Personalized therapy in breast cancer

Systemic treatment of non-metastatic breast cancer is based on endocrine therapy, cytotoxic chemotherapy, and molecular targeted therapy - with the major problems of immense overtreatment of patients who would not relapse without systemic therapy and the failure of treatment in others whose disease still recurs. These deficits can only be overcome by the identification of new and better prognostic and predictive markers. Currently, adjuvant treatment stratification is based on a limited number of established factors, namely locoregional tumour stage, age, grade, expression of hormone receptors, HER2, and Ki-67. Molecular profiling techniques, however, have revolutionized our understanding of breast cancer as a heterogeneous disease. Future results from even more comprehensive genetic analyses as part of the coordinated cancer genome projects will help to develop better treatment stratifications and new therapeutic approaches. Efforts to realize the dream of a personalized treatment for breast cancer will include drug development and intelligent design of trials for increasingly small subgroups of patients with specific host and disease characteristics. This will only be made possible by a strong cooperation between basic researchers and translational scientists, clinicians, as well as academia and industry

Maintenance olaparib rechallenge in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer previously treated with a PARP inhibitor (OReO/ENGOT-ov38): a phase IIIb trial

PARP inhibitor; Ovarian cancer; RelapsedInhibidor de PARP; Càncer d'ovari; RecaigudaInhibidor de PARP; Cáncer de ovario; RecaídaBackground Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor maintenance therapy is the standard of care for some patients with advanced ovarian cancer. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitor rechallenge. Patients and methods This randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial (NCT03106987) enrolled patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer who had received one prior PARP inhibitor therapy for ≥18 and ≥12 months in the BRCA-mutated and non-BRCA-mutated cohorts, respectively, following first-line chemotherapy or for ≥12 and ≥6 months, respectively, following a second or subsequent line of chemotherapy. Patients were in response following their last platinum-based chemotherapy regimen and were randomized 2 : 1 to maintenance olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. Results Seventy four patients in the BRCA-mutated cohort were randomized to olaparib and 38 to placebo, and 72 patients in the non-BRCA-mutated cohort were randomized to olaparib and 36 to placebo; >85% of patients in both cohorts had received ≥3 prior lines of chemotherapy. In the BRCA-mutated cohort, the median PFS was 4.3 months with olaparib versus 2.8 months with placebo [hazard ratio (HR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37-0.87; P = 0.022]; 1-year PFS rates were 19% versus 0% (Kaplan–Meier estimates). In the non-BRCA-mutated cohort, median PFS was 5.3 months for olaparib versus 2.8 months for placebo (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.26-0.71; P = 0.0023); 1-year PFS rates were 14% versus 0% (Kaplan–Meier estimates). No new safety signals were identified with olaparib rechallenge. Conclusions In ovarian cancer patients previously treated with one prior PARP inhibitor and at least two lines of platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance olaparib rechallenge provided a statistically significant, albeit modest, PFS improvement over placebo in both the BRCA-mutated and non-BRCA-mutated cohorts, with a proportion of patients in the maintenance olaparib rechallenge arm of both cohorts remaining progression free at 1 year.This work was funded by AstraZeneca and is part of an alliance between AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (no grant number)

Sacituzumab Govitecan in Hormone Receptor–Positive/Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer

Sacituzumab govitecán; Cáncer de mama metastásicoSacituzumab govitecan; Càncer de mama metastàticSacituzumab govitecan; Metastatic breast cancerPURPOSE Hormone receptor–positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2–) endocrine-resistant metastatic breast cancer is treated with sequential single-agent chemotherapy with poor outcomes. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate with an SN-38 payload targeting trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2, an epithelial antigen expressed in breast cancer. METHODS In this global, randomized, phase III study, SG was compared with physician's choice chemotherapy (eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine) in endocrine-resistant, chemotherapy-treated HR+/HER2– locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic breast cancer. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. RESULTS Patients were randomly assigned to receive SG (n = 272) or chemotherapy (n = 271). The median age was 56 years, 95% had visceral metastases, and 99% had a prior cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, with three median lines of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Primary end point was met with a 34% reduction in risk of progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.83; P = .0003]). The median PFS was 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 7.0) with SG and 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.1 to 4.4) with chemotherapy; the PFS at 6 and 12 months was 46% (95% CI, 39 to 53) v 30% (95% CI, 24 to 37) and 21% (95% CI, 15 to 28) v 7% (95% CI, 3 to 14), respectively. Median overall survival (first planned interim analysis) was not yet mature (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = .14). Key grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (SG v chemotherapy) were neutropenia (51% v 38%) and diarrhea (9% v 1%). CONCLUSION SG demonstrated statistically significant PFS benefit over chemotherapy, with a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pretreated, endocrine-resistant HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer and limited treatment options

ABC3 Consensus: Assessment by a German Group of Experts

The Advanced Breast Cancer Third International Consensus Conference on the diagnosis and treatment of advanced breast cancer took place in Lisbon, Portugal, on November 5-7, 2015. This year's conference (ABC3) was focused on the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (stage IV), as it was 4 years ago at the first consensus meeting (ABC1). A matter of particular interest was the patients' perspective. Thus, patient-relevant issues were addressed by the consensus discussions, such as those on treatment goals, quality of life, care of long-term survivors ('survivorship issues'), and coping with disease-related symptoms and the side effects of treatment. Further important issues on the agenda were the use of standardized instruments for the assessment of individual treatment success ('patient-reported outcome measures') and the evaluation of the benefit of novel drugs (e.g. the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale). Diagnosis and treatment of inoperable locally advanced breast cancer had already been discussed 2 years earlier at the ABC2 Consensus and were not dealt with in the framework of this year's ABC3 Consensus. With regard to country-specific peculiarities, which unavoidably found their way into the ABC Consensus, a working group of German breast cancer experts commented on the voting results of the ABC panelists. As for the past consensus, the group specially considered the German guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer (AGO (Gyneco-Oncology Working Group), S3, DGHO (German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology)) in order to adapt the ABC3 consensus for everyday therapy in Germany. (C) 2016 S. Karger GmbH, Freibur

Cost-effectiveness of palbociclib in early breast cancer patients with a high risk of relapse: Results from the PENELOPE-B trial

BACKGROUND Patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who have residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) are at a high risk of relapse. PENELOPE-B was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial that investigated adding palbociclib (PAL) for thirteen 28-day cycles to adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) in these patients. Clinical results showed no significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival with PAL. METHODS We performed a pre-planned cost-effectiveness analysis of PAL within PENELOPE-B from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance. Health-related quality of life scores, collected in the trial using the EQ-5D-3L instrument, were converted to utilities based on the German valuation algorithm. Resource use was valued using German price weights. Outcomes were discounted at 3% and modeled with mixed-level linear models to adjust for attrition, repeated measurements, and residual baseline imbalances. Subgroup analyses were performed for key prognostic risk factors. Scenario analyses addressed data limitations and evaluated the robustness of the estimated cost-effectiveness of PAL to methodological choices. RESULTS The effects of PAL on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were marginal during the active treatment phase, increasing thereafter to 0.088 (95% confidence interval: -0.001; 0.177) QALYs gained over the 4 years of follow-up. The incremental costs were dominated by PAL averaging EUR 33,000 per patient; costs were higher in the PAL arm but not significantly different after the second year. At an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 380,000 per QALY gained, PAL was not cost-effective compared to the standard-of-care ET. Analyses restricted to Germany and other subgroups were consistent with the main results. Findings were robust in the scenarios evaluated. CONCLUSIONS One year of PAL added to ET is not cost-effective in women with residual invasive disease after NACT in Germany

Niraparib maintenance treatment improves time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST) versus routine surveillance in recurrent ovarian cancer: a TWiST analysis of the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial

Purpose: this study estimated time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST) with niraparib compared with routine surveillance (RS) in the maintenance treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. Patients and methods: mean progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated for niraparib and RS by fitting parametric survival distributions to Kaplan-Meier data for 553 patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were enrolled in the phase III ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial. Patients were categorized according to the presence or absence of a germline BRCA mutation-gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut cohorts. Mean time with toxicity was estimated based on the area under the Kaplan-Meier curve for symptomatic grade 2 or greater fatigue, nausea, and vomiting adverse events (AEs). Time with toxicity was the number of days a patient experienced an AE post-random assignment and before disease progression. TWiST was estimated as the difference between mean PFS and time with toxicity. Uncertainty was explored using alternative PFS estimates and considering all symptomatic grade 2 or greater AEs. Results: in the gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut cohorts, niraparib treatment resulted in a mean PFS benefit of 3.23 years and 1.44 years, respectively, and a mean time with toxicity of 0.28 years and 0.10 years, respectively, compared with RS. Hence, niraparib treatment resulted in a mean TWiST benefit of 2.95 years and 1.34 years, respectively, compared with RS, which is equivalent to more than four-fold and two-fold increases in mean TWiST between niraparib and RS in the gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut cohorts, respectively. This TWiST benefit was consistent across all sensitivity analyses, including modeling PFS over 5-, 10-, and 15-year time horizons. Conclusion: patients who were treated with niraparib compared with RS experienced increased mean TWiST. Thus, patients who were treated with niraparib in the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial experienced more time without symptoms or symptomatic toxicities compared with control

Prognosis of breast cancer molecular subtypes in routine clinical care: A large prospective cohort study

Background: In Germany, most breast cancer patients are treated in specialized breast cancer units (BCU), which are certified, and routinely monitored. Herein, we evaluate up-to-date oncological outcome of breast cancer (BC) molecular subtypes in routine clinical care of a specialized BCU. Methods: The study was a prospectively single-center cohort study of 4102 female cases with primary, unilateral, non-metastatic breast cancer treated between 01 January 2003 and 31 December 2012. The five routinely used molecular subtypes (Luminal A-like, Luminal B/HER2 negative-like, Luminal B/HER2 positive-like, HER2-type, Triple negative) were analyzed. The median follow-up time of the whole cohort was 55 months. We calculated estimates for local control rate (LCR), disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), overall survival (OS), and relative overall survival (ROS). Results: Luminal A-like tumors were the most frequent (44.7%) and showed the best outcome with LCR of 99.1% (95% CI 98.5; 99.7), OS of 95.1% (95% CI 93.7; 96.5), and ROS of 100.0% (95% CI 98.5; 101.5). Triple negative tumors (12.3%) presented the poorest outcome with LCR of 89.6% (95% CI 85.8; 93.4), OS of 78.5% (95% CI 73.8; 83.3), and ROS of 80.1% (95% CI 73.8; 83.2). Conclusions: Patients with a favorable subtype can expect an OS above 95% and an LCR of almost 100% over 5 years. On the other hand the outcome of patients with HER2 and Triple negative subtypes remains poor, thus necessitating more intensified research and care

Olaparib plus Bevacizumab as First-Line Maintenance in Ovarian Cancer

Olaparib has shown significant clinical benefit as maintenance therapy in women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a mutation. The effect of combining maintenance olaparib and bevacizumab in patients regardless of mutation status is unknown. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, international phase 3 trial. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer and were having a response after first-line platinum-taxane chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Patients were eligible regardless of surgical outcome or mutation status. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo for up to 24 months; all the patients received bevacizumab at a dose of 15 mg per kilogram of body weight every 3 weeks for up to 15 months in total. The primary end point was the time from randomization until investigator-assessed disease progression or death. Of the 806 patients who underwent randomization, 537 were assigned to receive olaparib and 269 to receive placebo. After a median follow-up of 22.9 months, the median progression-free survival was 22.1 months with olaparib plus bevacizumab and 16.6 months with placebo plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.72; P<0.001). The hazard ratio (olaparib group vs. placebo group) for disease progression or death was 0.33 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.45) in patients with tumors positive for homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD), including tumors that had mutations (median progression-free survival, 37.2 vs. 17.7 months), and 0.43 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.66) in patients with HRD-positive tumors that did not have mutations (median progression-free survival, 28.1 vs. 16.6 months). Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profiles of olaparib and bevacizumab. In patients with advanced ovarian cancer receiving first-line standard therapy including bevacizumab, the addition of maintenance olaparib provided a significant progression-free survival benefit, which was substantial in patients with HRD-positive tumors, including those without a mutation. (Funded by ARCAGY Research and others; PAOLA-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477644.)

EVI1 expression in early-stage breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Background Overexpression of the EVI1 (ecotropic viral integration site 1) oncogene has recently been implicated as a prognostic factor in breast cancer (BC), particularly in triple-negative BC (TNBC). In this study we aimed to investigate frequency and clinical relevance of EVI1 expression in newly diagnosed BC treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Methods EVI1 expression was determined by immunohistochemistry using H-score as a cumulative measurement of protein expression in pretherapeutic biopsies of BC patients treated with anthracycline/taxane based neoadjuvant chemotherapy within the GeparTrio trial. EVI1 was analyzed as a continuous variable and dichotomized into low or high based on median expression. Endpoints were pathological complete response (pCR), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Results Of the 993 tumors analyzed, 882 had available subtype information: 50.8% were HR + /HER2-, 15% HR + /HER2 + , 9.8% HR-/HER2 + , and 24.5% TNBC. Median EVI1 H-score was 112.16 (range 0.5–291.4). High EVI1 expression was significantly associated with smaller tumor size (p = 0.002) but not with BC subtype. Elevated EVI1 levels were not significantly associated with therapy response and survival in the entire cohort or within BC subtypes. However, TNBC patients with high EVI1 showed a trend towards increased pCR rates compared to low group (37.7% vs 27.5%, p = 0.114; odds ratio 1.60 (95%CI 0.90–2.85, p = 0.110) and numerically better DFS (HR = 0.77 [95%CI 0.48–1.23], log-rank p = 0.271) and OS (HR = 0.76 [95% 0.44–1.31], log-rank p = 0.314) without reaching statistical significance. Conclusion EVI1 was not associated with response to neoadjuvant therapy or patient survival in the overall cohort. Further analyses are needed to verify our findings especially in the pathological work-up of early-stage HER2-negative BC patients

DNA methylation profiling identifies two distinct subgroups in breast cancers with low hormone receptor expression, mainly associated with HER2 amplification status

Background Current clinical guidelines suggest that breast cancers with low hormone receptor expression (LowHR) in 1–10% of tumor cells should be regarded as hormone receptor positive. However, clinical data show that these patients have worse outcome compared to patients with hormone receptor expression above 10%. We performed DNA methylation profiling on 23 LowHR breast cancer specimens, including 13 samples with HER2 amplification and compared our results with a reference breast cancer cohort from The Cancer Genome Atlas to clarify the status for this infrequent but important patient subgroup. Results In unsupervised clustering and dimensionality reduction, breast cancers with low hormone receptor expression that lacked HER2 amplification usually clustered with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) reference samples (8/10; “LowHR TNBC-like”). In contrast, most specimens with low hormone receptor expression and HER2 amplification grouped with hormone receptor positive cancers (11/13; “LowHR HRpos-like”). We observed highly similar DNA methylation patterns of LowHR TNBC-like samples and true TNBCs. Furthermore, the Ki67 proliferation index of LowHR TNBC-like samples and clinical outcome parameters were more similar to TNBCs and differed from LowHR HRpos-like cases. Conclusions We here demonstrate that LowHR breast cancer comprises two epigenetically distinct groups. Our data strongly suggest that LowHR TNBC-like samples are molecularly, histologically and clinically closely related to TNBC, while LowHR HRpos-like specimens are closely related to hormone receptor positive tumors