Evaluating the addition of bevacizumab to endocrine therapy as first-line treatment for hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer: a pooled analysis from the LEA (GEICAM/2006-11_GBG51) and CALGB 40503 (Alliance) trials

Background: Randomised trials comparing the efficacy of standard endocrine therapy (ET) versus experimental ET + bevacizumab (Bev) in 1st line hormone receptor–positive patients with metastatic breast cancer have thus far shown conflicting results. Patients and methods: We pooled data from two similar phase III randomised trials of ET ± Bev (LEA and Cancer and Leukemia Group B 40503) to increase precision in estimating treatment effect. Primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR) and safety. Exploratory analyses were performed within subgroups defined by patients with recurrent disease, de novo disease, prior endocrine sensitivity or resistance and reported grades III–IV hypertension and proteinuria. Results: The pooled sample consisted of 749 patients randomised to ET or ET + Bev. Median PFS was 14.3 months for ET versus 19 months for ET + Bev (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–0.91; p < 0.01). ORR and CBR with ET and ET + Bev were 40 versus 61% (p < 0.01) and 64 versus 77% (p < 0.01), respectively. There was no difference in OS (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.77–1.18; p = 0.68). PFS was superior for ET + Bev for endocrine-sensitive patients (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.53–0.89; p = 0.004). Grade III–IV hypertension (2.2 versus 20.1%), proteinuria (0 versus 9.3%), cardiovascular (0.5 versus 4.2%) and liver events (0 versus 2.9%) were significantly higher for ET + Bev (all p < 0.01). Hypertension and proteinuria were not predictors of efficacy (interaction test p = 0.33). Conclusion: The addition of Bev to ET increased PFS overall and in endocrine-sensitive patients but not OS at the expense of significant additional toxicity. Trials registration: ClinicalTrial.Gov NCT00545077 and NCT00601900

Phase III Trial of Adjuvant Capecitabine After Standard Neo-/Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients With Early Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (GEICAM/2003-11_CIBOMA/2004-01)

Altres ajuts: Agustí Barnadas: Honoraria: Pfizer. Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly. Speakers'Bureau: Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Genomic Health International. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Pfizer; Miguel A. Seguí: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Amgen, Eisai, Eli Lilly. Speakers' Bureau: Roche, Pfizer, Amgen. Research Funding: Roche (Inst), Novartis (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Amgen.Operable triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) have a higher risk of relapse than non-TNBCs with standard therapy. The GEICAM/2003-11_CIBOMA/2004-01 trial explored extended adjuvant capecitabine after completion of standard chemotherapy in patients with early TNBC. Eligible patients were those with operable, node-positive-or node negative with tumor 1 cm or greater-TNBC, with prior anthracycline- and/or taxane-containing chemotherapy. After central confirmation of TNBC status by immunohistochemistry, patients were randomly assigned to either capecitabine or observation. Stratification factors included institution, prior taxane-based therapy, involved axillary lymph nodes, and centrally determined phenotype (basal v nonbasal, according to cytokeratins 5/6 and/or epidermal growth factor receptor positivity by immunohistochemistry). The primary objective was to compare disease-free survival (DFS) between both arms. Eight hundred seventy-six patients were randomly assigned to capecitabine (n = 448) or observation (n = 428). Median age was 49 years, 55.9% were lymph node negative, 73.9% had a basal phenotype, and 67.5% received previous anthracyclines plus taxanes. Median length of follow-up was 7.3 years. DFS was not significantly prolonged with capecitabine versus observation [hazard ratio (HR), 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06; P =.136]. In a preplanned subgroup analysis, nonbasal patients seemed to derive benefit from the addition of capecitabine with a DFS HR of 0.53 versus 0.94 in those with basal phenotype (interaction test P =.0694) and an HR for overall survival of 0.42 versus 1.23 in basal phenotype (interaction test P =.0052). Tolerance of capecitabine was as expected, with 75.2% of patients completing the planned 8 cycles. This study failed to show a statistically significant increase in DFS by adding extended capecitabine to standard chemotherapy in patients with early TNBC. In a preplanned subset analysis, patients with nonbasal phenotype seemed to obtain benefit with capecitabine, although this will require additional validation

New horizons in breast cancer: the promise of immunotherapy.

Immunology and immunotherapy of cancer is an expanding field in oncology, with recent great achievements obtained through the new successful approaches implemented to circumvent immune evasion, which is undoubtedly considered a novel hallmark of cancer. Translational research in this topic has revealed targets that can be modulated in the clinical setting with new compounds and strategies. Like most of the tumors, breast cancer is considered a complex and heterogeneous disease in which host immune responses have been also recently demonstrated of critical relevance. T infiltrating lymphocyte measurement is suggested as a powerful new tool necessary to predict early breast cancer evolution, especially for the her2-positive and triple-negative subtypes. Other biomarkers in tissue and peripheral blood are under intense scrutiny to ascertain their eventual role as prognostic and/or predictive factors. This background has fueled the interest in developing clinical research strategies to test activity of modern immunotherapy in breast cancer, which constitutes the main focus of this review

Circulating immune biomarkers in peripheral blood correlate with clinical outcomes in advanced breast cancer.

Identification of the different elements intervening at the tumor microenvironment seems key to explain clinical evolution in several tumor types. In this study, a set of immune biomarkers (myeloid derived suppressor cells, regulatory T cells, and OX40 + and PD-1 + T lymphocytes counts) in peripheral blood of patients diagnosed with advanced breast cancer were analyzed along of first line antineoplastic therapy. Subsequently, a comparison between groups with clinical benefit versus progression of disease and with a healthy women cohort was executed. Results reflected that patients showed higher basal levels of myeloid derived suppressor cells (35.43, IR = 180.73 vs 17.53, IR = 16.96 cells/μl; p = 0.001) and regulatory T cells (32.05, IR = 29.84 vs 22.61, IR = 13.57 cells/μl; p = 0.001) in comparison with healthy women. Furthermore, an increase in the number of activated T lymphocytes (expressing OX40), a decrease of immune inhibitory cells (MDSCs and Tregs) and inhibited T lymphocytes (expressing PD-1) were observed along the treatment in patients with clinical benefit (p ≤ 0.001). The opposite trend was observed in the case of disease progression. These findings suggest that some critical immune elements can be easily detected and measured in peripheral blood, which open a new opportunity for translational research, as they seem to be correlated with clinical evolution, at least in ABC

Efficacy of Chemotherapy for ER-Negative and ER-Positive Isolated Locoregional Recurrence of Breast Cancer: Final Analysis of the CALOR Trial

Purpose Isolated locoregional recurrence (ILRR) predicts a high risk of developing breast cancer distant metastases and death. The Chemotherapy as Adjuvant for LOcally Recurrent breast cancer (CALOR) trial investigated the effectiveness of chemotherapy (CT) after local therapy for ILRR. A report at 5 years of median follow-up showed significant benefit of CT for estrogen receptor (ER)-negative ILRR, but additional follow-up was required in ER-positive ILRR. Patients and Methods CALOR was an open-label, randomized trial for patients with completely excised ILRR after unilateral breast cancer. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive CT or no CT and stratified by prior CT, hormone receptor status, and location of ILRR. Patients with hormone receptor-positive ILRR received adjuvant endocrine therapy. Radiation therapy was mandated for patients with microscopically involved margins, and anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 therapy was optional. End points were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival, and breast cancer-free interval. Results From August 2003 to January 2010, 162 patients were enrolled: 58 with ER-negative and 104 with ER-positive ILRR. At 9 years of median follow-up, 27 DFS events were observed in the ER-negative group and 40 in the ER-positive group. The hazard ratios (HR) of a DFS event were 0.29 (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.67; 10-year DFS, 70% v 34%, CT v no CT, respectively) in patients with ER-negative ILRR and 1.07 (95% CI, 0.57 to 2.00; 10-year DFS, 50% v 59%, respectively) in patients with ER-positive ILRR ( Pinteraction = .013). HRs were 0.29 (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.67) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.47 to 1.85), respectively, for breast cancer-free interval ( Pinteraction = .034) and 0.48 (95% CI, 0.19 to 1.20) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.32 to 1.55), respectively, for overall survival ( Pinteraction = .53). Results for the three end points were consistent in multivariable analyses adjusting for location of ILRR, prior CT, and interval from primary surgery. Conclusion The final analysis of CALOR confirms that CT benefits patients with resected ER-negative ILRR and does not support the use of CT for ER-positive ILRR

GEICAM guidelines for the management of patients with breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in women in Spain. During the COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, patients with BC still require timely treatment and follow-up; however, hospitals are overwhelmed with infected patients and, if exposed, patients with BC are at higher risk for infection and serious complications if infected. Thus, health care providers need to evaluate each BC treatment and in-hospital visit to minimize pandemic-associated risks while maintaining adequate treatment efficacy. Here we present a set of guidelines regarding available options for BC patient management and treatment by BC subtype in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Owing to the lack of evidence about COVID-19 infection, these recommendations are mainly based on expert opinion, medical organizations' and societies' recommendations, and some published evidence. We consider this a useful tool to facilitate medical decision making in this health crisis situation we are facing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This work presents a set of guidelines regarding available options for breast cancer (BC) patient management and treatment by BC subtype in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Owing to the suddenness of this health crisis, specialists have to make decisions with little evidence at hand. Thus, these expert guidelines may be a useful tool to facilitate medical decision making in the context of a worldwide pandemic with no resources to spare