Personalised Therapies for Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: When Target Is Not Everything

Triple-negative breast cancer—defined by the absence of oestrogen/progesterone receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 expression—is a complex and heterogeneous type of tumour characterised by poor prognosis, aggressive behaviour and lack of effective therapeutic strategies. The identification of new biomarkers and molecular signatures is leading to development of new therapeutic strategies including immunotherapy, targeted therapy and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). Against a background where chemotherapy has always been considered the standard of care, evolution towards a precision medicine approach could improve TNBC clinical practice in a complex scenario, with many therapeutic options and new drugs. The aim of this review was to focus on emerging therapeutic targets and their related specific therapy, discussing available and emerging drugs, underlining differences in approval by American and European regulatory authorities and showing the future perspective in the large number of ongoing clinical trials

Metronomic Chemotherapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer Treatment: Clinical and Preclinical Data between Lights and Shadows

Metronomic chemotherapy (mCHT), defined as continuous administration of low-dose chemotherapeutic agents with no or short regular treatment-free intervals, was first introduced to the clinic in international guidelines in 2017, and, since then, has become one of the available strategies for the treatment of advanced breast cancer (ABC). Despite recent successes, many unsolved practical and theoretical issues remain to be addressed. The present review aims to identify the “lights and shadows” of mCHT in preclinical and clinical settings. In the preclinical setting, several findings indicate that one of the most noticeable effects of mCHT is on the tumor microenvironment, which, over the last twenty years, has been demonstrated to be pivotal in supporting tumor cell survival and proliferation. On the other hand, the direct effects on tumor cells have been less well-defined. In addition, critical items to be addressed are the lack of definition of an optimal biological dose (OBD), the method of administration of metronomic schedules, and the recognition and validation of predictive biomarkers. In the clinical context—where mCHT has mainly been used in a metastatic setting—low toxicity is the most well-recognised light of mCHT, whereas the type of study design, the absence of randomised trials and uncertainty in terms of doses and drugs remain among the shadows. In conclusion, growing evidence indicates that mCHT is a suitable treatment option for selected metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. Moreover, given its multimodal mechanisms of action, its addition to immunological and targeted therapies might represent a promising new approach to the treatment of MBC. More preclinical data are needed in this regard, which can only be obtained through support for translational research as the key link between basic science and patient care

How to Treat HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients after CDK4/6 Inhibitors: An Unfinished Story

CDK4/6 inhibitors in association with endocrine therapy represent the best therapeutic choice for either endocrine-sensitive or resistant hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer patients. On the contrary, the optimal therapeutic strategy after the failure of CDK4/6 inhibitors-based treatment still remains an open question worldwide. In this review, we analyze the most studied mechanisms of resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors treatment, as well as the most significant results of retrospective and prospective trials in the setting of progression after CDK4/6 inhibitors, to provide the reader a comprehensive overview from both a preclinical and especially a clinical perspective. In our opinion, an approach based on a deeper knowledge of resistance mechanisms to CDK4/6 inhibitors, but also on a careful analysis of what is done in clinical practice, can lead to a better definition of prospective randomized trials, to implement a personalized sequence approach, based on molecular analyses

Breakthrough Cancer Pain: Preliminary Data of The Italian Oncologic Pain Multisetting Multicentric Survey (IOPS-MS)

Introduction: An ongoing national multicenter survey [Italian Oncologic Pain multiSetting Multicentric Survey (IOPS-MS)] is evaluating the characteristics of breakthrough cancer pain (BTP) in different clinical settings. Preliminary data from the first 1500 cancer patients with BTP enrolled in this study are presented here. Methods: Thirty-two clinical centers are involved in the survey. A diagnosis of BTP was performed by a standard algorithm. Epidemiological data, Karnofsky index, stage of disease, presence and sites of metastases, ongoing oncologic treatment, and characteristics of background pain and BTP and their treatments were recorded. Background pain and BTP intensity were measured. Patients were also questioned about BTP predictability, BTP onset (≤10 or >10 min), BTP duration, background and BTP medications and their doses, time to meaningful pain relief after BTP medication, and satisfaction with BTP medication. The occurrence of adverse reactions was also assessed, as well as mucosal toxicity. Results: Background pain was well controlled with opioid treatment (numerical rating scale 3.0 ± 1.1). Patients reported 2.5 ± 1.6 BTP episodes/day with a mean intensity of 7.5 ± 1.4 and duration of 43 ± 40 min; 977 patients (65.1%) reported non-predictable BTP, and 1076 patients (71.7%) reported a rapid onset of BTP (≤10 min). Higher patient satisfaction was reported by patients treated with fast onset opioids. Conclusions: These preliminary data underline that the standard algorithm used is a valid tool for a proper diagnosis of BTP in cancer patients. Moreover, rapid relief of pain is crucial for patients’ satisfaction. The final IOPS-MS data are necessary to understand relationships between BTP characteristics and other clinical variables in oncologic patients. Funding: Molteni Farmaceutici, Italy