A careful reassessment of anthracycline use in curable breast cancer.

It has been over three decades since anthracyclines took their place as the standard chemotherapy backbone for breast cancer in the curative setting. Though the efficacy of anthracycline chemotherapy is not debatable, potentially life-threatening and long-term risks accompany this class of agents, leading some to question their widespread use, especially when newer agents with improved therapeutic indices have become available. Critically assessing when to incorporate an anthracycline is made more relevant in an era where molecular classification is enabling not only the development of biologically targeted therapeutics but also is improving the ability to better select those who would benefit from cytotoxic agents. This comprehensive analysis will present the problem of overtreatment in early-stage breast cancer, review evidence supporting the use of anthracyclines in the pre-taxane era, analyze comparative trials evaluating taxanes with or without anthracyclines in biologically unselected and selected patient populations, and explore published work aimed at defining anthracycline-sensitive tumor types

A careful reassessment of anthracycline use in curable breast cancer.

It has been over three decades since anthracyclines took their place as the standard chemotherapy backbone for breast cancer in the curative setting. Though the efficacy of anthracycline chemotherapy is not debatable, potentially life-threatening and long-term risks accompany this class of agents, leading some to question their widespread use, especially when newer agents with improved therapeutic indices have become available. Critically assessing when to incorporate an anthracycline is made more relevant in an era where molecular classification is enabling not only the development of biologically targeted therapeutics but also is improving the ability to better select those who would benefit from cytotoxic agents. This comprehensive analysis will present the problem of overtreatment in early-stage breast cancer, review evidence supporting the use of anthracyclines in the pre-taxane era, analyze comparative trials evaluating taxanes with or without anthracyclines in biologically unselected and selected patient populations, and explore published work aimed at defining anthracycline-sensitive tumor types

Neratinib + fulvestrant + trastuzumab for HR-positive, HER2-negative, HER2-mutant metastatic breast cancer: outcomes and biomarker analysis from the SUMMIT trial

International audienceBackground: HER2 mutations are targetable alterations in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In the SUMMIT basket study, patients with HER2-mutant MBC received neratinib monotherapy, neratinib + fulvestrant, or neratinib + fulvestrant + trastuzumab (N + F + T). We report results from 71 patients with HR+, HER2-mutant MBC, including 21 (seven in each arm) from a randomized substudy of fulvestrant versus fulvestrant + trastuzumab (F + T) versus N + F + T. Patients and methods: Patients with HR+ HER2-negative MBC with activating HER2 mutation(s) and prior cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) therapy received N + F + T (oral neratinib 240 mg/day with loperamide prophylaxis, intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg on days 1, 15, and 29 of cycle 1 then q4w, intravenous trastuzumab 8 mg/kg then 6 mg/kg q3w) or F + T or fulvestrant alone. Those whose disease progressed on F + T or fulvestrant could cross-over to N + F + T. Efficacy endpoints included investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (RECIST v1.1), duration of response, and progression-free survival (PFS). Plasma and/or formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples were collected at baseline; plasma was collected during and at end of treatment. Extracted DNA was analyzed by next-generation sequencing. Results: ORR for 57 N + F + T-treated patients was 39% [95% confidence interval (CI) 26% to 52%); median PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI 6.0-15.1 months). No responses occurred in fulvestrant- or F + T-treated patients; responses in patients crossing over to N + F + T supported the requirement for neratinib in the triplet. Responses were observed in patients with ductal and lobular histology, 1 or ≥1 HER2 mutations, and co-occurring HER3 mutations. Longitudinal circulating tumor DNA sequencing revealed acquisition of additional HER2 alterations, and mutations in genes including PIK3CA, enabling further precision targeting and possible re-response. Conclusions: The benefit of N + F + T for HR+ HER2-mutant MBC after progression on CDK4/6is is clinically meaningful and, based on this study, N + F + T has been included in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network treatment guidelines. SUMMIT has improved our understanding of the translational implications of targeting HER2 mutations with neratinib-based therapy