Interstitial lung disease and CDK4/6 inhibitors in the treatment of breast cancer

CDK4/6 inhibitors have changed the treatment paradigm of many patients living with metastatic and early-stage high-risk hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer. Even though patients and clinicians are aware and learning how to manage common adverse events, such as bone marrow suppression and gastrointestinal toxicities, there are less common and potentially severe adverse events, such as interstitial lung disease (ILD), that require special consideration. In this narrative review, we discuss the incidence, mechanism, and treatment of CDK4/6 inhibitor associated ILD. CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) are standard treatment for HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and for selected patients with early stage HR-positive breast cancer. Common toxicities of these medications are often controlled with dose reductions, dose interruptions, and/or prophylactic medications, such as antidiarrheals. However, there are a small subset of patients at risk for less common and potentially severe toxicities, such as ILD. Individualized risk should be considered, including underlying lung disease, thrombosis risk and drug-drug interactions, in order to counsel patients about the risk of ILD.</p

Filling the Gap after CDK4/6 Inhibitors: Novel Endocrine and Biologic Treatment Options for Metastatic Hormone Receptor Positive Breast Cancer

The rise of cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitors has rapidly reshaped treatment algorithms for hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer, with endocrine treatment (ET) plus a CDK4/6-inhibitor currently representing the standard of care in the first line setting. However, treatment selection for those patients experiencing progression while on ET + CDK4/6-inhibitors remains challenging due to the suboptimal activity or significant toxicities of the currently available options. There is also a paucity of data regarding the efficacy of older regimens, such as everolimus + exemestane, post-CDK4/6 inhibition. In this setting of high unmet need, several clinical trials of novel drugs have recently reported encouraging results: the addition of the AKT-inhibitor capivasertib to fulvestrant demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS); the oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) elacestrant prolonged PFS compared to traditional ET in a phase 3 trial, particularly among patients with detectable ESR1 mutations; finally, PARP inhibitors are available treatment options for patients with pathogenic BRCA1/2 germline mutations. Overall, a plethora of novel endocrine and biologic treatment options are finally filling the gap between first-line ET and later line chemotherapy. In this review article, we recapitulate the activity of these novel treatment options and their potential role in future treatment algorithms

Opportunities and Challenges for a Histology-Agnostic Utilization of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review delves into the prospects and challenges offered by a potential pan-histological utilization of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) in patients with advanced solid tumors. RECENT FINDINGS: The HER2-targeted antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) T-DXd has shown broad activity across cancer types, with current indications for patients with biomarker-selected breast, gastric, and non-small-cell lung cancer and relevant activity observed in multiple histology-specific trials. Moreover, two recently reported phase 2 trials (DESTINY-Pantumor02 and HERALD) have supported the potential for a pan-cancer utilization of this ADC in patients with advanced cancers expressing HER2 or with HER2 amplifications. By improving the delivery of cytotoxic chemotherapy, ADCs have allowed for meaningful clinical advantages in broad populations of cancer patients, often leading to survival advantages over conventional chemotherapy. Notably, the broad spectrum of activity of certain ADCs has led to the hypothesis of a histology-agnostic utilization based on detecting specific biomarkers, similar to what is already established for certain targeted treatments and immunotherapy. To date, T-DXd has shown the broadest activity across cancer types, with current approvals in breast, gastric, and lung cancer, and relevant antitumor activity observed in a multiplicity of additional cancer types. The optimization of the drug dose, identification of predictive biomarkers, and clarification of mechanisms of resistance will be critical steps in view of a pan-histological expansion in the use of T-DXd

Left Ventricular Assist Devices in Patients&nbsp;With Active Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data to guide oncology and cardiology decision-making in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and concurrent active malignancy. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to describe cancer treatment approaches, complications, and survival among patients with active cancer on LVAD support in 2 tertiary heart failure and oncology programs. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, LVAD databases were reviewed to identify patients with a cancer diagnosis at the time of or after LVAD implantation. We created a 3:1 matched cohort based on age, sex, etiology of cardiomyopathy, LVAD implant strategy, and INTERMACS profile stratified by site. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare survival between patients with cancer and non-cancer comparators. RESULTS: Among 1,123 patients who underwent LVAD implantation between 2005 and 2019, 22 patients with LVADs with active cancer and 66 matched non-cancer comparators were identified. Median age was 62 years (range 41 to 73 years); 50% of patients with cancer were African-American, and 27% were women. Prostate cancer, followed by renal cell cancer and hematologic malignancies were the most common diagnoses. There was no significant difference in unadjusted Kaplan-Meier median survival estimates from the time of LVAD placement between patients with cancer (3.53 years; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41 to 5.33) and non-cancer comparators (3.03 years; 95% CI: 1.83 to 5.26; log-rank P&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.99). In Cox proportional hazard models, cancer diagnosis as a time-varying variable was associated with a statistically significant increase in death (hazard ratio: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.03 to 4.12; P&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.04). Patients with cancer had less gastrointestinal bleeding compared with matched non-cancer comparators (P&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.016). Other complications were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides initial feasibility and safety data and set a framework for multidisciplinary team management of patients with cancer and LVADs