time, and to evaluate novel biomarkers. The trial demonstrates that both regimens meet the pre-specified safety endpoint (paclitaxel: 87%; capecitabine: 100%). Objective response rate is 29% for pembrolizumab/paclitaxel (n = 4/13, 95% CI: 10-61%) and 43% for pembrolizumab/capecitabine (n = 6/14, 95% CI: 18-71%). Partial responses are observed in two subjects with chemo-refractory metaplastic carcinoma (both in capecitabine arm). Both regimens are associated with significant peripheral leukocyte contraction over time. Response is associated with clinical PD-L1 score, non-receipt of prior chemotherapy, and the H&E stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte score, but also by a novel 27 gene IO score and spatial biomarkers (lymphocyte spatial skewness). In conclusion, pembrolizumab with paclitaxel or capecitabine is safe and clinically active. Both regimens are lymphodepleting, highlighting the competing immunostimulatory versus lymphotoxic effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Further exploration of the IO score and spatial TIL biomarkers is warranted. The clinical trial registration is NCT02734290

A phase Ib trial of pembrolizumab plus paclitaxel or flat-dose capecitabine in 1st/2nd line metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

Abstract Chemoimmunotherapy with anti-programmed cell death 1/ligand 1 and cytotoxic chemotherapy is a promising therapeutic modality for women with triple-negative breast cancer, but questions remain regarding optimal chemotherapy backbone and biomarkers for patient selection. We report final outcomes from a phase Ib trial evaluating pembrolizumab (200 mg IV every 3 weeks) with either weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 weekly) or flat-dose capecitabine (2000 mg orally twice daily for 7 days of every 14-day cycle) in the 1st/2nd line setting. The primary endpoint is safety (receipt of 2 cycles without grade III/IV toxicities requiring discontinuation or ≥21-day delays). The secondary endpoint is efficacy (week 12 objective response). Exploratory aims are to characterize immunologic effects of treatment over time, and to evaluate novel biomarkers. The trial demonstrates that both regimens meet the pre-specified safety endpoint (paclitaxel: 87%; capecitabine: 100%). Objective response rate is 29% for pembrolizumab/paclitaxel (n = 4/13, 95% CI: 10–61%) and 43% for pembrolizumab/capecitabine (n = 6/14, 95% CI: 18–71%). Partial responses are observed in two subjects with chemo-refractory metaplastic carcinoma (both in capecitabine arm). Both regimens are associated with significant peripheral leukocyte contraction over time. Response is associated with clinical PD-L1 score, non-receipt of prior chemotherapy, and the H&E stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte score, but also by a novel 27 gene IO score and spatial biomarkers (lymphocyte spatial skewness). In conclusion, pembrolizumab with paclitaxel or capecitabine is safe and clinically active. Both regimens are lymphodepleting, highlighting the competing immunostimulatory versus lymphotoxic effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Further exploration of the IO score and spatial TIL biomarkers is warranted. The clinical trial registration is NCT02734290