A retrospective, multicenter study of the efficacy of lapatinib plus trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients previously treated with trastuzumab, lapatinib, or both: the Trastyvere study

[Purpose]: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lapatinib (L) and trastuzumab (T) combination in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients previously treated with T and/or L.[Materials and methods]: We conducted a retrospective, post-authorized, multicenter study including patients with HER2-positive MBC or locally advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated with the combination of L–T. Concomitant endocrine therapy, as well as brain metastasis and/or prior exposure to L, were allowed.[Results]: One hundred and fifteen patients from 14 institutions were included. The median age was 59.8 years. The median number of prior T regimens in the advanced setting was 3 and 73 patients had received a prior L regimen. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 34.8% (95% CI 26.1–43.5). Among other efficacy endpoints, the overall response rate was 21.7%, and median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 3.9 and 21.6 months, respectively. Heavily pretreated and ≥ 3 metastatic organ patients showed lower CBR and PFS than patients with a low number of previous regimens and < 3 metastatic organs. Moreover, CBR did not significantly change in L-pretreated compared with L-naïve patients (31.5% versus 40.5% for L-pretreated versus L-naïve). Grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 19 patients (16.5%).[Conclusion]: The combination of L–T is an effective and well-tolerated regimen in heavily pretreated patients and remains active among patients progressing on prior L-based therapy. Our study suggests that the L–T regimen is a safe and active chemotherapy-free option for MBC patients previously treated with T and/or L.This work was supported by GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK) through a contract with Medica Scientia Innovation Research (MedSIR), an academic research organization focused on independent clinical research development

Trajectories of alcohol consumption during life and the risk of developing breast cancer

Background: Whether there are lifetime points of greater sensitivity to the deleterious effects of alcohol intake on the breasts remains inconclusive. Objective: To compare the influence of distinctive trajectories of alcohol consumption throughout a woman’s life on development of breast cancer (BC). Methods: 1278 confirmed invasive BC cases and matched (by age and residence) controls from the Epi-GEICAM study (Spain) were used. The novel group-based trajectory modelling was used to identify different alcohol consumption trajectories throughout women’s lifetime. Results: Four alcohol trajectories were identified. The first comprised women (45%) with low alcohol consumption (<5 g/day) throughout their life. The second included those (33%) who gradually moved from a low alcohol consumption in adolescence to a moderate in adulthood (5 to <15 g/day), never having a high consumption; and oppositely, women in the third trajectory (16%) moved from moderate consumption in adolescence, to a lower consumption in adulthood. Women in the fourth (6%) moved from a moderate alcohol consumption in adolescence to the highest consumption in adulthood (=15 g/day), never having a low alcohol consumption. Comparing with the first trajectory, the fourth doubled BC risk (OR 2.19; 95% CI 1.27, 3.77), followed by the third (OR 1.44; 0.96, 2.16) and ultimately by the second trajectory (OR 1.17; 0.86, 1.58). The magnitude of BC risk was greater in postmenopausal women, especially in those with underweight or normal weight. When alcohol consumption was independently examined at each life stage, =15 g/day of alcohol consumption in adolescence was strongly associated with BC risk followed by consumption in adulthood. Conclusions: The greater the alcohol consumption accumulated throughout life, the greater the risk of BC, especially in postmenopausal women. Alcohol consumption during adolescence may particularly influence BC risk. © 2021, The Author(s)

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 SARSCoV-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

Palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in hormonal receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative, aromatase inhibitor-resistant metastatic breast cancer: a phase III randomised controlled trial—PEARL

Background: Palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) is the standard treatment of hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, its efficacy has not been compared with that of chemotherapy in a phase III trial. Patients and methods: PEARL is a multicentre, phase III randomised study in which patients with aromatase inhibitor (AI)-resistant MBC were included in two consecutive cohorts. In cohort 1, patients were randomised 1 : 1 to palbociclib plus exemestane or capecitabine. On discovering new evidence about estrogen receptor-1 (ESR1) mutations inducing resistance to AIs, the trial was amended to include cohort 2, in which patients were randomised 1 : 1 between palbociclib plus fulvestrant and capecitabine. The stratification criteria were disease site, prior sensitivity to ET, prior chemotherapy for MBC, and country of origin. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in cohort 2 and in wild-type ESR1 patients (cohort 1 + cohort 2). ESR1 hotspot mutations were analysed in baseline circulating tumour DNA. Results: From March 2014 to July 2018, 296 and 305 patients were included in cohort 1 and cohort 2, respectively. Palbociclib plus ET was not superior to capecitabine in both cohort 2 [median PFS: 7.5 versus 10.0 months; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.50] and wild-type ESR1 patients (median PFS: 8.0 versus 10.6 months; aHR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.87-1.41). The most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities with palbociclib plus exemestane, palbociclib plus fulvestrant and capecitabine, respectively, were neutropenia (57.4%, 55.7% and 5.5%), hand/foot syndrome (0%, 0% and 23.5%), and diarrhoea (1.3%, 1.3% and 7.6%). Palbociclib plus ET offered better quality of life (aHR for time to deterioration of global health status: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.53-0.85). Conclusions: There was no statistical superiority of palbociclib plus ET over capecitabine with respect to PFS in MBC patients resistant to AIs. Palbociclib plus ET showed a better safety profile and improved quality of life

A polymorphism at the 3'-UTR region of the aromatase gene defines a subgroup of postmenopausal breast cancer patients with poor response to neoadjuvant letrozole

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Aromatase (<it>CYP19A1</it>) regulates estrogen biosynthesis. Polymorphisms in <it>CYP19A1 </it>have been related to the pathogenesis of breast cancer (BC). Inhibition of aromatase with letrozole constitutes the best option for treating estrogen-dependent BC in postmenopausal women. We evaluate a series of polymorphisms of <it>CYP19A1 </it>and their effect on response to neoadjuvant letrozole in early BC.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We analyzed 95 consecutive postmenopausal women with stage II-III ER/PgR [+] BC treated with neoadjuvant letrozole. Response to treatment was measured by radiology at 4^thmonth by World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Three polymorphisms of <it>CYP19A1</it>, one in exon 7 (rs700519) and two in the 3'-UTR region (rs10046 and rs4646) were evaluated on DNA obtained from peripheral blood.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirty-five women (36.8%) achieved a radiological response to letrozole. The histopathological and immunohistochemical parameters, including hormonal receptor status, were not associated with the response to letrozole. Only the genetic variants (AC/AA) of the rs4646 polymorphism were associated with poor response to letrozole (p = 0.03). Eighteen patients (18.9%) reported a progression of the disease. Those patients carrying the genetic variants (AC/AA) of rs4646 presented a lower progression-free survival than the patients homozygous for the reference variant (p = 0.0686). This effect was especially significant in the group of elderly patients not operated after letrozole induction (p = 0.009).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our study reveals that the rs4646 polymorphism identifies a subgroup of stage II-III ER/PgR [+] BC patients with poor response to neoadjuvant letrozole and poor prognosis. Testing for the rs4646 polymorphism could be a useful tool in order to orientate the treatment in elderly BC patients.</p

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

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

Report on computational assessment of Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes from the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group

Funder: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Cancer Institute (NCI)Funder: National Center for Research Resources under award number 1 C06 RR12463-01, VA Merit Review Award IBX004121A from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development Service, the DOD Prostate Cancer Idea Development Award (W81XWH-15-1-0558), the DOD Lung Cancer Investigator-Initiated Translational Research Award (W81XWH-18-1-0440), the DOD Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program (W81XWH-16-1-0329), the Ohio Third Frontier Technology Validation Fund, the Wallace H. Coulter Foundation Program in the Department of Biomedical Engineering and the Clinical and Translational Science Award Program (CTSA) at Case Western Reserve University.Funder: Susan G Komen Foundation (CCR CCR18547966) and a Young Investigator Grant from the Breast Cancer Alliance.Funder: The Canadian Cancer SocietyFunder: Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), Grant No. 17-194Abstract: Assessment of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) is increasingly recognized as an integral part of the prognostic workflow in triple-negative (TNBC) and HER2-positive breast cancer, as well as many other solid tumors. This recognition has come about thanks to standardized visual reporting guidelines, which helped to reduce inter-reader variability. Now, there are ripe opportunities to employ computational methods that extract spatio-morphologic predictive features, enabling computer-aided diagnostics. We detail the benefits of computational TILs assessment, the readiness of TILs scoring for computational assessment, and outline considerations for overcoming key barriers to clinical translation in this arena. Specifically, we discuss: 1. ensuring computational workflows closely capture visual guidelines and standards; 2. challenges and thoughts standards for assessment of algorithms including training, preanalytical, analytical, and clinical validation; 3. perspectives on how to realize the potential of machine learning models and to overcome the perceptual and practical limits of visual scoring