Identification of patients with early HR+ HER2- breast cancer at high risk of recurrence

Breast cancer incidence has increased in the last two decades and, simultaneously, survival has improved due to earlier detection andimproved treatment options. Despite this improvement, locoregional recurrences and distant metastases occur in up to 10 and 30% of women diagnosed with early breast cancer, respectively. Around 70% of breastcancers are hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-), and associated with a persistent risk of relapse up to 20 years after diagnosis/initial treatment. We conducteda narrative review by combining PubMed searches with our clinical experience to describe patient characteristics, biomarkers, and genomic profiling tools available to clinicians for the identification of patients withHR+, HER2- early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence and to provide recommendations to classify patients into recurrence risk categories. National and international treatment guidelines are also summarised.Accurate assessment of the risk of recurrence in these patients is crucial as the predicted risk guides treatment decisions; imprecise estimations can result in over- or undertreatment, with either scenario having negative consequences for patients. Multiple prognostic tools and factors are recommended for early breast cancer, and no single test provides accurate prognosis in isolation. Since no single test can provide accurate prognosis in isolation, a combination of tools should be used. Risk thresholds are important to guide optimised and balanced therapeutic decisions in HR+, HER2- early breast cancer. However, prognostic assessment should be performed on a case-by-case basis, makingpatient-specific prognostic approaches essential to avoid over- or undertreatment

Long-Term and Low-Grade Safety Results of a Phase III Study (PARAMOUNT): Maintenance Pemetrexed Plus Best Supportive Care Versus Placebo Plus Best Supportive Care Immediately After Induction Treatment With Pemetrexed Plus Cisplatin for Advanced Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

n/

Final Efficacy and Safety Results of Pemetrexed Continuation Maintenance Therapy in the Elderly from the PARAMOUNT Phase III Study

Introduction:The PARAMOUNT Phase III trial showed that maintenance pemetrexed after pemetrexed plus cisplatin induction was well tolerated and effective for patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer. Approximately 17% of patients receiving maintenance therapy in this study were 70 years of age or older. Here we report efficacy and safety results from the PARAMOUNT study for elderly (≥70 years) and non-elderly (<70 years) patients.Methods:Final efficacy and safety data from the PARAMOUNT study were analyzed post hoc using subgroup analyses for elderly and non-elderly patients.Results:The median age was 73 years in the elderly subgroup (n = 92) and 60 years in the non-elderly subgroup (n = 447). Subgroups had similar baseline characteristics, except for a higher percentage of males and patients with a performance status of one in the elderly subgroup. For elderly patients, the median PFS was 6.4 months for pemetrexed and 3.0 months for placebo; the median OS was 13.7 months for pemetrexed and 12.1 months for placebo. For non-elderly patients, the median PFS was 4.0 months for pemetrexed and 2.8 months for placebo; the median OS was 13.9 months for pemetrexed and 10.8 months for placebo. Elderly patients experienced similar levels of low-grade toxicities, but had a higher percentage of grade 3/4 anemia and neutropenia than non-elderly patients, although importantly, this did not translate into increased febrile neutropenia.Conclusions:Continuation maintenance pemetrexed had comparable survival and toxicity profiles in the elderly and non-elderly subgroups. However, grade 3/4 anemia and neutropenia were numerically higher for elderly patients

A phase II single-arm study of induction chemotherapy with cisplatin and gemcitabine followed by concurrent cisplatin and gemcitabine with thoracic radiation for unresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of cisplatin–gemcitabine with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC). Methods: This was a phase II, multicenter, open-label, single-arm trial in treatment-naïve patients with stage IIIA and IIIB LA-NSCLC. After three induction cycles with gemcitabine 1250 mg/m 2 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m 2 , two concurrent chemoradiotherapy cycles with gemcitabine 300 mg/m 2 , cisplatin 80 mg/m 2 , and radiotherapy (63 Gy) were administered. The primary endpoint was response rate after induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Secondary endpoints included time to progressive disease (TtPD), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: Overall, 49 patients (median age 63.4 years; 73.5% male; Karnofsky performance status scores of 80, 85, 90, and 100 [16.3%, 2.0%, 49.0%, and 32.7%, respectively]; disease stage IIIA or IIIB 28.6% and 71.4%, respectively) were enrolled and treated. Response rate was 38.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.2–53.8%). Median TtPD was 11.4 months (95% CI 9.4–12.9). Median OS was 21.8 months (95% CI 17.5–26.0), with 1- and 2-year survival rates of 70.8% and 43.7%, respectively. Overall, six patients discontinued from study treatment due to adverse events (AEs), of which two were serious AEs. The most relevant grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia in induction chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy, and grade 3 events related to radiation in acute chemoradiotherapy, e.g. dysphagia, radiation pneumonitis, and radiation esophagitis. Conclusions: Induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy with gemcitabine (300 mg/m 2 ) and cisplatin was associated with acceptable toxicity. The observed median OS time was 21.8 months. Response evaluation was difficult as in many cases it was not possible to differentiate tumor progression from local radiofibrosis

The Impact of Staging by Positron-Emission Tomography on Overall Survival and Progression-Free Survival in Patients With Locally Advanced NSCLC

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the potential impact of stage migration because of positron-emission tomography (PET) scan staging on survival in the locally advanced (stage IIIA/B) NSCLC setting. METHODS: In PROCLAIM, 598 patients with stage IIIA/B nonsquamous NSCLC (intent-to-treat population) were randomized to either pemetrexed plus cisplatin and concurrent thoracic radiotherapy for 3 cycles followed by 4 cycles of pemetrexed consolidation or etoposide plus cisplatin and concurrent thoracic radiotherapy for 2 cycles followed by a consolidation platinum-based doublet regimen for up to 2 cycles. Baseline PET scan (PET Yes versus No) was one of the stratification factors. Subgroup analyses (PET Yes versus No) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were conducted on the intent-to-treat population regardless of treatment, as the study did not show superior efficacy for either arm. RESULTS: Majority (491 of 598; 82.1%) of patients had a baseline PET scan staging performed. A longer median OS (PET Yes versus No: 27.2 versus 20.8; hazard ratio = 0.81, p = 0.130) and an improved median PFS (PET Yes versus No: 11.3 versus 9.2; hazard ratio = 0.73, p = 0.012) were observed for patients with PET scans compared to those with conventional staging in both treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Both a significantly improved PFS and a numerically longer OS in the PET Yes subgroup, compared to patients with conventional staging, are consistent with improved survival due to stage migration. The magnitude of differences in OS and PFS based on PET scan is a reminder of the potential for factors other than the therapeutic intervention to affect outcomes

Radiation therapy quality assurance (RTQA) of concurrent chemoradiation therapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the PROCLAIM Phase 3 trial

PURPOSE: Chemoradiation therapy trials of different tumors, including lung cancer, have shown a correlation between protocol deviations and adverse outcomes. Radiation therapy quality assurance (RTQA) was mandated for all patients treated in the PROCLAIM trial evaluating 2 different chemoradiation therapy regimens. The RTQA results were evaluated from the PROCLAIM study, and the impact of irradiation deviations on efficacy outcomes was investigated. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study was conducted from 2008 to 2014. Review of the irradiation plan was mandated for all patients. Real-time review was performed prior to irradiation start for the first enrolled patient at each site and randomly in 20% of additional patients, with non-real-time review in the remainder. The RTQA criteria evaluated included planning target volume coverage, dose homogeneity, volume of lung receiving ≥20 Gy, and maximum point dose to spinal cord. RESULTS: Major RTQA violations occurred in 40 of 554 patients, treated at 28 sites. Seven sites treated ≥2 patients with major violations. Stage IIIB disease and larger planning target volume were observed more frequently in patients with major violations. Major violations were more prevalent in sites treating either 15 patients. Patients treated at sites enrolling ≥2 patients with major violations (n = 86) had lower median overall survival (21.1 months vs 29.8 months; hazard ratio, 1.442) and progression-free survival (7.3 months vs 11.3 months; hazard ratio, 1.345) than patients treated at sites without major violations. These findings remained significant for overall survival on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Major violations in treatment plans were uncommon in the PROCLAIM study, possibly reflecting mandatory RTQA. The RTQA violations were more frequent in patients requiring more complex chemoradiation therapy plans. Poorer observed outcomes at centers with multiple major violations are hypothesis generating