Current and future diagnostic and treatment strategies for patients with invasive lobular breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) is the second most common type of breast cancer after invasive breast cancer of no special type (NST), representing up to 15% of all breast cancers. DESIGN: Latest data on ILC are presented, focusing on diagnosis, molecular make-up according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT) guidelines, treatment in the early and metastatic setting and ILC-focused clinical trials. RESULTS: At the imaging level, magnetic resonance imaging-based and novel positron emission tomography/computed tomography-based techniques can overcome the limitations of currently used imaging techniques for diagnosing ILC. At the pathology level, E-cadherin immunohistochemistry could help improving inter-pathologist agreement. The majority of patients with ILC do not seem to benefit as much from (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy as patients with NST, although chemotherapy might be required in a subset of high-risk patients. No differences in treatment efficacy are seen for anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapies in the adjuvant setting and cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors in the metastatic setting. The clinical utility of the commercially available prognostic gene expression-based tests is unclear for patients with ILC. Several ESCAT alterations differ in frequency between ILC and NST. Germline BRCA1 and PALB2 alterations are less frequent in patients with ILC, while germline CDH1 (gene coding for E-cadherin) alterations are more frequent in patients with ILC. Somatic HER2 mutations are more frequent in ILC, especially in metastases (15% ILC versus 5% NST). A high tumour mutational burden, relevant for immune checkpoint inhibition, is more frequent in ILC metastases (16%) than in NST metastases (5%). Tumours with somatic inactivating CDH1 mutations may be vulnerable for treatment with ROS1 inhibitors, a concept currently investigated in early and metastatic ILC. CONCLUSION: ILC is a unique malignancy based on its pathological and biological features leading to differences in diagnosis as well as in treatment response, resistance and targets as compared to NST

Circulating adrenomedullin estimates survival and reversibility of organ failure in sepsis: the prospective observational multinational Adrenomedullin and Outcome in Sepsis and Septic Shock-1 (AdrenOSS-1) study

Background: Adrenomedullin (ADM) regulates vascular tone and endothelial permeability during sepsis. Levels of circulating biologically active ADM (bio-ADM) show an inverse relationship with blood pressure and a direct relationship with vasopressor requirement. In the present prospective observational multinational Adrenomedullin and Outcome in Sepsis and Septic Shock 1 (, AdrenOSS-1) study, we assessed relationships between circulating bio-ADM during the initial intensive care unit (ICU) stay and short-term outcome in order to eventually design a biomarker-guided randomized controlled trial. Methods: AdrenOSS-1 was a prospective observational multinational study. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included organ failure as defined by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, organ support with focus on vasopressor/inotropic use, and need for renal replacement therapy. AdrenOSS-1 included 583 patients admitted to the ICU with sepsis or septic shock. Results: Circulating bio-ADM levels were measured upon admission and at day 2. Median bio-ADM concentration upon admission was 80.5 pg/ml [IQR 41.5-148.1 pg/ml]. Initial SOFA score was 7 [IQR 5-10], and 28-day mortality was 22%. We found marked associations between bio-ADM upon admission and 28-day mortality (unadjusted standardized HR 2.3 [CI 1.9-2.9]; adjusted HR 1.6 [CI 1.1-2.5]) and between bio-ADM levels and SOFA score (p < 0.0001). Need of vasopressor/inotrope, renal replacement therapy, and positive fluid balance were more prevalent in patients with a bio-ADM > 70 pg/ml upon admission than in those with bio-ADM ≤ 70 pg/ml. In patients with bio-ADM > 70 pg/ml upon admission, decrease in bio-ADM below 70 pg/ml at day 2 was associated with recovery of organ function at day 7 and better 28-day outcome (9.5% mortality). By contrast, persistently elevated bio-ADM at day 2 was associated with prolonged organ dysfunction and high 28-day mortality (38.1% mortality, HR 4.9, 95% CI 2.5-9.8). Conclusions: AdrenOSS-1 shows that early levels and rapid changes in bio-ADM estimate short-term outcome in sepsis and septic shock. These data are the backbone of the design of the biomarker-guided AdrenOSS-2 trial. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02393781. Registered on March 19, 2015

31st Annual Meeting and Associated Programs of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC 2016) : part two

Background The immunological escape of tumors represents one of the main ob- stacles to the treatment of malignancies. The blockade of PD-1 or CTLA-4 receptors represented a milestone in the history of immunotherapy. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to be effective in specific cohorts of patients. It has been proposed that their efficacy relies on the presence of an immunological response. Thus, we hypothesized that disruption of the PD-L1/PD-1 axis would synergize with our oncolytic vaccine platform PeptiCRAd. Methods We used murine B16OVA in vivo tumor models and flow cytometry analysis to investigate the immunological background. Results First, we found that high-burden B16OVA tumors were refractory to combination immunotherapy. However, with a more aggressive schedule, tumors with a lower burden were more susceptible to the combination of PeptiCRAd and PD-L1 blockade. The therapy signifi- cantly increased the median survival of mice (Fig. 7). Interestingly, the reduced growth of contralaterally injected B16F10 cells sug- gested the presence of a long lasting immunological memory also against non-targeted antigens. Concerning the functional state of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), we found that all the immune therapies would enhance the percentage of activated (PD-1pos TIM- 3neg) T lymphocytes and reduce the amount of exhausted (PD-1pos TIM-3pos) cells compared to placebo. As expected, we found that PeptiCRAd monotherapy could increase the number of antigen spe- cific CD8+ T cells compared to other treatments. However, only the combination with PD-L1 blockade could significantly increase the ra- tio between activated and exhausted pentamer positive cells (p= 0.0058), suggesting that by disrupting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis we could decrease the amount of dysfunctional antigen specific T cells. We ob- served that the anatomical location deeply influenced the state of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. In fact, TIM-3 expression was in- creased by 2 fold on TILs compared to splenic and lymphoid T cells. In the CD8+ compartment, the expression of PD-1 on the surface seemed to be restricted to the tumor micro-environment, while CD4 + T cells had a high expression of PD-1 also in lymphoid organs. Interestingly, we found that the levels of PD-1 were significantly higher on CD8+ T cells than on CD4+ T cells into the tumor micro- environment (p < 0.0001). Conclusions In conclusion, we demonstrated that the efficacy of immune check- point inhibitors might be strongly enhanced by their combination with cancer vaccines. PeptiCRAd was able to increase the number of antigen-specific T cells and PD-L1 blockade prevented their exhaus- tion, resulting in long-lasting immunological memory and increased median survival

Current and future diagnostic and treatment strategies for patients with invasive lobular breast cancer

BACKGROUND: Invasive Lobular breast cancer (ILC) is the second most common type of breast cancer after invasive breast cancer of no special type (NST), representing up to 15% of all breast cancers. DESIGN: Latest data on ILC are presented, focusing on diagnosis, molecular make-up according to the ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT) guidelines, treatment in the early and metastatic setting and ILC-focused clinical trials. RESULTS: At the imaging level, MRI-based and novel PET/CT-based techniques can overcome the limitations of currently used imaging techniques for diagnosing ILC. At the pathology level, E-cadherin immunohistochemistry could help improving inter-pathologist agreement. The majority of patients with ILC do not seem to benefit as much from (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy as patients with NST, although chemotherapy might be required in a subset of high-risk patients. No differences in treatment efficacy are seen for anti-HER2 therapies in the adjuvant setting and CDK4/6 inhibitors in the metastatic setting. The clinical utility of the commercially-available prognostic gene expression-based tests is unclear for patients with ILC. Several ESCAT alterations differ in frequency between ILC and NST. Germline BRCA1 and PALB2 alterations are less frequent in patients with ILC, while germline CDH1 (gene coding for E-cadherin) alterations are more frequent in patients with ILC. Somatic HER2 mutations are more frequent in ILC, especially in metastases (15% ILC versus 5% NST). A high tumour mutational burden, relevant for immune checkpoint inhibition, is more frequent in ILC metastases (16%) than NST metastases (5%). Tumours with somatic inactivating CDH1 mutations may be vulnerable for treatment with ROS1 inhibitors, a concept currently investigated in early and metastatic ILC. CONCLUSIONS: ILC is a unique malignancy based on its pathological and biological features leading to differences in diagnosis as well as in treatment response, resistance and targets as compared to NST

Changes in anticancer treatment plans in patients with solid cancer hospitalized with COVID-19: analysis of the nationwide BSMO-COVID registry providing lessons for the future.

Solid cancer is an independent prognostic factor for poor outcome with COVID-19. As guidelines for patient management in that setting depend on retrospective efforts, we here present the first analyses of a nationwide database of patients with cancer hospitalized with COVID-19 in Belgium, with a focus on changes in anticancer treatment plans at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nineteen Belgian hospitals identified all patients with a history of solid cancer hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2021. Demographic, cancer-specific and COVID-specific data were pseudonymously entered into a central Belgian Society of Medical Oncology (BSMO)-COVID database. The association between survival and primary cancer type was analyzed through multivariate multinomial logistic regression. Group comparisons for categorical variables were carried out through a Chi-square test. A total of 928 patients were registered in the database; most of them were aged ≥70 years (61.0%) and with poor performance scores [57.2% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) ≥2]. Thirty-day COVID-related mortality was 19.8%. In multivariate analysis, a trend was seen for higher mortality in patients with lung cancer (27.6% versus 20.8%, P = 0.062) and lower mortality for patients with breast cancer (13.0% versus 23.3%, P = 0.052) compared with other tumour types. Non-curative treatment was associated with higher 30-day COVID-related mortality rates compared with curative or no active treatment (25.8% versus 14.3% versus 21.9%, respectively, P < 0.001). In 33% of patients under active treatment, the therapeutic plan was changed due to COVID-19 diagnosis, most frequently involving delays/interruptions in systemic treatments (18.6%). Thirty-day COVID-related mortality was not significantly different between patients with and without treatment modifications (21.4% versus 20.5%). Interruption in anticancer treatments at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with a reduction in COVID-related mortality in our cohort of patients with solid cancer, highlighting that treatment continuation should be strived for, especially in the curative setting

Changes in anticancer treatment plans in patients with solid cancer hospitalized with COVID-19: analysis of the nationwide BSMO-COVID registry providing lessons for the future.

peer reviewed[en] BACKGROUND: Solid cancer is an independent prognostic factor for poor outcome with COVID-19. As guidelines for patient management in that setting depend on retrospective efforts, we here present the first analyses of a nationwide database of patients with cancer hospitalized with COVID-19 in Belgium, with a focus on changes in anticancer treatment plans at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Nineteen Belgian hospitals identified all patients with a history of solid cancer hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2021. Demographic, cancer-specific and COVID-specific data were pseudonymously entered into a central Belgian Society of Medical Oncology (BSMO)-COVID database. The association between survival and primary cancer type was analyzed through multivariate multinomial logistic regression. Group comparisons for categorical variables were carried out through a Chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 928 patients were registered in the database; most of them were aged ≥70 years (61.0%) and with poor performance scores [57.2% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) ≥2]. Thirty-day COVID-related mortality was 19.8%. In multivariate analysis, a trend was seen for higher mortality in patients with lung cancer (27.6% versus 20.8%, P = 0.062) and lower mortality for patients with breast cancer (13.0% versus 23.3%, P = 0.052) compared with other tumour types. Non-curative treatment was associated with higher 30-day COVID-related mortality rates compared with curative or no active treatment (25.8% versus 14.3% versus 21.9%, respectively, P < 0.001). In 33% of patients under active treatment, the therapeutic plan was changed due to COVID-19 diagnosis, most frequently involving delays/interruptions in systemic treatments (18.6%). Thirty-day COVID-related mortality was not significantly different between patients with and without treatment modifications (21.4% versus 20.5%). CONCLUSION: Interruption in anticancer treatments at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with a reduction in COVID-related mortality in our cohort of patients with solid cancer, highlighting that treatment continuation should be strived for, especially in the curative setting