User login
Center of Excellence site
Treatment shows 'important improvements' in triple-negative breast cancer
But as a subanalysis of data from the randomized, phase 3 study showed, sacituzumab govitecan was associated with significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival among patients without an initial TNBC diagnosis, with efficacy similar to that seen in the overall study population and in patients without known brain metastases, reported Joyce O’Shaughnessy, MD, at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress. In her presentation (abstract 258P), Dr. O’Shaughnessy, who is an oncologist with the Texas Oncology–Baylor Charles A. Sammons Cancer Center in Dallas, said that it’s not uncommon to see acquired triple-negative breast cancer in patients who have hormone receptor–positive disease initially and then later on, develop triple-negative breast cancer.
“That is why at the time of metastatic diagnosis we always say that patients should have repeat receptor [testing], because it’s been well described that a subset of hormone receptor–positive breast can become triple negative under pressure from endocrine therapy,” said ASCENT coinvestigator Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an interview
Coinvestigator Kevine Punie, MD, from University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium), said that “triple-negative breast cancer is a diagnosis of exclusion. This is a heterogenous disease where several biological subsets are merged.”
“It was important to perform this subgroup analysis to reassure us that the treatment effect we see from [sacituzumab govitecan] in the overall population is also observed in this specific subgroup of patients where biologically we’re treating a different disease,” he said in an interview.
Antibody-drug conjugate
Sacituzumab govitecan consists of an antibody targeted to the trophoblast antigen 2 cell surface receptor found on most breast cancer cells, plus the topoisomerase-1 inhibitor SN-38 as its toxic payload.
In the primary intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of ASCENT, sacituzumab significantly prolonged PFS with a median of 4.8 versus 1.7 months for patients treated with the physician’s choice of either capecitabine, eribulin, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine. The difference translated into an HR for progression with the antibody-drug conjugate of 0.41 (P < .00001).
The subgroup analysis looked at outcomes for 70 patients randomized to sacituzumab govitecan and 78 randomized to single-agent chemotherapy who did not have an initial diagnosis of TNBC.
In all, 27% of patients in this subgroup in the sacituzumab arm and 29% in the chemotherapy arm had received a prior line of treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor.
At the time of data cutoff in March 2020, four patients (6%) in the sacituzumab arm remained on treatment versus no patient in the chemotherapy arm. The most common reason for treatment discontinuation was disease progression, which occurred in 84% and 72% of patients, respectively.
The median treatment duration was 5.1 months in the sacituzumab and 1.2 months in the chemotherapy arm. The median duration of follow-up was 10.6 and 6.1 months, respectively.
Progression-free survival, overall survival results
For all patients without an initial TNBC diagnosis, the median PFS was 4.6 months with sacituzumab versus 2.3 months with chemotherapy, which translated into a hazard ratio for progression of 0.48 (95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.72). The progression-free benefit with the antibody-drug conjugate was similar to that seen in the intent-to-treat population, as noted before, and among the overall population of patients in the study with no known brain metastases (HR, 5.6 vs. 1.7, respectively; P < .001).
The objective response rates were 21% in the sacituzumab and 5% in the chemotherapy arm. Objective responses were not affected by the prior use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors.
Median overall survival in this subgroup was 12.4 months with the antibody-drug conjugate versus 6.7 months with chemotherapy (95% CI, 0.30-0.64).
The investigators reported that the safety profile was manageable in this subgroup of patients, with a low rate of treatment discontinuations because of adverse events (5%) and no treatment-related deaths with sacituzumab govitecan.
Health-related quality of life
In a separate poster (abstract 257P) presented at the meeting, the ASCENT investigators reported health-related quality of life results in the overall population.
The mean European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire subscale scores at baseline were similar between treatment arms.
For the major domains of global health status, physical and emotional functioning as well as lower symptomatic impact of fatigue, pain, dyspnea, and insomnia, sacituzumab govitecan showed “significantly and meaningfully greater improvement” than the physician’s choice of chemotherapy, the investigators found.
Of individual symptoms, only diarrhea was worse with the antibody-drug conjugate.
“These were important improvements,” Dr. Punie said, “because we saw improvements in the primary health-related quality of life domains such as global health status. We also saw that the time to clinically meaningful deterioration of quality of life domains were significantly longer for patients treated with [sacituzumab govitecan].”
“Patients who received sacituzumab govitecan had better health-related quality of life as compared to the control arm, and that’s a very important result, because in the metastatic setting our goal is twofold: We want to prolong survival, and we want patients to have improved quality of life,” Dr. Bardia said.
The Ascent trial is sponsored by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Punie disclosed relationships with multiple companies/organizations, not including Gilead. Dr. Bardia disclosed contracted research for Gilead and others, as well as other relationships.
But as a subanalysis of data from the randomized, phase 3 study showed, sacituzumab govitecan was associated with significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival among patients without an initial TNBC diagnosis, with efficacy similar to that seen in the overall study population and in patients without known brain metastases, reported Joyce O’Shaughnessy, MD, at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress. In her presentation (abstract 258P), Dr. O’Shaughnessy, who is an oncologist with the Texas Oncology–Baylor Charles A. Sammons Cancer Center in Dallas, said that it’s not uncommon to see acquired triple-negative breast cancer in patients who have hormone receptor–positive disease initially and then later on, develop triple-negative breast cancer.
“That is why at the time of metastatic diagnosis we always say that patients should have repeat receptor [testing], because it’s been well described that a subset of hormone receptor–positive breast can become triple negative under pressure from endocrine therapy,” said ASCENT coinvestigator Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an interview
Coinvestigator Kevine Punie, MD, from University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium), said that “triple-negative breast cancer is a diagnosis of exclusion. This is a heterogenous disease where several biological subsets are merged.”
“It was important to perform this subgroup analysis to reassure us that the treatment effect we see from [sacituzumab govitecan] in the overall population is also observed in this specific subgroup of patients where biologically we’re treating a different disease,” he said in an interview.
Antibody-drug conjugate
Sacituzumab govitecan consists of an antibody targeted to the trophoblast antigen 2 cell surface receptor found on most breast cancer cells, plus the topoisomerase-1 inhibitor SN-38 as its toxic payload.
In the primary intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of ASCENT, sacituzumab significantly prolonged PFS with a median of 4.8 versus 1.7 months for patients treated with the physician’s choice of either capecitabine, eribulin, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine. The difference translated into an HR for progression with the antibody-drug conjugate of 0.41 (P < .00001).
The subgroup analysis looked at outcomes for 70 patients randomized to sacituzumab govitecan and 78 randomized to single-agent chemotherapy who did not have an initial diagnosis of TNBC.
In all, 27% of patients in this subgroup in the sacituzumab arm and 29% in the chemotherapy arm had received a prior line of treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor.
At the time of data cutoff in March 2020, four patients (6%) in the sacituzumab arm remained on treatment versus no patient in the chemotherapy arm. The most common reason for treatment discontinuation was disease progression, which occurred in 84% and 72% of patients, respectively.
The median treatment duration was 5.1 months in the sacituzumab and 1.2 months in the chemotherapy arm. The median duration of follow-up was 10.6 and 6.1 months, respectively.
Progression-free survival, overall survival results
For all patients without an initial TNBC diagnosis, the median PFS was 4.6 months with sacituzumab versus 2.3 months with chemotherapy, which translated into a hazard ratio for progression of 0.48 (95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.72). The progression-free benefit with the antibody-drug conjugate was similar to that seen in the intent-to-treat population, as noted before, and among the overall population of patients in the study with no known brain metastases (HR, 5.6 vs. 1.7, respectively; P < .001).
The objective response rates were 21% in the sacituzumab and 5% in the chemotherapy arm. Objective responses were not affected by the prior use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors.
Median overall survival in this subgroup was 12.4 months with the antibody-drug conjugate versus 6.7 months with chemotherapy (95% CI, 0.30-0.64).
The investigators reported that the safety profile was manageable in this subgroup of patients, with a low rate of treatment discontinuations because of adverse events (5%) and no treatment-related deaths with sacituzumab govitecan.
Health-related quality of life
In a separate poster (abstract 257P) presented at the meeting, the ASCENT investigators reported health-related quality of life results in the overall population.
The mean European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire subscale scores at baseline were similar between treatment arms.
For the major domains of global health status, physical and emotional functioning as well as lower symptomatic impact of fatigue, pain, dyspnea, and insomnia, sacituzumab govitecan showed “significantly and meaningfully greater improvement” than the physician’s choice of chemotherapy, the investigators found.
Of individual symptoms, only diarrhea was worse with the antibody-drug conjugate.
“These were important improvements,” Dr. Punie said, “because we saw improvements in the primary health-related quality of life domains such as global health status. We also saw that the time to clinically meaningful deterioration of quality of life domains were significantly longer for patients treated with [sacituzumab govitecan].”
“Patients who received sacituzumab govitecan had better health-related quality of life as compared to the control arm, and that’s a very important result, because in the metastatic setting our goal is twofold: We want to prolong survival, and we want patients to have improved quality of life,” Dr. Bardia said.
The Ascent trial is sponsored by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Punie disclosed relationships with multiple companies/organizations, not including Gilead. Dr. Bardia disclosed contracted research for Gilead and others, as well as other relationships.
But as a subanalysis of data from the randomized, phase 3 study showed, sacituzumab govitecan was associated with significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival among patients without an initial TNBC diagnosis, with efficacy similar to that seen in the overall study population and in patients without known brain metastases, reported Joyce O’Shaughnessy, MD, at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress. In her presentation (abstract 258P), Dr. O’Shaughnessy, who is an oncologist with the Texas Oncology–Baylor Charles A. Sammons Cancer Center in Dallas, said that it’s not uncommon to see acquired triple-negative breast cancer in patients who have hormone receptor–positive disease initially and then later on, develop triple-negative breast cancer.
“That is why at the time of metastatic diagnosis we always say that patients should have repeat receptor [testing], because it’s been well described that a subset of hormone receptor–positive breast can become triple negative under pressure from endocrine therapy,” said ASCENT coinvestigator Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an interview
Coinvestigator Kevine Punie, MD, from University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium), said that “triple-negative breast cancer is a diagnosis of exclusion. This is a heterogenous disease where several biological subsets are merged.”
“It was important to perform this subgroup analysis to reassure us that the treatment effect we see from [sacituzumab govitecan] in the overall population is also observed in this specific subgroup of patients where biologically we’re treating a different disease,” he said in an interview.
Antibody-drug conjugate
Sacituzumab govitecan consists of an antibody targeted to the trophoblast antigen 2 cell surface receptor found on most breast cancer cells, plus the topoisomerase-1 inhibitor SN-38 as its toxic payload.
In the primary intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of ASCENT, sacituzumab significantly prolonged PFS with a median of 4.8 versus 1.7 months for patients treated with the physician’s choice of either capecitabine, eribulin, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine. The difference translated into an HR for progression with the antibody-drug conjugate of 0.41 (P < .00001).
The subgroup analysis looked at outcomes for 70 patients randomized to sacituzumab govitecan and 78 randomized to single-agent chemotherapy who did not have an initial diagnosis of TNBC.
In all, 27% of patients in this subgroup in the sacituzumab arm and 29% in the chemotherapy arm had received a prior line of treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor.
At the time of data cutoff in March 2020, four patients (6%) in the sacituzumab arm remained on treatment versus no patient in the chemotherapy arm. The most common reason for treatment discontinuation was disease progression, which occurred in 84% and 72% of patients, respectively.
The median treatment duration was 5.1 months in the sacituzumab and 1.2 months in the chemotherapy arm. The median duration of follow-up was 10.6 and 6.1 months, respectively.
Progression-free survival, overall survival results
For all patients without an initial TNBC diagnosis, the median PFS was 4.6 months with sacituzumab versus 2.3 months with chemotherapy, which translated into a hazard ratio for progression of 0.48 (95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.72). The progression-free benefit with the antibody-drug conjugate was similar to that seen in the intent-to-treat population, as noted before, and among the overall population of patients in the study with no known brain metastases (HR, 5.6 vs. 1.7, respectively; P < .001).
The objective response rates were 21% in the sacituzumab and 5% in the chemotherapy arm. Objective responses were not affected by the prior use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors.
Median overall survival in this subgroup was 12.4 months with the antibody-drug conjugate versus 6.7 months with chemotherapy (95% CI, 0.30-0.64).
The investigators reported that the safety profile was manageable in this subgroup of patients, with a low rate of treatment discontinuations because of adverse events (5%) and no treatment-related deaths with sacituzumab govitecan.
Health-related quality of life
In a separate poster (abstract 257P) presented at the meeting, the ASCENT investigators reported health-related quality of life results in the overall population.
The mean European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire subscale scores at baseline were similar between treatment arms.
For the major domains of global health status, physical and emotional functioning as well as lower symptomatic impact of fatigue, pain, dyspnea, and insomnia, sacituzumab govitecan showed “significantly and meaningfully greater improvement” than the physician’s choice of chemotherapy, the investigators found.
Of individual symptoms, only diarrhea was worse with the antibody-drug conjugate.
“These were important improvements,” Dr. Punie said, “because we saw improvements in the primary health-related quality of life domains such as global health status. We also saw that the time to clinically meaningful deterioration of quality of life domains were significantly longer for patients treated with [sacituzumab govitecan].”
“Patients who received sacituzumab govitecan had better health-related quality of life as compared to the control arm, and that’s a very important result, because in the metastatic setting our goal is twofold: We want to prolong survival, and we want patients to have improved quality of life,” Dr. Bardia said.
The Ascent trial is sponsored by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Punie disclosed relationships with multiple companies/organizations, not including Gilead. Dr. Bardia disclosed contracted research for Gilead and others, as well as other relationships.
FROM ESMO 2021
Better survival with extended letrozole in early-stage breast cancer
The approach “should be considered among the optimal standard endocrine treatments for postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, regardless of the nodal status at diagnosis,” concluded investigators led by Lucia Del Mastro, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Genoa, Italy.
Clinical practice guidelines recommend an individualized approach to decide the duration of treatment based on relapse risk and tolerability because no study until now has shown an overall survival benefit with extended aromatase inhibitor therapy. Based on “our results ... this statement is no longer supported by the evidence and should be updated,” they wrote.
The optimal duration or type of endocrine therapy has been uncertain; the team sought to bring more clarity to the issue.
Following 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen, they randomized evenly 2,056 women at 69 hospitals in Italy to either 2-3 years or letrozole 2.5 mg once daily – the usual care control group – or 5 years. Women in the trial, dubbed GIM4, had stage I-III histologically proven and operable invasive cancer, with no signs of disease recurrence.
Twelve-year overall survival was 88% with extended letrozole, but 84% in the control arm (HR 0.77, 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.98; P = 0.036).
Twelve-year disease-free survival was 67% in the extended group versus 62% in the control arm (HR 0.78, 95% CI, 0.65-0.93; P = 0.0064).
At a median follow-up of 11.7 years, disease-free survival (DFS) events occurred in 25.4% of control patients, but only 20.7% with extended aromatase inhibitor treatment.
It took 9.5 years for the survival curves to separate, suggesting “that the effect of letrozole takes several years to be seen,” the investigators said.
With the disease-free survival benefits shown in earlier trials and now better overall survival as well, it’s looking like “7-8 years of adjuvant therapy, including at least 5 years with an aromatase inhibitor, could be the optimal duration of adjuvant endocrine therapy in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer.” It probably represents “the best compromise between efficacy and side-effects,” they said.
Breast cancer oncologists Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Nancy E. Davidson, MD, both of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, agreed in an editorial.
For now, “the currently available data seem to recommend 5 years of aromatase inhibitor for postmenopausal women who have already completed 2-3 years of tamoxifen,” they said.
However, with 19.5% of control patients and 37.1% in the extended stopping treatment early, “GIM4 highlights that early therapy discontinuation remains a crucial issue ... better ways to promote adherence are sorely needed. Another area of focus is the identification of biomarkers that could [better] inform the optimal duration of therapy,” they said.
Longer duration of letrozole was associated with an increased incidence of arthralgia, myalgia, hypertension, and osteoporosis; however, there was no difference in the incidence of bone fractures.
There was also a slightly higher number of cardiovascular events (1% in the extended group, but fewer in the control arm) which is a known issue with aromatase inhibitors. There were three serious treatment-related adverse events in the control arm and eight in the extended group, but no deaths. The Italian investigators noted that because they enrolled only patients free of recurrence after 2-3 years of tamoxifen, the population with early relapse who were likely to be node-positive, was excluded, leaving only patients with a better prognosis. “On the other hand, patients with node-negative disease relapse later and are therefore captured by this trial with a long follow-up.”
The work was funded by Novartis and the Italian Ministry of Health. The investigators had numerous industry ties, including Dr. Del Mastro, who reported honoraria and nonfinancial support from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, and others. The editorialists didn’t have any competing interests.
The approach “should be considered among the optimal standard endocrine treatments for postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, regardless of the nodal status at diagnosis,” concluded investigators led by Lucia Del Mastro, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Genoa, Italy.
Clinical practice guidelines recommend an individualized approach to decide the duration of treatment based on relapse risk and tolerability because no study until now has shown an overall survival benefit with extended aromatase inhibitor therapy. Based on “our results ... this statement is no longer supported by the evidence and should be updated,” they wrote.
The optimal duration or type of endocrine therapy has been uncertain; the team sought to bring more clarity to the issue.
Following 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen, they randomized evenly 2,056 women at 69 hospitals in Italy to either 2-3 years or letrozole 2.5 mg once daily – the usual care control group – or 5 years. Women in the trial, dubbed GIM4, had stage I-III histologically proven and operable invasive cancer, with no signs of disease recurrence.
Twelve-year overall survival was 88% with extended letrozole, but 84% in the control arm (HR 0.77, 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.98; P = 0.036).
Twelve-year disease-free survival was 67% in the extended group versus 62% in the control arm (HR 0.78, 95% CI, 0.65-0.93; P = 0.0064).
At a median follow-up of 11.7 years, disease-free survival (DFS) events occurred in 25.4% of control patients, but only 20.7% with extended aromatase inhibitor treatment.
It took 9.5 years for the survival curves to separate, suggesting “that the effect of letrozole takes several years to be seen,” the investigators said.
With the disease-free survival benefits shown in earlier trials and now better overall survival as well, it’s looking like “7-8 years of adjuvant therapy, including at least 5 years with an aromatase inhibitor, could be the optimal duration of adjuvant endocrine therapy in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer.” It probably represents “the best compromise between efficacy and side-effects,” they said.
Breast cancer oncologists Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Nancy E. Davidson, MD, both of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, agreed in an editorial.
For now, “the currently available data seem to recommend 5 years of aromatase inhibitor for postmenopausal women who have already completed 2-3 years of tamoxifen,” they said.
However, with 19.5% of control patients and 37.1% in the extended stopping treatment early, “GIM4 highlights that early therapy discontinuation remains a crucial issue ... better ways to promote adherence are sorely needed. Another area of focus is the identification of biomarkers that could [better] inform the optimal duration of therapy,” they said.
Longer duration of letrozole was associated with an increased incidence of arthralgia, myalgia, hypertension, and osteoporosis; however, there was no difference in the incidence of bone fractures.
There was also a slightly higher number of cardiovascular events (1% in the extended group, but fewer in the control arm) which is a known issue with aromatase inhibitors. There were three serious treatment-related adverse events in the control arm and eight in the extended group, but no deaths. The Italian investigators noted that because they enrolled only patients free of recurrence after 2-3 years of tamoxifen, the population with early relapse who were likely to be node-positive, was excluded, leaving only patients with a better prognosis. “On the other hand, patients with node-negative disease relapse later and are therefore captured by this trial with a long follow-up.”
The work was funded by Novartis and the Italian Ministry of Health. The investigators had numerous industry ties, including Dr. Del Mastro, who reported honoraria and nonfinancial support from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, and others. The editorialists didn’t have any competing interests.
The approach “should be considered among the optimal standard endocrine treatments for postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, regardless of the nodal status at diagnosis,” concluded investigators led by Lucia Del Mastro, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Genoa, Italy.
Clinical practice guidelines recommend an individualized approach to decide the duration of treatment based on relapse risk and tolerability because no study until now has shown an overall survival benefit with extended aromatase inhibitor therapy. Based on “our results ... this statement is no longer supported by the evidence and should be updated,” they wrote.
The optimal duration or type of endocrine therapy has been uncertain; the team sought to bring more clarity to the issue.
Following 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen, they randomized evenly 2,056 women at 69 hospitals in Italy to either 2-3 years or letrozole 2.5 mg once daily – the usual care control group – or 5 years. Women in the trial, dubbed GIM4, had stage I-III histologically proven and operable invasive cancer, with no signs of disease recurrence.
Twelve-year overall survival was 88% with extended letrozole, but 84% in the control arm (HR 0.77, 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.98; P = 0.036).
Twelve-year disease-free survival was 67% in the extended group versus 62% in the control arm (HR 0.78, 95% CI, 0.65-0.93; P = 0.0064).
At a median follow-up of 11.7 years, disease-free survival (DFS) events occurred in 25.4% of control patients, but only 20.7% with extended aromatase inhibitor treatment.
It took 9.5 years for the survival curves to separate, suggesting “that the effect of letrozole takes several years to be seen,” the investigators said.
With the disease-free survival benefits shown in earlier trials and now better overall survival as well, it’s looking like “7-8 years of adjuvant therapy, including at least 5 years with an aromatase inhibitor, could be the optimal duration of adjuvant endocrine therapy in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer.” It probably represents “the best compromise between efficacy and side-effects,” they said.
Breast cancer oncologists Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Nancy E. Davidson, MD, both of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, agreed in an editorial.
For now, “the currently available data seem to recommend 5 years of aromatase inhibitor for postmenopausal women who have already completed 2-3 years of tamoxifen,” they said.
However, with 19.5% of control patients and 37.1% in the extended stopping treatment early, “GIM4 highlights that early therapy discontinuation remains a crucial issue ... better ways to promote adherence are sorely needed. Another area of focus is the identification of biomarkers that could [better] inform the optimal duration of therapy,” they said.
Longer duration of letrozole was associated with an increased incidence of arthralgia, myalgia, hypertension, and osteoporosis; however, there was no difference in the incidence of bone fractures.
There was also a slightly higher number of cardiovascular events (1% in the extended group, but fewer in the control arm) which is a known issue with aromatase inhibitors. There were three serious treatment-related adverse events in the control arm and eight in the extended group, but no deaths. The Italian investigators noted that because they enrolled only patients free of recurrence after 2-3 years of tamoxifen, the population with early relapse who were likely to be node-positive, was excluded, leaving only patients with a better prognosis. “On the other hand, patients with node-negative disease relapse later and are therefore captured by this trial with a long follow-up.”
The work was funded by Novartis and the Italian Ministry of Health. The investigators had numerous industry ties, including Dr. Del Mastro, who reported honoraria and nonfinancial support from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, and others. The editorialists didn’t have any competing interests.
FROM THE LANCET ONCOLOGY
TULIP trial shows extended survival in HER2+ metastatic breast cancer
, according to Cristina Saura Manich, MD, Hospital Universitario Valle de Hebrón, Barcelona. In TULIP, trastuzumab duocarmazine (SYD985, Byondis B.V., NL) was compared with physician’s choice of chemotherapy, Dr. Saura said at the virtual European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2021 on Sept. 18 (abstract LBA15).
Trastuzumab duocarmazine, Dr. Manich noted, is a novel HER2-targeting antibody–drug conjugate based on trastuzumab and a cleavable linker-duocarmycin (vc-seco-DUBA) payload. Its three-way mechanism of action includes uptake of the antibody–drug conjugate by internalization and intracellular release of the payload, and two bystander effects: proteolytic cleavage and subsequent release of payload in the tumor microenvironment and diffusion of active payload to neighboring tumor cells.
Two or more prior therapies for metastatic breast cancer
TULIP investigators enrolled 437 patients from 83 sites in 11 countries with HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had received two or more therapies for metastatic disease (treatment for brain metastases allowed). They were randomized 2:1 to SYD985 (1.2 mg/kg IV every 21 days [n = 291]) or physician’s choice (PC) [n = 146] of one of three trastuzumab-containing combinations or lapatinib plus capecitabine. Treatment was continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed PFS.
Longer progression-free survival with SYD985
Median age was 57 years, and the median number of prior metastatic breast cancer regimens was 4.7. Centrally reviewed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the SYD985 group at 7.0 months (5.4-7.2) versus 4.9 months (4.0-5.5) for PC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.84, P = .002). Subgroup analysis, also centrally reviewed, revealed numerical advantage for SYD985 over physician choice across all categories (except for ECOG status 2). Analysis of progression-free survival by investigators showed a similar benefit for SYD985 (6.9 months versus 4.6 months, HR, 0.60, P < .001).
A first look at median overall survival showed a nonsignificant advantage for SYD985 (20.4 months versus 16.3 months (HR, 0.83, 95% CI, 0.62-1.09, P = .153). The overall response rate (partial or complete response) was similar between groups at 27.8% for SYD985 and 29.5% for PC, with reductions in target lesion measurement at 70.2% and 32.2% for SYD985 and physician choice, respectively. The clinical benefit rates were 38.5% for SYD985 and 32.2% for physician choice.
Ocular toxicity
Most patients had at least one treatment-related adverse event (96.5% SD985, 96.4% PC), and grade 3 or higher event rates were similar between groups (52.8% SYD985, 48.2% PC). The most frequently reported adverse events for SYD985 were ocular toxicity, with conjunctivitis reported in 38.2%, and keratitis in 38.2%, with fatigue at 33.3%; for physician’s choice these were diarrhea (35.8%), nausea (31.4%), and fatigue (29.9%). Interstitial lung disease pneumonitis was reported for 7.6% (5.2% grade 1-2) of patients treated with SYD985, including two grade 5 events. Eye toxicity led to discontinuations in 20.8% of SYD985 patients, dose modifications in 22.9%, with dose modifications for interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis in 5.2% of SYD985 patients. Six fatalities (2.1%) were reported in the SYD985 group, with four attributed to treatment. Assessment of health-related quality of life showed no significant difference between groups.
Dr. Manich outlined risk mitigation strategies. Patients with prior keratitis were excluded and patients were given prophylactic lubricating eye drops and regular eye exams by ophthalmologists. Treatment was discontinued if grade 3 or higher keratitis developed, and was delayed if grade 3 conjunctivitis developed until it reduced to grade 2. Also, patients with prior pneumonitis were excluded and CT lung scans were evaluated for lung changes. New or worsening respiratory symptoms triggered a full diagnostic workup. Treatment was discontinued for grade 2 or higher pneumonitis and delayed until resolution for grade 1 pneumonitis.
Another option
“It is encouraging to observe clinically meaningful and potentially practice changing PFS improvements in patients receiving treatment in the third line and beyond,” said Aditya Bardia, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Several agents have been approved as treatments for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in recent years – including T-DXd, neratinib, tucatinib, and margetuximab – and [vic-]trastuzumab duocarmazine could eventually be another option.”
“At this time, there is only a minor 2-month difference in progression-free survival and a nonsignificant overall survival difference,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Cancer Center, Lisbon, Portugal. “With the high incidence of ocular toxicity and four toxic deaths, we cannot recommend this drug for clinical practice, in my opinion.”
Dr. Manich concluded, “SYD985 can provide a new treatment option for patients with pretreated locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.”
The study was funded by Byondis B.V. The authors disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.
This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.
, according to Cristina Saura Manich, MD, Hospital Universitario Valle de Hebrón, Barcelona. In TULIP, trastuzumab duocarmazine (SYD985, Byondis B.V., NL) was compared with physician’s choice of chemotherapy, Dr. Saura said at the virtual European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2021 on Sept. 18 (abstract LBA15).
Trastuzumab duocarmazine, Dr. Manich noted, is a novel HER2-targeting antibody–drug conjugate based on trastuzumab and a cleavable linker-duocarmycin (vc-seco-DUBA) payload. Its three-way mechanism of action includes uptake of the antibody–drug conjugate by internalization and intracellular release of the payload, and two bystander effects: proteolytic cleavage and subsequent release of payload in the tumor microenvironment and diffusion of active payload to neighboring tumor cells.
Two or more prior therapies for metastatic breast cancer
TULIP investigators enrolled 437 patients from 83 sites in 11 countries with HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had received two or more therapies for metastatic disease (treatment for brain metastases allowed). They were randomized 2:1 to SYD985 (1.2 mg/kg IV every 21 days [n = 291]) or physician’s choice (PC) [n = 146] of one of three trastuzumab-containing combinations or lapatinib plus capecitabine. Treatment was continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed PFS.
Longer progression-free survival with SYD985
Median age was 57 years, and the median number of prior metastatic breast cancer regimens was 4.7. Centrally reviewed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the SYD985 group at 7.0 months (5.4-7.2) versus 4.9 months (4.0-5.5) for PC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.84, P = .002). Subgroup analysis, also centrally reviewed, revealed numerical advantage for SYD985 over physician choice across all categories (except for ECOG status 2). Analysis of progression-free survival by investigators showed a similar benefit for SYD985 (6.9 months versus 4.6 months, HR, 0.60, P < .001).
A first look at median overall survival showed a nonsignificant advantage for SYD985 (20.4 months versus 16.3 months (HR, 0.83, 95% CI, 0.62-1.09, P = .153). The overall response rate (partial or complete response) was similar between groups at 27.8% for SYD985 and 29.5% for PC, with reductions in target lesion measurement at 70.2% and 32.2% for SYD985 and physician choice, respectively. The clinical benefit rates were 38.5% for SYD985 and 32.2% for physician choice.
Ocular toxicity
Most patients had at least one treatment-related adverse event (96.5% SD985, 96.4% PC), and grade 3 or higher event rates were similar between groups (52.8% SYD985, 48.2% PC). The most frequently reported adverse events for SYD985 were ocular toxicity, with conjunctivitis reported in 38.2%, and keratitis in 38.2%, with fatigue at 33.3%; for physician’s choice these were diarrhea (35.8%), nausea (31.4%), and fatigue (29.9%). Interstitial lung disease pneumonitis was reported for 7.6% (5.2% grade 1-2) of patients treated with SYD985, including two grade 5 events. Eye toxicity led to discontinuations in 20.8% of SYD985 patients, dose modifications in 22.9%, with dose modifications for interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis in 5.2% of SYD985 patients. Six fatalities (2.1%) were reported in the SYD985 group, with four attributed to treatment. Assessment of health-related quality of life showed no significant difference between groups.
Dr. Manich outlined risk mitigation strategies. Patients with prior keratitis were excluded and patients were given prophylactic lubricating eye drops and regular eye exams by ophthalmologists. Treatment was discontinued if grade 3 or higher keratitis developed, and was delayed if grade 3 conjunctivitis developed until it reduced to grade 2. Also, patients with prior pneumonitis were excluded and CT lung scans were evaluated for lung changes. New or worsening respiratory symptoms triggered a full diagnostic workup. Treatment was discontinued for grade 2 or higher pneumonitis and delayed until resolution for grade 1 pneumonitis.
Another option
“It is encouraging to observe clinically meaningful and potentially practice changing PFS improvements in patients receiving treatment in the third line and beyond,” said Aditya Bardia, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Several agents have been approved as treatments for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in recent years – including T-DXd, neratinib, tucatinib, and margetuximab – and [vic-]trastuzumab duocarmazine could eventually be another option.”
“At this time, there is only a minor 2-month difference in progression-free survival and a nonsignificant overall survival difference,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Cancer Center, Lisbon, Portugal. “With the high incidence of ocular toxicity and four toxic deaths, we cannot recommend this drug for clinical practice, in my opinion.”
Dr. Manich concluded, “SYD985 can provide a new treatment option for patients with pretreated locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.”
The study was funded by Byondis B.V. The authors disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.
This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.
, according to Cristina Saura Manich, MD, Hospital Universitario Valle de Hebrón, Barcelona. In TULIP, trastuzumab duocarmazine (SYD985, Byondis B.V., NL) was compared with physician’s choice of chemotherapy, Dr. Saura said at the virtual European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2021 on Sept. 18 (abstract LBA15).
Trastuzumab duocarmazine, Dr. Manich noted, is a novel HER2-targeting antibody–drug conjugate based on trastuzumab and a cleavable linker-duocarmycin (vc-seco-DUBA) payload. Its three-way mechanism of action includes uptake of the antibody–drug conjugate by internalization and intracellular release of the payload, and two bystander effects: proteolytic cleavage and subsequent release of payload in the tumor microenvironment and diffusion of active payload to neighboring tumor cells.
Two or more prior therapies for metastatic breast cancer
TULIP investigators enrolled 437 patients from 83 sites in 11 countries with HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had received two or more therapies for metastatic disease (treatment for brain metastases allowed). They were randomized 2:1 to SYD985 (1.2 mg/kg IV every 21 days [n = 291]) or physician’s choice (PC) [n = 146] of one of three trastuzumab-containing combinations or lapatinib plus capecitabine. Treatment was continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed PFS.
Longer progression-free survival with SYD985
Median age was 57 years, and the median number of prior metastatic breast cancer regimens was 4.7. Centrally reviewed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the SYD985 group at 7.0 months (5.4-7.2) versus 4.9 months (4.0-5.5) for PC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.84, P = .002). Subgroup analysis, also centrally reviewed, revealed numerical advantage for SYD985 over physician choice across all categories (except for ECOG status 2). Analysis of progression-free survival by investigators showed a similar benefit for SYD985 (6.9 months versus 4.6 months, HR, 0.60, P < .001).
A first look at median overall survival showed a nonsignificant advantage for SYD985 (20.4 months versus 16.3 months (HR, 0.83, 95% CI, 0.62-1.09, P = .153). The overall response rate (partial or complete response) was similar between groups at 27.8% for SYD985 and 29.5% for PC, with reductions in target lesion measurement at 70.2% and 32.2% for SYD985 and physician choice, respectively. The clinical benefit rates were 38.5% for SYD985 and 32.2% for physician choice.
Ocular toxicity
Most patients had at least one treatment-related adverse event (96.5% SD985, 96.4% PC), and grade 3 or higher event rates were similar between groups (52.8% SYD985, 48.2% PC). The most frequently reported adverse events for SYD985 were ocular toxicity, with conjunctivitis reported in 38.2%, and keratitis in 38.2%, with fatigue at 33.3%; for physician’s choice these were diarrhea (35.8%), nausea (31.4%), and fatigue (29.9%). Interstitial lung disease pneumonitis was reported for 7.6% (5.2% grade 1-2) of patients treated with SYD985, including two grade 5 events. Eye toxicity led to discontinuations in 20.8% of SYD985 patients, dose modifications in 22.9%, with dose modifications for interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis in 5.2% of SYD985 patients. Six fatalities (2.1%) were reported in the SYD985 group, with four attributed to treatment. Assessment of health-related quality of life showed no significant difference between groups.
Dr. Manich outlined risk mitigation strategies. Patients with prior keratitis were excluded and patients were given prophylactic lubricating eye drops and regular eye exams by ophthalmologists. Treatment was discontinued if grade 3 or higher keratitis developed, and was delayed if grade 3 conjunctivitis developed until it reduced to grade 2. Also, patients with prior pneumonitis were excluded and CT lung scans were evaluated for lung changes. New or worsening respiratory symptoms triggered a full diagnostic workup. Treatment was discontinued for grade 2 or higher pneumonitis and delayed until resolution for grade 1 pneumonitis.
Another option
“It is encouraging to observe clinically meaningful and potentially practice changing PFS improvements in patients receiving treatment in the third line and beyond,” said Aditya Bardia, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Several agents have been approved as treatments for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in recent years – including T-DXd, neratinib, tucatinib, and margetuximab – and [vic-]trastuzumab duocarmazine could eventually be another option.”
“At this time, there is only a minor 2-month difference in progression-free survival and a nonsignificant overall survival difference,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Cancer Center, Lisbon, Portugal. “With the high incidence of ocular toxicity and four toxic deaths, we cannot recommend this drug for clinical practice, in my opinion.”
Dr. Manich concluded, “SYD985 can provide a new treatment option for patients with pretreated locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.”
The study was funded by Byondis B.V. The authors disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.
This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.
FROM ESMO 2021
Twelve-month overall survival benefit with ribociclib for metastatic breast cancer
“Based on these results, ribociclib and letrozole should be considered the preferred treatment option,” said lead investigator Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, MD, a breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
He presented the definitive overall survival results from MONALESSA-2 which randomized 668 patients equally and in the first line to either ribociclib or placebo on a background of standard dose letrozole.
At a median follow up of 6.6 years, median overall survival with ribociclib was 63.9 months versus 51.4 months in the placebo arm, a 24% reduction in the relative risk of death (P = .004).
It was the first report of a median overall survival (OS) exceeding 5 years in a phase 3 trial for advanced breast cancer. The estimated 6-year OS rate was 44.2% for ribociclib versus 32.0% with placebo.
“These are really impressive results” and support the use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the front-line setting,” said study discussant Gonzalo Gomez Abuin, MD, a medical oncologist at Hospital Alemán in Bueno Aires.
Ribociclib and other CDK 4/6 inhibitors have shown consistent progression-free survival benefit for metastatic disease, but ribociclib is the first of the major phase 3 trials with definitive overall survival results. They have “been long awaited,” Dr. Abuin said.
The overall survival benefit in MONALESSA-2 began to emerge at around 20 months and continued to increase over time.
Women had no prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy for metastatic disease. “They represented a pure first-line population,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
Among other benefits, the time to first chemotherapy was a median of 50.6 months with ribociclib versus 38.9 months with placebo, so patients “had an extra year of delay before chemotherapy was utilized,” he said.
In general, Dr. Abuin said, we “see a consistent benefit with CDK 4/6 inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer across different settings.”
However, “it’s a little intriguing” that in a subgroup analysis of non–de novo disease, the overall survival benefit with ribociclib had a hazard ratio of 0.91, whereas the progression-free survival benefit was robust and statistically significant in an earlier report.
“This has been an important question, but I would caution all of us not to make too much out of the forest plot,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
“There are a number of hypotheses one could come up with that could explain why the de novo and non–de novo populations faired differently in overall survival as opposed to progression-free survival, but there is also the simple possibility that this is a statistical fluke,” he said.
“We are in the process of analyzing this particular observation. In the meantime, I think we should just take the overall survival results of the entire population as the lead answer, and not follow the subgroup analysis until further information is available,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
No new ribociclib safety signals were observed in the trial. The most common adverse events were neutropenia and liver function abnormalities, but they were “largely asymptomatic laboratory findings and completely reversible,” he said.
Twice as many patients treated with ribociclib developed prolonged QT intervals, but again, “no clinical consequences of this EKG finding were detected,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
Less than 1% of patients in the ribociclib arm developed interstitial lung disease. The majority of safety events occurred in the first 12 months of treatment.
The work was funded by Novartis, maker of both ribociclib and letrozole. Dr. Hortobagyi reported receiving an institutional grant from the company and personal fees related to the trial. Other investigators disclosed ties to Novartis. Dr. Abuin reported relationships with many companies, including Novartis.
This article was updated 9/24/21.
“Based on these results, ribociclib and letrozole should be considered the preferred treatment option,” said lead investigator Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, MD, a breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
He presented the definitive overall survival results from MONALESSA-2 which randomized 668 patients equally and in the first line to either ribociclib or placebo on a background of standard dose letrozole.
At a median follow up of 6.6 years, median overall survival with ribociclib was 63.9 months versus 51.4 months in the placebo arm, a 24% reduction in the relative risk of death (P = .004).
It was the first report of a median overall survival (OS) exceeding 5 years in a phase 3 trial for advanced breast cancer. The estimated 6-year OS rate was 44.2% for ribociclib versus 32.0% with placebo.
“These are really impressive results” and support the use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the front-line setting,” said study discussant Gonzalo Gomez Abuin, MD, a medical oncologist at Hospital Alemán in Bueno Aires.
Ribociclib and other CDK 4/6 inhibitors have shown consistent progression-free survival benefit for metastatic disease, but ribociclib is the first of the major phase 3 trials with definitive overall survival results. They have “been long awaited,” Dr. Abuin said.
The overall survival benefit in MONALESSA-2 began to emerge at around 20 months and continued to increase over time.
Women had no prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy for metastatic disease. “They represented a pure first-line population,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
Among other benefits, the time to first chemotherapy was a median of 50.6 months with ribociclib versus 38.9 months with placebo, so patients “had an extra year of delay before chemotherapy was utilized,” he said.
In general, Dr. Abuin said, we “see a consistent benefit with CDK 4/6 inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer across different settings.”
However, “it’s a little intriguing” that in a subgroup analysis of non–de novo disease, the overall survival benefit with ribociclib had a hazard ratio of 0.91, whereas the progression-free survival benefit was robust and statistically significant in an earlier report.
“This has been an important question, but I would caution all of us not to make too much out of the forest plot,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
“There are a number of hypotheses one could come up with that could explain why the de novo and non–de novo populations faired differently in overall survival as opposed to progression-free survival, but there is also the simple possibility that this is a statistical fluke,” he said.
“We are in the process of analyzing this particular observation. In the meantime, I think we should just take the overall survival results of the entire population as the lead answer, and not follow the subgroup analysis until further information is available,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
No new ribociclib safety signals were observed in the trial. The most common adverse events were neutropenia and liver function abnormalities, but they were “largely asymptomatic laboratory findings and completely reversible,” he said.
Twice as many patients treated with ribociclib developed prolonged QT intervals, but again, “no clinical consequences of this EKG finding were detected,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
Less than 1% of patients in the ribociclib arm developed interstitial lung disease. The majority of safety events occurred in the first 12 months of treatment.
The work was funded by Novartis, maker of both ribociclib and letrozole. Dr. Hortobagyi reported receiving an institutional grant from the company and personal fees related to the trial. Other investigators disclosed ties to Novartis. Dr. Abuin reported relationships with many companies, including Novartis.
This article was updated 9/24/21.
“Based on these results, ribociclib and letrozole should be considered the preferred treatment option,” said lead investigator Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, MD, a breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
He presented the definitive overall survival results from MONALESSA-2 which randomized 668 patients equally and in the first line to either ribociclib or placebo on a background of standard dose letrozole.
At a median follow up of 6.6 years, median overall survival with ribociclib was 63.9 months versus 51.4 months in the placebo arm, a 24% reduction in the relative risk of death (P = .004).
It was the first report of a median overall survival (OS) exceeding 5 years in a phase 3 trial for advanced breast cancer. The estimated 6-year OS rate was 44.2% for ribociclib versus 32.0% with placebo.
“These are really impressive results” and support the use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the front-line setting,” said study discussant Gonzalo Gomez Abuin, MD, a medical oncologist at Hospital Alemán in Bueno Aires.
Ribociclib and other CDK 4/6 inhibitors have shown consistent progression-free survival benefit for metastatic disease, but ribociclib is the first of the major phase 3 trials with definitive overall survival results. They have “been long awaited,” Dr. Abuin said.
The overall survival benefit in MONALESSA-2 began to emerge at around 20 months and continued to increase over time.
Women had no prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy for metastatic disease. “They represented a pure first-line population,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
Among other benefits, the time to first chemotherapy was a median of 50.6 months with ribociclib versus 38.9 months with placebo, so patients “had an extra year of delay before chemotherapy was utilized,” he said.
In general, Dr. Abuin said, we “see a consistent benefit with CDK 4/6 inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer across different settings.”
However, “it’s a little intriguing” that in a subgroup analysis of non–de novo disease, the overall survival benefit with ribociclib had a hazard ratio of 0.91, whereas the progression-free survival benefit was robust and statistically significant in an earlier report.
“This has been an important question, but I would caution all of us not to make too much out of the forest plot,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
“There are a number of hypotheses one could come up with that could explain why the de novo and non–de novo populations faired differently in overall survival as opposed to progression-free survival, but there is also the simple possibility that this is a statistical fluke,” he said.
“We are in the process of analyzing this particular observation. In the meantime, I think we should just take the overall survival results of the entire population as the lead answer, and not follow the subgroup analysis until further information is available,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
No new ribociclib safety signals were observed in the trial. The most common adverse events were neutropenia and liver function abnormalities, but they were “largely asymptomatic laboratory findings and completely reversible,” he said.
Twice as many patients treated with ribociclib developed prolonged QT intervals, but again, “no clinical consequences of this EKG finding were detected,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
Less than 1% of patients in the ribociclib arm developed interstitial lung disease. The majority of safety events occurred in the first 12 months of treatment.
The work was funded by Novartis, maker of both ribociclib and letrozole. Dr. Hortobagyi reported receiving an institutional grant from the company and personal fees related to the trial. Other investigators disclosed ties to Novartis. Dr. Abuin reported relationships with many companies, including Novartis.
This article was updated 9/24/21.
FROM ESMO 2021
Breast density associated with increased invasive breast cancer risk after age 65
The findings, based on an analysis of Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data from Jan. 1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2012, have potential implications for screening mammography decisions in older women – particularly those aged 75 years and older, for whom screening guidance is limited by a paucity of data, Dejana Braithwaite, PhD, of the University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.
The investigators analyzed 221,714 screening mammograms from 193,787 women aged 65 and older in the United States. About 65% of the mammograms were from women aged 65-74 years and about 35% were from women aged 75 years and older, who comprised 38% of the study population.
During a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 5,069 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed, the authors noted.
The 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer increased in tandem with increasing breast density among those aged 65-74 years and among those aged 75 and older: The cumulative incidence per 1,000 women aged 65-74 years was 11.3 for those with almost entirely fatty breasts, 17.2 for those with scattered fibroglandular densities, and 23.7 for those with extremely or heterogeneously dense breasts. The cumulative incidence rates for those aged 75 years and older were 13.5, 18.4, and 22.5 per 1,000 women, respectively, they found.
Extreme or heterogeneous breast density was associated with increased risk of breast cancer, compared with scattered fibroglandular breast density, in both age categories (hazard ratios, 1.39 and 1.23 for those aged 65-74 years and 75 years and older, respectively), whereas the risk of invasive breast cancer was about 30% lower among women with almost entirely fatty breasts, compared with women with scattered fibroglandular breast density (HRs, 0.66 and 0.73 for the 65-74 and 75-plus age groups, respectively).
The associations between breast density and breast cancer were statistically significant after adjustment for body mass index (BMI) and other risk factors.
However, no significant differences were seen between breast density and breast cancer risk based on BMI, noted the authors, who investigated this potential association as part of their effort to identify subpopulations of older women who might benefit from screening, “especially because the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force guidelines state that the current evidence is considered insufficient to recommend routine breast cancer screening for women aged 75 years or older,” they wrote.
Further, although breast density is important in risk assessment and could be evaluated in older women, some risk prediction models exclude women aged 75 or older in risk assessments, they noted, adding that this is concerning given “the aging of the population in the U.S. and worldwide.”
“The positive associations found in this study between breast density and breast cancer among women aged 75 years or older suggest that breast density and life expectancy should be considered together when discussing the potential benefits and harms of continued screening mammography in this population,” they concluded.
The new findings supplement those from prior studies and highlight “the intersection of ... two subjects that have garnered considerable lay public, healthy policy, and academic interest” in recent years: screening mammography in older women and the risk of breast cancer caused by breast density in older women, Catherine M. Tuite, MD, of ChristianaCare Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute, Newark, Del., wrote in a commentary published with the study.
“Although there is a linear association between age and mammographic density, age is not a perfect surrogate for the latter, and there are meaningful numbers of older women with mammographically dense breast tissue,” she said, noting that a 75-year-old woman in the United States has a life expectancy of 12-14 additional years, and that “continuation of screening mammography in healthy women aged 75 years or older may offer a substantial opportunity to avoid morbidity and mortality from breast cancer in this age group.”
However, overdiagnosis also remains a concern, she said.
“Breast density and age are only a few of the many factors currently under investigation in the drive toward risk-based or personalized breast cancer screening,” she wrote. “We must remain cautious in the application of restrictive screening for women of any age with supposedly lower than average risk ... ultimately, the decision of when to stop screening is personal, and each woman deserves the agency to weigh her own wishes, values, and life experiences with an accurate and unbiased discussion of risks and benefits of screening mammography in making that decision.”
This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Cancer and vital status data collection was supported in part by several state public health departments and cancer registries. Dr. Advani and Dr. Tuite each reported having no disclosures.
The findings, based on an analysis of Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data from Jan. 1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2012, have potential implications for screening mammography decisions in older women – particularly those aged 75 years and older, for whom screening guidance is limited by a paucity of data, Dejana Braithwaite, PhD, of the University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.
The investigators analyzed 221,714 screening mammograms from 193,787 women aged 65 and older in the United States. About 65% of the mammograms were from women aged 65-74 years and about 35% were from women aged 75 years and older, who comprised 38% of the study population.
During a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 5,069 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed, the authors noted.
The 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer increased in tandem with increasing breast density among those aged 65-74 years and among those aged 75 and older: The cumulative incidence per 1,000 women aged 65-74 years was 11.3 for those with almost entirely fatty breasts, 17.2 for those with scattered fibroglandular densities, and 23.7 for those with extremely or heterogeneously dense breasts. The cumulative incidence rates for those aged 75 years and older were 13.5, 18.4, and 22.5 per 1,000 women, respectively, they found.
Extreme or heterogeneous breast density was associated with increased risk of breast cancer, compared with scattered fibroglandular breast density, in both age categories (hazard ratios, 1.39 and 1.23 for those aged 65-74 years and 75 years and older, respectively), whereas the risk of invasive breast cancer was about 30% lower among women with almost entirely fatty breasts, compared with women with scattered fibroglandular breast density (HRs, 0.66 and 0.73 for the 65-74 and 75-plus age groups, respectively).
The associations between breast density and breast cancer were statistically significant after adjustment for body mass index (BMI) and other risk factors.
However, no significant differences were seen between breast density and breast cancer risk based on BMI, noted the authors, who investigated this potential association as part of their effort to identify subpopulations of older women who might benefit from screening, “especially because the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force guidelines state that the current evidence is considered insufficient to recommend routine breast cancer screening for women aged 75 years or older,” they wrote.
Further, although breast density is important in risk assessment and could be evaluated in older women, some risk prediction models exclude women aged 75 or older in risk assessments, they noted, adding that this is concerning given “the aging of the population in the U.S. and worldwide.”
“The positive associations found in this study between breast density and breast cancer among women aged 75 years or older suggest that breast density and life expectancy should be considered together when discussing the potential benefits and harms of continued screening mammography in this population,” they concluded.
The new findings supplement those from prior studies and highlight “the intersection of ... two subjects that have garnered considerable lay public, healthy policy, and academic interest” in recent years: screening mammography in older women and the risk of breast cancer caused by breast density in older women, Catherine M. Tuite, MD, of ChristianaCare Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute, Newark, Del., wrote in a commentary published with the study.
“Although there is a linear association between age and mammographic density, age is not a perfect surrogate for the latter, and there are meaningful numbers of older women with mammographically dense breast tissue,” she said, noting that a 75-year-old woman in the United States has a life expectancy of 12-14 additional years, and that “continuation of screening mammography in healthy women aged 75 years or older may offer a substantial opportunity to avoid morbidity and mortality from breast cancer in this age group.”
However, overdiagnosis also remains a concern, she said.
“Breast density and age are only a few of the many factors currently under investigation in the drive toward risk-based or personalized breast cancer screening,” she wrote. “We must remain cautious in the application of restrictive screening for women of any age with supposedly lower than average risk ... ultimately, the decision of when to stop screening is personal, and each woman deserves the agency to weigh her own wishes, values, and life experiences with an accurate and unbiased discussion of risks and benefits of screening mammography in making that decision.”
This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Cancer and vital status data collection was supported in part by several state public health departments and cancer registries. Dr. Advani and Dr. Tuite each reported having no disclosures.
The findings, based on an analysis of Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data from Jan. 1, 1996, to Dec. 31, 2012, have potential implications for screening mammography decisions in older women – particularly those aged 75 years and older, for whom screening guidance is limited by a paucity of data, Dejana Braithwaite, PhD, of the University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.
The investigators analyzed 221,714 screening mammograms from 193,787 women aged 65 and older in the United States. About 65% of the mammograms were from women aged 65-74 years and about 35% were from women aged 75 years and older, who comprised 38% of the study population.
During a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 5,069 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed, the authors noted.
The 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer increased in tandem with increasing breast density among those aged 65-74 years and among those aged 75 and older: The cumulative incidence per 1,000 women aged 65-74 years was 11.3 for those with almost entirely fatty breasts, 17.2 for those with scattered fibroglandular densities, and 23.7 for those with extremely or heterogeneously dense breasts. The cumulative incidence rates for those aged 75 years and older were 13.5, 18.4, and 22.5 per 1,000 women, respectively, they found.
Extreme or heterogeneous breast density was associated with increased risk of breast cancer, compared with scattered fibroglandular breast density, in both age categories (hazard ratios, 1.39 and 1.23 for those aged 65-74 years and 75 years and older, respectively), whereas the risk of invasive breast cancer was about 30% lower among women with almost entirely fatty breasts, compared with women with scattered fibroglandular breast density (HRs, 0.66 and 0.73 for the 65-74 and 75-plus age groups, respectively).
The associations between breast density and breast cancer were statistically significant after adjustment for body mass index (BMI) and other risk factors.
However, no significant differences were seen between breast density and breast cancer risk based on BMI, noted the authors, who investigated this potential association as part of their effort to identify subpopulations of older women who might benefit from screening, “especially because the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force guidelines state that the current evidence is considered insufficient to recommend routine breast cancer screening for women aged 75 years or older,” they wrote.
Further, although breast density is important in risk assessment and could be evaluated in older women, some risk prediction models exclude women aged 75 or older in risk assessments, they noted, adding that this is concerning given “the aging of the population in the U.S. and worldwide.”
“The positive associations found in this study between breast density and breast cancer among women aged 75 years or older suggest that breast density and life expectancy should be considered together when discussing the potential benefits and harms of continued screening mammography in this population,” they concluded.
The new findings supplement those from prior studies and highlight “the intersection of ... two subjects that have garnered considerable lay public, healthy policy, and academic interest” in recent years: screening mammography in older women and the risk of breast cancer caused by breast density in older women, Catherine M. Tuite, MD, of ChristianaCare Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute, Newark, Del., wrote in a commentary published with the study.
“Although there is a linear association between age and mammographic density, age is not a perfect surrogate for the latter, and there are meaningful numbers of older women with mammographically dense breast tissue,” she said, noting that a 75-year-old woman in the United States has a life expectancy of 12-14 additional years, and that “continuation of screening mammography in healthy women aged 75 years or older may offer a substantial opportunity to avoid morbidity and mortality from breast cancer in this age group.”
However, overdiagnosis also remains a concern, she said.
“Breast density and age are only a few of the many factors currently under investigation in the drive toward risk-based or personalized breast cancer screening,” she wrote. “We must remain cautious in the application of restrictive screening for women of any age with supposedly lower than average risk ... ultimately, the decision of when to stop screening is personal, and each woman deserves the agency to weigh her own wishes, values, and life experiences with an accurate and unbiased discussion of risks and benefits of screening mammography in making that decision.”
This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Cancer and vital status data collection was supported in part by several state public health departments and cancer registries. Dr. Advani and Dr. Tuite each reported having no disclosures.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Antipsychotics tied to increased breast cancer risk
Use of antipsychotics that increase prolactin levels is significantly associated with an increased risk for breast cancer in women with schizophrenia, new research suggests. However, at least one expert says that, at this point, clinical implications are premature.
Investigators compared data from Finnish nationwide registers on more than 30,000 women diagnosed with schizophrenia. Of those patients, 1,069 were diagnosed with breast cancer. Results showed that long-term exposure to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics was associated with a 56% increased risk of developing breast cancer in comparison with exposure of short duration. No significant association was found with cumulative exposure to prolactin-sparing antipsychotics.
“In case of planning for long-term antipsychotic [therapy], prefer non–prolactin-raising antipsychotics in females and inform patients about a potential risk to allow for informed shared decision-making,” study coauthor Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., told this news organization.
“ he said.
The study was published online Aug. 30, 2021, in The Lancet.
A ‘relevant contribution’
Breast cancer is 25% more prevalent among women with schizophrenia than among women in the general population. Antipsychotics have long been suspected as a potential culprit, but research results have been inconsistent, said Dr. Correll.
In addition, high concentrations of prolactin are associated with a higher risk of developing breast cancer, but most previous research did not distinguish between antipsychotics that increased prolactin levels those that did not.
Dr. Correll and colleagues “wanted to add to this literature by utilizing a generalizable nationwide sample with a sufficient large number of patients and sufficiently long follow-up to address the clinically very relevant question whether antipsychotic use could increase the risk of breast cancer.”
They also believed that grouping antipsychotics into prolactin-raising and non–prolactin-raising agents would be “a relevant contribution.”
The researchers drew on data from several large Finnish databases to conduct a nested case-control study of 30,785 women aged at least16 years who were diagnosed with schizophrenia between 1972 and 2014.
Of these patients, 1,069 received an initial diagnosis of invasive breast cancer (after being diagnosed with schizophrenia) between 2000 and 2017. These case patients were compared to 5,339 matched control patients. The mean age of the case patients and the control patients was 62 years. The mean time since initial diagnosis of schizophrenia was 24 years.
Antipsychotic use was divided into three periods: less than 1 year, 1-4 years, and ≥5 years. Antipsychotics were further divided into prolactin-increasing or prolactin-sparing drugs (for example, clozapine, quetiapine, or aripiprazole). Breast cancer was divided into either lobular or ductal adenocarcinoma.
In their statistical analyses, the researchers adjusted for an array of covariates, including previous diagnoses of other medical conditions, drugs that may modify the risk for breast cancer (for example, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, spironolactone, loop diuretics, and statins), substance misuse, suicide attempt, parity, and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
‘Clinically meaningful’ risk
Ductal adenocarcinoma was more common than lobular adenocarcinoma (73% vs. 20% among case patients). A higher proportion of case patients used cardiovascular medications and HRT, compared with control patients.
A higher proportion of case patients had used prolactin-increasing antipsychotics for at least 5 years, compared with control patients (71.4% vs. 64.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.27-1.92; P < .0001) in comparison with minimal exposure (<1 year) to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics.
On the other hand, a similar proportion of case patients and control patients used prolactin-sparing antipsychotics for at least 5 years (8.3 vs. 8.2%; aOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.90-1.58); the OR of 1.19 was not deemed significant.
Although exposure of ≥5 years to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics was associated with an increased risk for both types of adenocarcinoma, the risk was higher for lobular than for ductal disease (aOR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.46-3.82 vs. aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12-1.80).
“Conservatively, if we subtract the 19% nonsignificantly increased odds with prolactin-sparing antipsychotics from the 56% significantly increased odds with prolactin-increasing antipsychotics, we obtain a 37% relative increase in odds,” the authors noted.
“Using a lifetime incidence of breast cancer in women in the general population of about 12%, with a somewhat higher lifetime incidence in patients with schizophrenia than the general population, this difference between prolactin-increasing versus prolactin-sparing antipsychotics in breast cancer risk upon exposure of 5 or more years would correspond to about a 4% (37% x 12%) increase in absolute breast cancer odds with prolactin-increasing antipsychotic treatment” – a difference the authors call “clinically meaningful.”
Correll noted that although the study was conducted in a Finnish population, the findings are generalizable to other populations.
Clinical implications premature?
Commenting on the study, Anton Pottegård, MScPharm, PhD, DMSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, department of public health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, expressed concern that “this new study is fairly aggressive in its recommendation [that] we need to pay attention to hyperprolactinemia, as this seems to cause breast cancer.”
Dr. Pottegård, who is also the head of research, Hospital Pharmacy Funen, Odense University Hospital, who was not involved with the study, said he does not “think that the full body of the literature supports such a direct conclusion and/or direct inference to clinical practice.”
Although “this is an important study to further this work, I do not think we are at a place (yet) where it should lead to different action from clinicians,” Dr. Pottegård cautioned.
Also commenting on the study, Mary Seeman, MDCM, DSc, professor emeritus of neurosciences and clinical translation, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, called the question of whether prolactin-increasing antipsychotics increase breast cancer risk “very complicated because the incidence of breast cancer ... is higher in women with schizophrenia than in other women.”
Dr. Seeman, who was not involved with the study, pointed to other reasons for the increased risk, including higher rates of obesity, substance abuse, cigarette smoking, stress, and sedentary behavior, all of which raise prolactin levels. Additionally, “protective factors such as pregnancies and breastfeeding are less frequent in women with schizophrenia than in their peers.” Women with schizophrenia also “tend not to do breast screening, see their doctors less often, follow doctors’ orders less rigorously, and obtain treatment less often.”
The take-home message “is to prescribe prolactin-sparing medication to women if at all possible – but until we know more, that is good advice, although not always possible because the illness for which the antipsychotics are prescribed may not respond to those particular medications,” Dr. Seeman said.
The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital. Funding was also provided to individual researchers by the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Medical Foundation, and the Emil Aaltonen foundation. Dr. Correll has been a consultant or advisor to or has received honoraria from numerous companies. He has provided expert testimony for Janssen and Otsuka; received royalties from UpToDate and is a stock option holder of LB Pharma; served on a data safety monitoring board for Lundbeck, Rovi, Supernus, and Teva; and received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. Dr. Pottegård and Dr. Seeman disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Use of antipsychotics that increase prolactin levels is significantly associated with an increased risk for breast cancer in women with schizophrenia, new research suggests. However, at least one expert says that, at this point, clinical implications are premature.
Investigators compared data from Finnish nationwide registers on more than 30,000 women diagnosed with schizophrenia. Of those patients, 1,069 were diagnosed with breast cancer. Results showed that long-term exposure to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics was associated with a 56% increased risk of developing breast cancer in comparison with exposure of short duration. No significant association was found with cumulative exposure to prolactin-sparing antipsychotics.
“In case of planning for long-term antipsychotic [therapy], prefer non–prolactin-raising antipsychotics in females and inform patients about a potential risk to allow for informed shared decision-making,” study coauthor Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., told this news organization.
“ he said.
The study was published online Aug. 30, 2021, in The Lancet.
A ‘relevant contribution’
Breast cancer is 25% more prevalent among women with schizophrenia than among women in the general population. Antipsychotics have long been suspected as a potential culprit, but research results have been inconsistent, said Dr. Correll.
In addition, high concentrations of prolactin are associated with a higher risk of developing breast cancer, but most previous research did not distinguish between antipsychotics that increased prolactin levels those that did not.
Dr. Correll and colleagues “wanted to add to this literature by utilizing a generalizable nationwide sample with a sufficient large number of patients and sufficiently long follow-up to address the clinically very relevant question whether antipsychotic use could increase the risk of breast cancer.”
They also believed that grouping antipsychotics into prolactin-raising and non–prolactin-raising agents would be “a relevant contribution.”
The researchers drew on data from several large Finnish databases to conduct a nested case-control study of 30,785 women aged at least16 years who were diagnosed with schizophrenia between 1972 and 2014.
Of these patients, 1,069 received an initial diagnosis of invasive breast cancer (after being diagnosed with schizophrenia) between 2000 and 2017. These case patients were compared to 5,339 matched control patients. The mean age of the case patients and the control patients was 62 years. The mean time since initial diagnosis of schizophrenia was 24 years.
Antipsychotic use was divided into three periods: less than 1 year, 1-4 years, and ≥5 years. Antipsychotics were further divided into prolactin-increasing or prolactin-sparing drugs (for example, clozapine, quetiapine, or aripiprazole). Breast cancer was divided into either lobular or ductal adenocarcinoma.
In their statistical analyses, the researchers adjusted for an array of covariates, including previous diagnoses of other medical conditions, drugs that may modify the risk for breast cancer (for example, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, spironolactone, loop diuretics, and statins), substance misuse, suicide attempt, parity, and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
‘Clinically meaningful’ risk
Ductal adenocarcinoma was more common than lobular adenocarcinoma (73% vs. 20% among case patients). A higher proportion of case patients used cardiovascular medications and HRT, compared with control patients.
A higher proportion of case patients had used prolactin-increasing antipsychotics for at least 5 years, compared with control patients (71.4% vs. 64.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.27-1.92; P < .0001) in comparison with minimal exposure (<1 year) to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics.
On the other hand, a similar proportion of case patients and control patients used prolactin-sparing antipsychotics for at least 5 years (8.3 vs. 8.2%; aOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.90-1.58); the OR of 1.19 was not deemed significant.
Although exposure of ≥5 years to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics was associated with an increased risk for both types of adenocarcinoma, the risk was higher for lobular than for ductal disease (aOR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.46-3.82 vs. aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12-1.80).
“Conservatively, if we subtract the 19% nonsignificantly increased odds with prolactin-sparing antipsychotics from the 56% significantly increased odds with prolactin-increasing antipsychotics, we obtain a 37% relative increase in odds,” the authors noted.
“Using a lifetime incidence of breast cancer in women in the general population of about 12%, with a somewhat higher lifetime incidence in patients with schizophrenia than the general population, this difference between prolactin-increasing versus prolactin-sparing antipsychotics in breast cancer risk upon exposure of 5 or more years would correspond to about a 4% (37% x 12%) increase in absolute breast cancer odds with prolactin-increasing antipsychotic treatment” – a difference the authors call “clinically meaningful.”
Correll noted that although the study was conducted in a Finnish population, the findings are generalizable to other populations.
Clinical implications premature?
Commenting on the study, Anton Pottegård, MScPharm, PhD, DMSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, department of public health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, expressed concern that “this new study is fairly aggressive in its recommendation [that] we need to pay attention to hyperprolactinemia, as this seems to cause breast cancer.”
Dr. Pottegård, who is also the head of research, Hospital Pharmacy Funen, Odense University Hospital, who was not involved with the study, said he does not “think that the full body of the literature supports such a direct conclusion and/or direct inference to clinical practice.”
Although “this is an important study to further this work, I do not think we are at a place (yet) where it should lead to different action from clinicians,” Dr. Pottegård cautioned.
Also commenting on the study, Mary Seeman, MDCM, DSc, professor emeritus of neurosciences and clinical translation, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, called the question of whether prolactin-increasing antipsychotics increase breast cancer risk “very complicated because the incidence of breast cancer ... is higher in women with schizophrenia than in other women.”
Dr. Seeman, who was not involved with the study, pointed to other reasons for the increased risk, including higher rates of obesity, substance abuse, cigarette smoking, stress, and sedentary behavior, all of which raise prolactin levels. Additionally, “protective factors such as pregnancies and breastfeeding are less frequent in women with schizophrenia than in their peers.” Women with schizophrenia also “tend not to do breast screening, see their doctors less often, follow doctors’ orders less rigorously, and obtain treatment less often.”
The take-home message “is to prescribe prolactin-sparing medication to women if at all possible – but until we know more, that is good advice, although not always possible because the illness for which the antipsychotics are prescribed may not respond to those particular medications,” Dr. Seeman said.
The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital. Funding was also provided to individual researchers by the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Medical Foundation, and the Emil Aaltonen foundation. Dr. Correll has been a consultant or advisor to or has received honoraria from numerous companies. He has provided expert testimony for Janssen and Otsuka; received royalties from UpToDate and is a stock option holder of LB Pharma; served on a data safety monitoring board for Lundbeck, Rovi, Supernus, and Teva; and received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. Dr. Pottegård and Dr. Seeman disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Use of antipsychotics that increase prolactin levels is significantly associated with an increased risk for breast cancer in women with schizophrenia, new research suggests. However, at least one expert says that, at this point, clinical implications are premature.
Investigators compared data from Finnish nationwide registers on more than 30,000 women diagnosed with schizophrenia. Of those patients, 1,069 were diagnosed with breast cancer. Results showed that long-term exposure to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics was associated with a 56% increased risk of developing breast cancer in comparison with exposure of short duration. No significant association was found with cumulative exposure to prolactin-sparing antipsychotics.
“In case of planning for long-term antipsychotic [therapy], prefer non–prolactin-raising antipsychotics in females and inform patients about a potential risk to allow for informed shared decision-making,” study coauthor Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., told this news organization.
“ he said.
The study was published online Aug. 30, 2021, in The Lancet.
A ‘relevant contribution’
Breast cancer is 25% more prevalent among women with schizophrenia than among women in the general population. Antipsychotics have long been suspected as a potential culprit, but research results have been inconsistent, said Dr. Correll.
In addition, high concentrations of prolactin are associated with a higher risk of developing breast cancer, but most previous research did not distinguish between antipsychotics that increased prolactin levels those that did not.
Dr. Correll and colleagues “wanted to add to this literature by utilizing a generalizable nationwide sample with a sufficient large number of patients and sufficiently long follow-up to address the clinically very relevant question whether antipsychotic use could increase the risk of breast cancer.”
They also believed that grouping antipsychotics into prolactin-raising and non–prolactin-raising agents would be “a relevant contribution.”
The researchers drew on data from several large Finnish databases to conduct a nested case-control study of 30,785 women aged at least16 years who were diagnosed with schizophrenia between 1972 and 2014.
Of these patients, 1,069 received an initial diagnosis of invasive breast cancer (after being diagnosed with schizophrenia) between 2000 and 2017. These case patients were compared to 5,339 matched control patients. The mean age of the case patients and the control patients was 62 years. The mean time since initial diagnosis of schizophrenia was 24 years.
Antipsychotic use was divided into three periods: less than 1 year, 1-4 years, and ≥5 years. Antipsychotics were further divided into prolactin-increasing or prolactin-sparing drugs (for example, clozapine, quetiapine, or aripiprazole). Breast cancer was divided into either lobular or ductal adenocarcinoma.
In their statistical analyses, the researchers adjusted for an array of covariates, including previous diagnoses of other medical conditions, drugs that may modify the risk for breast cancer (for example, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, spironolactone, loop diuretics, and statins), substance misuse, suicide attempt, parity, and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
‘Clinically meaningful’ risk
Ductal adenocarcinoma was more common than lobular adenocarcinoma (73% vs. 20% among case patients). A higher proportion of case patients used cardiovascular medications and HRT, compared with control patients.
A higher proportion of case patients had used prolactin-increasing antipsychotics for at least 5 years, compared with control patients (71.4% vs. 64.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.27-1.92; P < .0001) in comparison with minimal exposure (<1 year) to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics.
On the other hand, a similar proportion of case patients and control patients used prolactin-sparing antipsychotics for at least 5 years (8.3 vs. 8.2%; aOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.90-1.58); the OR of 1.19 was not deemed significant.
Although exposure of ≥5 years to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics was associated with an increased risk for both types of adenocarcinoma, the risk was higher for lobular than for ductal disease (aOR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.46-3.82 vs. aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12-1.80).
“Conservatively, if we subtract the 19% nonsignificantly increased odds with prolactin-sparing antipsychotics from the 56% significantly increased odds with prolactin-increasing antipsychotics, we obtain a 37% relative increase in odds,” the authors noted.
“Using a lifetime incidence of breast cancer in women in the general population of about 12%, with a somewhat higher lifetime incidence in patients with schizophrenia than the general population, this difference between prolactin-increasing versus prolactin-sparing antipsychotics in breast cancer risk upon exposure of 5 or more years would correspond to about a 4% (37% x 12%) increase in absolute breast cancer odds with prolactin-increasing antipsychotic treatment” – a difference the authors call “clinically meaningful.”
Correll noted that although the study was conducted in a Finnish population, the findings are generalizable to other populations.
Clinical implications premature?
Commenting on the study, Anton Pottegård, MScPharm, PhD, DMSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, department of public health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, expressed concern that “this new study is fairly aggressive in its recommendation [that] we need to pay attention to hyperprolactinemia, as this seems to cause breast cancer.”
Dr. Pottegård, who is also the head of research, Hospital Pharmacy Funen, Odense University Hospital, who was not involved with the study, said he does not “think that the full body of the literature supports such a direct conclusion and/or direct inference to clinical practice.”
Although “this is an important study to further this work, I do not think we are at a place (yet) where it should lead to different action from clinicians,” Dr. Pottegård cautioned.
Also commenting on the study, Mary Seeman, MDCM, DSc, professor emeritus of neurosciences and clinical translation, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, called the question of whether prolactin-increasing antipsychotics increase breast cancer risk “very complicated because the incidence of breast cancer ... is higher in women with schizophrenia than in other women.”
Dr. Seeman, who was not involved with the study, pointed to other reasons for the increased risk, including higher rates of obesity, substance abuse, cigarette smoking, stress, and sedentary behavior, all of which raise prolactin levels. Additionally, “protective factors such as pregnancies and breastfeeding are less frequent in women with schizophrenia than in their peers.” Women with schizophrenia also “tend not to do breast screening, see their doctors less often, follow doctors’ orders less rigorously, and obtain treatment less often.”
The take-home message “is to prescribe prolactin-sparing medication to women if at all possible – but until we know more, that is good advice, although not always possible because the illness for which the antipsychotics are prescribed may not respond to those particular medications,” Dr. Seeman said.
The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital. Funding was also provided to individual researchers by the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Medical Foundation, and the Emil Aaltonen foundation. Dr. Correll has been a consultant or advisor to or has received honoraria from numerous companies. He has provided expert testimony for Janssen and Otsuka; received royalties from UpToDate and is a stock option holder of LB Pharma; served on a data safety monitoring board for Lundbeck, Rovi, Supernus, and Teva; and received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. Dr. Pottegård and Dr. Seeman disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Polygenic breast cancer risk scores strive to overcome racial bias
The potential of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to become key components in the assessment of individual risk for disease in the clinical setting is inching closer to fruition; however, the technology is plagued by one glaring omission of most existing PRSs – the lack of applicability to those of non-European ancestry.
Polygenic risk scores predict an individual’s risk of disease based on common genetic variants identified in large genomewide association studies (GWASs). They have gained ground in research, as well as in the unregulated realm of the direct-to-consumer market where they are sold as add-ons to DNA ancestry kits such as 23andMe and MyHeritage.com.
While the risk scores show strong validation in estimating risk among people of European descent, their striking caveat is the lack of applicability to other ancestries, particularly African, and their use in practice outside of clinical trials is discouraged in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.
Study underscores need for ethnically diverse datasets
In a recent study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores’ models in a clinical setting. Researchers tested 7 PRSs models for breast cancer risk against the medical records data of 39,591 women of European, African, and Latinx ancestry.
The PRSs models – all used only for research purposes – included three models involving European ancestry cohorts, two from Latinx cohorts, and two from women African descent.
After adjusting for factors including age, breast cancer family history, and ancestry, the PRSs from women with European ancestry highly corresponded to breast cancer risk, with a mean odds ratio of 1.46 per standard deviation increase in the score.
PRSs were also generalized relatively well among women of Latinx ancestry with a mean OR of 1.31. The authors noted that association is likely caused by Latinx individuals in the United States having a greater proportion of European ancestry than individuals with African ancestry. Importantly, however, the effect size was lower for women of African ancestry with a highest OR of 1.19 per standard deviation.
In the highest percentiles of breast cancer risk, women of European descent had odds ratio as high as 2.19-2.48, suggesting a statistically significant association with overall breast cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were found among women of Latinx and African-ancestry.
The PRSs models were smaller for women of non-European ancestry and included fewer genetic variants for women of non-European ancestry were notably smaller and hence reflected fewer genetic variants. Of the two risk scores involving African ancestry, the Women’s Health Initiative for Women with African ancestry risk score had just 75 variants, while the African diaspora study (ROOT) had 34 variants, compared with 3,820 and 5,218 in the two largest European ancestry PRSs, the Breast Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank, respectively.
“These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts,” the authors wrote.
First author, Cong Liu, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that efforts are underway to improve the inclusivity in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network data set used in this study.
“Until well-developed and validated PRSs for women with non-European ancestry become available, the current PRSs based on cohorts with European ancestry could be adapted for Latinx women, but not women with African ancestry until additional data sets become available in this important and high-risk group,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote.
In a commentary published with the study, Payal D. Shah, MD, of the Basser Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that PRSs are “disproportionately applicable to patients with European ancestry and are insufficiently vetted and developed in other populations. If an instrument exists that has clinical utility in informing effective cancer risk mitigation strategies, then we must strive to ensure that it is available and applicable to all.”
Higher morality among African American women
While American Cancer Society data shows women with African ancestry generally have incidence rates of breast cancer similar to White women, they have significantly higher mortality from the disease in part because of later-stage diagnosis and health care barriers.
Anne Marie McCarthy, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that African American women “have 42% higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite having lower disease incidence, and are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which has poorer prognosis than other molecular subtypes.”
Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Armstrong wrote that African American women are chronically underrepresented in breast cancer studies. And as such, it is impossible to know the extent of the prevalence of mutations and risk.
Failing to address the lack of diversity in genomic studies may worsen health disparities for women with African ancestry, Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote. The higher mortality “underscores the urgent need to increase diversity in genomic studies so that future clinical applications of the PRS do not exacerbate existing health disparities. These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts.”
Potential PRS benefits underscore need to eliminate bias
The potentially important benefits of PRSs as risk prediction tools used in combination with family history, reproductive history and other factors, should provide strong incentive to push for improvement, Dr. Shah wrote.
For instance, if an individual is estrogen receptor positive and shows elevations in breast cancer risk on a reliable PRS, “this may inform antiestrogen chemoprevention strategies,” she wrote.
A risk score could furthermore influence the age at which breast cancer screening should begin or factor into whether a patient should also receive surveillance breast MRI.
Importantly, PRSs could also add to other risk factors to provide more precise risk estimates and inform management of women with a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk predisposition gene, Dr. Shah wrote.
Confluence project
Among the most promising developments in research is the National Cancer Institute’s Confluence Project, a large research resource aiming to include approximately 300,000 breast cancer cases and 300,000 controls of different races/ethnicities, utilizing the confluence of existing GWAS and new genomewide genotyping data.
Having started enrollment in 2018, the project is approaching implementation, said Montserrat García-Closas, MD, MPH, DrPH, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics with the National Cancer Institute.
“We expect genotyping to be completed by the end of 2022 and for the data to be made available to the research community soon after that,” she said.
Among the project’s key objectives are the development of PRSs to be integrated with known risk factors to provide a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, overall and by ancestral subtype.
“We plan to apply novel methods to derive multiancestry PRS that will account for differences and similarities in genetic architecture across ethnic/racial groups to develop breast cancer PRSs that can be applied in multiethnic/racial populations,” she said.
NCI is working with investigators in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia, and reaching out to non-European organizations such as AORTIC for studies of African populations.
Direct-to-consumer global PRS
In the commercial PRS market, efforts to address diversity shortcomings are also gaining momentum, with Myriad Genetics touting a first-of-its kind “global PRS.”
The PRS, a recalibrated version the company’s riskScore PRS, sold as part of its Myriad myRisk Hereditary Cancer test, will reportedly apply to all ethnicities in estimating an individual’s 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer.
A study presented in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, describes the development of the model with the use of three large ancestry-specific PRSs based on African American, Asian, and European cohorts, with the system including a total of 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including 93 well established for breast cancer and 56 that are ancestry specific.
In validation of the data in an independent cohort of 62,707 individuals, the global PRS was strongly associated with breast cancer in the full combined validation cohort as well as in all three of the ancestry subcohorts.
However, the effect size among women with African ancestry was still the lowest of all of the groups, with a mean OR of 1.24 per standard deviation, versus the highest rate of mixed ancestry (OR, 1.59).
According to senior author Holly Pederson, MD, director of medical breast services at the Cleveland Clinic, the applicability of the PRS to women with African ancestry is expected to further improve as additional data become available.
“The discriminatory power in women of African descent was significantly improved but still suboptimal,” she said. “The need for more data, particularly in Black women, is challenging not only because there is likely more diversity in the genomic landscape of women of African descent, but also because the barriers created by historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal dynamics result in the paucity of this data.”
“We must be committed to ending bias resulting in health care disparities,” Dr. Pederson said. She noted that the global PRS is nevertheless “still clinically useful in Black women,” and recommended that clinicians be up front with patients on the status of the research challenges.
“As with any clinical shared decision-making conversation between a patient and her provider, it is important for Black women to know that data is limited in the African American population, particularly given the vast genomic diversity of the African continent,” she said. “This model, as models that have gone before it, will improve with additional data, particularly in this population.”
Commercial PRSs may benefit research
While the commercial marketing of PRSs in a direct-to-consumer fashion have raised some concerns, such as how individuals respond to their risk scores, there could be important benefits as well, commented Megan C. Roberts, PhD.
“There may be an opportunity to learn from these companies about how to engage diverse communities in genomic testing,” said Dr. Roberts, an assistant professor and director of implementation science in precision health and society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Moreover, the data they collect from their customers often can be used for research purposes as well.”
In a recent perspective, Dr. Roberts and colleagues addressed the role of health disparities in PRSs. She’ll be joining international precision public health researchers in October in hosting a free virtual conference at UNC on the topic.
“There is a huge need to improve racial and ethnic diversity in our genomic datasets,” Dr. Roberts said. “Without this, we will not be able to return on the promise of precision medicine and prevention for improving the health of our whole population.”
Dr. Pederson disclosed that she is a consultant for Myriad Genetics.
The potential of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to become key components in the assessment of individual risk for disease in the clinical setting is inching closer to fruition; however, the technology is plagued by one glaring omission of most existing PRSs – the lack of applicability to those of non-European ancestry.
Polygenic risk scores predict an individual’s risk of disease based on common genetic variants identified in large genomewide association studies (GWASs). They have gained ground in research, as well as in the unregulated realm of the direct-to-consumer market where they are sold as add-ons to DNA ancestry kits such as 23andMe and MyHeritage.com.
While the risk scores show strong validation in estimating risk among people of European descent, their striking caveat is the lack of applicability to other ancestries, particularly African, and their use in practice outside of clinical trials is discouraged in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.
Study underscores need for ethnically diverse datasets
In a recent study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores’ models in a clinical setting. Researchers tested 7 PRSs models for breast cancer risk against the medical records data of 39,591 women of European, African, and Latinx ancestry.
The PRSs models – all used only for research purposes – included three models involving European ancestry cohorts, two from Latinx cohorts, and two from women African descent.
After adjusting for factors including age, breast cancer family history, and ancestry, the PRSs from women with European ancestry highly corresponded to breast cancer risk, with a mean odds ratio of 1.46 per standard deviation increase in the score.
PRSs were also generalized relatively well among women of Latinx ancestry with a mean OR of 1.31. The authors noted that association is likely caused by Latinx individuals in the United States having a greater proportion of European ancestry than individuals with African ancestry. Importantly, however, the effect size was lower for women of African ancestry with a highest OR of 1.19 per standard deviation.
In the highest percentiles of breast cancer risk, women of European descent had odds ratio as high as 2.19-2.48, suggesting a statistically significant association with overall breast cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were found among women of Latinx and African-ancestry.
The PRSs models were smaller for women of non-European ancestry and included fewer genetic variants for women of non-European ancestry were notably smaller and hence reflected fewer genetic variants. Of the two risk scores involving African ancestry, the Women’s Health Initiative for Women with African ancestry risk score had just 75 variants, while the African diaspora study (ROOT) had 34 variants, compared with 3,820 and 5,218 in the two largest European ancestry PRSs, the Breast Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank, respectively.
“These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts,” the authors wrote.
First author, Cong Liu, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that efforts are underway to improve the inclusivity in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network data set used in this study.
“Until well-developed and validated PRSs for women with non-European ancestry become available, the current PRSs based on cohorts with European ancestry could be adapted for Latinx women, but not women with African ancestry until additional data sets become available in this important and high-risk group,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote.
In a commentary published with the study, Payal D. Shah, MD, of the Basser Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that PRSs are “disproportionately applicable to patients with European ancestry and are insufficiently vetted and developed in other populations. If an instrument exists that has clinical utility in informing effective cancer risk mitigation strategies, then we must strive to ensure that it is available and applicable to all.”
Higher morality among African American women
While American Cancer Society data shows women with African ancestry generally have incidence rates of breast cancer similar to White women, they have significantly higher mortality from the disease in part because of later-stage diagnosis and health care barriers.
Anne Marie McCarthy, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that African American women “have 42% higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite having lower disease incidence, and are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which has poorer prognosis than other molecular subtypes.”
Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Armstrong wrote that African American women are chronically underrepresented in breast cancer studies. And as such, it is impossible to know the extent of the prevalence of mutations and risk.
Failing to address the lack of diversity in genomic studies may worsen health disparities for women with African ancestry, Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote. The higher mortality “underscores the urgent need to increase diversity in genomic studies so that future clinical applications of the PRS do not exacerbate existing health disparities. These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts.”
Potential PRS benefits underscore need to eliminate bias
The potentially important benefits of PRSs as risk prediction tools used in combination with family history, reproductive history and other factors, should provide strong incentive to push for improvement, Dr. Shah wrote.
For instance, if an individual is estrogen receptor positive and shows elevations in breast cancer risk on a reliable PRS, “this may inform antiestrogen chemoprevention strategies,” she wrote.
A risk score could furthermore influence the age at which breast cancer screening should begin or factor into whether a patient should also receive surveillance breast MRI.
Importantly, PRSs could also add to other risk factors to provide more precise risk estimates and inform management of women with a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk predisposition gene, Dr. Shah wrote.
Confluence project
Among the most promising developments in research is the National Cancer Institute’s Confluence Project, a large research resource aiming to include approximately 300,000 breast cancer cases and 300,000 controls of different races/ethnicities, utilizing the confluence of existing GWAS and new genomewide genotyping data.
Having started enrollment in 2018, the project is approaching implementation, said Montserrat García-Closas, MD, MPH, DrPH, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics with the National Cancer Institute.
“We expect genotyping to be completed by the end of 2022 and for the data to be made available to the research community soon after that,” she said.
Among the project’s key objectives are the development of PRSs to be integrated with known risk factors to provide a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, overall and by ancestral subtype.
“We plan to apply novel methods to derive multiancestry PRS that will account for differences and similarities in genetic architecture across ethnic/racial groups to develop breast cancer PRSs that can be applied in multiethnic/racial populations,” she said.
NCI is working with investigators in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia, and reaching out to non-European organizations such as AORTIC for studies of African populations.
Direct-to-consumer global PRS
In the commercial PRS market, efforts to address diversity shortcomings are also gaining momentum, with Myriad Genetics touting a first-of-its kind “global PRS.”
The PRS, a recalibrated version the company’s riskScore PRS, sold as part of its Myriad myRisk Hereditary Cancer test, will reportedly apply to all ethnicities in estimating an individual’s 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer.
A study presented in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, describes the development of the model with the use of three large ancestry-specific PRSs based on African American, Asian, and European cohorts, with the system including a total of 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including 93 well established for breast cancer and 56 that are ancestry specific.
In validation of the data in an independent cohort of 62,707 individuals, the global PRS was strongly associated with breast cancer in the full combined validation cohort as well as in all three of the ancestry subcohorts.
However, the effect size among women with African ancestry was still the lowest of all of the groups, with a mean OR of 1.24 per standard deviation, versus the highest rate of mixed ancestry (OR, 1.59).
According to senior author Holly Pederson, MD, director of medical breast services at the Cleveland Clinic, the applicability of the PRS to women with African ancestry is expected to further improve as additional data become available.
“The discriminatory power in women of African descent was significantly improved but still suboptimal,” she said. “The need for more data, particularly in Black women, is challenging not only because there is likely more diversity in the genomic landscape of women of African descent, but also because the barriers created by historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal dynamics result in the paucity of this data.”
“We must be committed to ending bias resulting in health care disparities,” Dr. Pederson said. She noted that the global PRS is nevertheless “still clinically useful in Black women,” and recommended that clinicians be up front with patients on the status of the research challenges.
“As with any clinical shared decision-making conversation between a patient and her provider, it is important for Black women to know that data is limited in the African American population, particularly given the vast genomic diversity of the African continent,” she said. “This model, as models that have gone before it, will improve with additional data, particularly in this population.”
Commercial PRSs may benefit research
While the commercial marketing of PRSs in a direct-to-consumer fashion have raised some concerns, such as how individuals respond to their risk scores, there could be important benefits as well, commented Megan C. Roberts, PhD.
“There may be an opportunity to learn from these companies about how to engage diverse communities in genomic testing,” said Dr. Roberts, an assistant professor and director of implementation science in precision health and society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Moreover, the data they collect from their customers often can be used for research purposes as well.”
In a recent perspective, Dr. Roberts and colleagues addressed the role of health disparities in PRSs. She’ll be joining international precision public health researchers in October in hosting a free virtual conference at UNC on the topic.
“There is a huge need to improve racial and ethnic diversity in our genomic datasets,” Dr. Roberts said. “Without this, we will not be able to return on the promise of precision medicine and prevention for improving the health of our whole population.”
Dr. Pederson disclosed that she is a consultant for Myriad Genetics.
The potential of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to become key components in the assessment of individual risk for disease in the clinical setting is inching closer to fruition; however, the technology is plagued by one glaring omission of most existing PRSs – the lack of applicability to those of non-European ancestry.
Polygenic risk scores predict an individual’s risk of disease based on common genetic variants identified in large genomewide association studies (GWASs). They have gained ground in research, as well as in the unregulated realm of the direct-to-consumer market where they are sold as add-ons to DNA ancestry kits such as 23andMe and MyHeritage.com.
While the risk scores show strong validation in estimating risk among people of European descent, their striking caveat is the lack of applicability to other ancestries, particularly African, and their use in practice outside of clinical trials is discouraged in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.
Study underscores need for ethnically diverse datasets
In a recent study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores’ models in a clinical setting. Researchers tested 7 PRSs models for breast cancer risk against the medical records data of 39,591 women of European, African, and Latinx ancestry.
The PRSs models – all used only for research purposes – included three models involving European ancestry cohorts, two from Latinx cohorts, and two from women African descent.
After adjusting for factors including age, breast cancer family history, and ancestry, the PRSs from women with European ancestry highly corresponded to breast cancer risk, with a mean odds ratio of 1.46 per standard deviation increase in the score.
PRSs were also generalized relatively well among women of Latinx ancestry with a mean OR of 1.31. The authors noted that association is likely caused by Latinx individuals in the United States having a greater proportion of European ancestry than individuals with African ancestry. Importantly, however, the effect size was lower for women of African ancestry with a highest OR of 1.19 per standard deviation.
In the highest percentiles of breast cancer risk, women of European descent had odds ratio as high as 2.19-2.48, suggesting a statistically significant association with overall breast cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were found among women of Latinx and African-ancestry.
The PRSs models were smaller for women of non-European ancestry and included fewer genetic variants for women of non-European ancestry were notably smaller and hence reflected fewer genetic variants. Of the two risk scores involving African ancestry, the Women’s Health Initiative for Women with African ancestry risk score had just 75 variants, while the African diaspora study (ROOT) had 34 variants, compared with 3,820 and 5,218 in the two largest European ancestry PRSs, the Breast Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank, respectively.
“These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts,” the authors wrote.
First author, Cong Liu, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that efforts are underway to improve the inclusivity in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network data set used in this study.
“Until well-developed and validated PRSs for women with non-European ancestry become available, the current PRSs based on cohorts with European ancestry could be adapted for Latinx women, but not women with African ancestry until additional data sets become available in this important and high-risk group,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote.
In a commentary published with the study, Payal D. Shah, MD, of the Basser Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that PRSs are “disproportionately applicable to patients with European ancestry and are insufficiently vetted and developed in other populations. If an instrument exists that has clinical utility in informing effective cancer risk mitigation strategies, then we must strive to ensure that it is available and applicable to all.”
Higher morality among African American women
While American Cancer Society data shows women with African ancestry generally have incidence rates of breast cancer similar to White women, they have significantly higher mortality from the disease in part because of later-stage diagnosis and health care barriers.
Anne Marie McCarthy, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that African American women “have 42% higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite having lower disease incidence, and are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which has poorer prognosis than other molecular subtypes.”
Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Armstrong wrote that African American women are chronically underrepresented in breast cancer studies. And as such, it is impossible to know the extent of the prevalence of mutations and risk.
Failing to address the lack of diversity in genomic studies may worsen health disparities for women with African ancestry, Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote. The higher mortality “underscores the urgent need to increase diversity in genomic studies so that future clinical applications of the PRS do not exacerbate existing health disparities. These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts.”
Potential PRS benefits underscore need to eliminate bias
The potentially important benefits of PRSs as risk prediction tools used in combination with family history, reproductive history and other factors, should provide strong incentive to push for improvement, Dr. Shah wrote.
For instance, if an individual is estrogen receptor positive and shows elevations in breast cancer risk on a reliable PRS, “this may inform antiestrogen chemoprevention strategies,” she wrote.
A risk score could furthermore influence the age at which breast cancer screening should begin or factor into whether a patient should also receive surveillance breast MRI.
Importantly, PRSs could also add to other risk factors to provide more precise risk estimates and inform management of women with a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk predisposition gene, Dr. Shah wrote.
Confluence project
Among the most promising developments in research is the National Cancer Institute’s Confluence Project, a large research resource aiming to include approximately 300,000 breast cancer cases and 300,000 controls of different races/ethnicities, utilizing the confluence of existing GWAS and new genomewide genotyping data.
Having started enrollment in 2018, the project is approaching implementation, said Montserrat García-Closas, MD, MPH, DrPH, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics with the National Cancer Institute.
“We expect genotyping to be completed by the end of 2022 and for the data to be made available to the research community soon after that,” she said.
Among the project’s key objectives are the development of PRSs to be integrated with known risk factors to provide a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, overall and by ancestral subtype.
“We plan to apply novel methods to derive multiancestry PRS that will account for differences and similarities in genetic architecture across ethnic/racial groups to develop breast cancer PRSs that can be applied in multiethnic/racial populations,” she said.
NCI is working with investigators in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia, and reaching out to non-European organizations such as AORTIC for studies of African populations.
Direct-to-consumer global PRS
In the commercial PRS market, efforts to address diversity shortcomings are also gaining momentum, with Myriad Genetics touting a first-of-its kind “global PRS.”
The PRS, a recalibrated version the company’s riskScore PRS, sold as part of its Myriad myRisk Hereditary Cancer test, will reportedly apply to all ethnicities in estimating an individual’s 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer.
A study presented in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, describes the development of the model with the use of three large ancestry-specific PRSs based on African American, Asian, and European cohorts, with the system including a total of 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including 93 well established for breast cancer and 56 that are ancestry specific.
In validation of the data in an independent cohort of 62,707 individuals, the global PRS was strongly associated with breast cancer in the full combined validation cohort as well as in all three of the ancestry subcohorts.
However, the effect size among women with African ancestry was still the lowest of all of the groups, with a mean OR of 1.24 per standard deviation, versus the highest rate of mixed ancestry (OR, 1.59).
According to senior author Holly Pederson, MD, director of medical breast services at the Cleveland Clinic, the applicability of the PRS to women with African ancestry is expected to further improve as additional data become available.
“The discriminatory power in women of African descent was significantly improved but still suboptimal,” she said. “The need for more data, particularly in Black women, is challenging not only because there is likely more diversity in the genomic landscape of women of African descent, but also because the barriers created by historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal dynamics result in the paucity of this data.”
“We must be committed to ending bias resulting in health care disparities,” Dr. Pederson said. She noted that the global PRS is nevertheless “still clinically useful in Black women,” and recommended that clinicians be up front with patients on the status of the research challenges.
“As with any clinical shared decision-making conversation between a patient and her provider, it is important for Black women to know that data is limited in the African American population, particularly given the vast genomic diversity of the African continent,” she said. “This model, as models that have gone before it, will improve with additional data, particularly in this population.”
Commercial PRSs may benefit research
While the commercial marketing of PRSs in a direct-to-consumer fashion have raised some concerns, such as how individuals respond to their risk scores, there could be important benefits as well, commented Megan C. Roberts, PhD.
“There may be an opportunity to learn from these companies about how to engage diverse communities in genomic testing,” said Dr. Roberts, an assistant professor and director of implementation science in precision health and society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Moreover, the data they collect from their customers often can be used for research purposes as well.”
In a recent perspective, Dr. Roberts and colleagues addressed the role of health disparities in PRSs. She’ll be joining international precision public health researchers in October in hosting a free virtual conference at UNC on the topic.
“There is a huge need to improve racial and ethnic diversity in our genomic datasets,” Dr. Roberts said. “Without this, we will not be able to return on the promise of precision medicine and prevention for improving the health of our whole population.”
Dr. Pederson disclosed that she is a consultant for Myriad Genetics.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
DCIS: Biosignature helps guide postlumpectomy decisions
A biosignature tool helps women avoid unnecessary radiotherapy after undergoing lumpectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) – and also identifies women who need more intense treatment.
The DCISionRT test (PreludeDx) and its response subtype (Rst) biosignature provide personalized risk assessment, explains Frank Vicini, MD, a radiation oncologist at GenesisCare and a member of NRG Oncology, Pontiac, Mich.
He presented data on the test at a poster at the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.
They can also identify patients who would likely benefit from radiotherapy, Dr. Vicini reported.
The tool shows promise for identifying those whose cancer is likely to recur despite undergoing postlumpectomy radiotherapy – women who might benefit from intensified or alternate treatment approaches, he added.
The latter finding is particularly provocative because it suggests that the biosignatures “may appropriately identify patients with very radioresistant ductal carcinoma in situ,” Benjamin D. Smith, MD, commented during a poster discussion session at the meeting.
“I think these findings merit validation in translational research models,” said Dr. Smith, a radiation oncologist and professor of radiation oncology and health services research at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
DCISionRT, Rst, and risk
DCISionRT combines molecular biology innovations with risk-based scores to assess risk for recurrence, which is classified as either low or elevated, according to the test developer, PreludeDx.
Dr. Vicini and colleagues used the test to classify tissue samples from 485 women who were part of previous DCISionRT validation cohorts in Sweden, Australia, and the United States. The patients underwent breast cancer surgery (BCS) with or without radiotherapy between 1996 and 2011.
The Rst biosignature was used to further categorize those in the elevated-risk group as having a good response subtype (good Rst) or a poor response subtype (poor Rst) after BCS plus radiotherapy.
Radiotherapy was associated with significantly reduced recurrence rates among women with elevated risk and a good Rst (the hazard ratios for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence [IBTR] and invasive breast cancer [IBC] were 0.18 and 0.15, respectively).
No radiotherapy benefit was seen among those with elevated risk and poor Rst.
The investigators also reported that, among patients with a poor Rst, 10-year IBTR and IBC rates were 25% and 16%, respectively, regardless of whether they received radiotherapy. These rates were much higher than the rates among women with good Rst (6.6% and 4.5%; hazard ratio, 3.6 and 4.4, respectively).
No significant difference was seen in 10-year IBTR and IBC rates among patients in the low-risk group, with or without radiotherapy.
Traditional clinicopathologic risk factors, including age younger than 50 years, grade 3 disease, and tumor size greater than 2.5 cm, did not identify poor versus good response subtypes in this cohort, and on multivariable analysis, neither of these factors nor endocrine therapy was significantly associated with IBTR or IBC.
Prospective validation needed
In his discussion, Dr. Smith said that the study provides “important data” that further validate the DCISionRT platform alone for assessing risk among women with DCIS who undergo BCS. But it is the Rst biosignature, which allows clinicians to “predict radioresistance of residual malignant chromogens following lumpectomy plus radiation therapy,” that really stands out, he added.
From the data presented, “it is reasonable to conclude that patients with a poor Rst score treated with lumpectomy and radiation had a much higher risk of in-breast tumor recurrence than one might predict or anticipate based on existing published randomized clinical trial data,” he said.
“In my opinion, it is very important to prospectively validate this finding with other cohorts,” he said. “Moving forward, I think there may come a time where there may be interest in studying radiosensitizing agents for poor-Rst ductal carcinoma in situ that are resistant to standard doses of radiation, and it may be that we consider the Rst as a factor moving forward in selecting patients for BCT versus mastectomy.”
However, because 75% of patients at elevated risk with poor Rst who undergo lumpectomy and radiotherapy do not experience recurrence in the decade following their treatment, it would be “inappropriate and misguided” to start recommending mastectomy for patients at DCISionRT elevated risk who have poor Rst, he said.
The study was funded by PreludeDx. Dr. Vicini reported employment with 21st Century Oncology and financial relationships with ImpediMed, Prelude Therapeutics, and Concure Oncology. Dr. Smith, through his employer, has an equity interest in Oncora Medical through a partnership agreement. He also has an uncompensated relationship with the American Society for Radiation Oncology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A biosignature tool helps women avoid unnecessary radiotherapy after undergoing lumpectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) – and also identifies women who need more intense treatment.
The DCISionRT test (PreludeDx) and its response subtype (Rst) biosignature provide personalized risk assessment, explains Frank Vicini, MD, a radiation oncologist at GenesisCare and a member of NRG Oncology, Pontiac, Mich.
He presented data on the test at a poster at the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.
They can also identify patients who would likely benefit from radiotherapy, Dr. Vicini reported.
The tool shows promise for identifying those whose cancer is likely to recur despite undergoing postlumpectomy radiotherapy – women who might benefit from intensified or alternate treatment approaches, he added.
The latter finding is particularly provocative because it suggests that the biosignatures “may appropriately identify patients with very radioresistant ductal carcinoma in situ,” Benjamin D. Smith, MD, commented during a poster discussion session at the meeting.
“I think these findings merit validation in translational research models,” said Dr. Smith, a radiation oncologist and professor of radiation oncology and health services research at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
DCISionRT, Rst, and risk
DCISionRT combines molecular biology innovations with risk-based scores to assess risk for recurrence, which is classified as either low or elevated, according to the test developer, PreludeDx.
Dr. Vicini and colleagues used the test to classify tissue samples from 485 women who were part of previous DCISionRT validation cohorts in Sweden, Australia, and the United States. The patients underwent breast cancer surgery (BCS) with or without radiotherapy between 1996 and 2011.
The Rst biosignature was used to further categorize those in the elevated-risk group as having a good response subtype (good Rst) or a poor response subtype (poor Rst) after BCS plus radiotherapy.
Radiotherapy was associated with significantly reduced recurrence rates among women with elevated risk and a good Rst (the hazard ratios for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence [IBTR] and invasive breast cancer [IBC] were 0.18 and 0.15, respectively).
No radiotherapy benefit was seen among those with elevated risk and poor Rst.
The investigators also reported that, among patients with a poor Rst, 10-year IBTR and IBC rates were 25% and 16%, respectively, regardless of whether they received radiotherapy. These rates were much higher than the rates among women with good Rst (6.6% and 4.5%; hazard ratio, 3.6 and 4.4, respectively).
No significant difference was seen in 10-year IBTR and IBC rates among patients in the low-risk group, with or without radiotherapy.
Traditional clinicopathologic risk factors, including age younger than 50 years, grade 3 disease, and tumor size greater than 2.5 cm, did not identify poor versus good response subtypes in this cohort, and on multivariable analysis, neither of these factors nor endocrine therapy was significantly associated with IBTR or IBC.
Prospective validation needed
In his discussion, Dr. Smith said that the study provides “important data” that further validate the DCISionRT platform alone for assessing risk among women with DCIS who undergo BCS. But it is the Rst biosignature, which allows clinicians to “predict radioresistance of residual malignant chromogens following lumpectomy plus radiation therapy,” that really stands out, he added.
From the data presented, “it is reasonable to conclude that patients with a poor Rst score treated with lumpectomy and radiation had a much higher risk of in-breast tumor recurrence than one might predict or anticipate based on existing published randomized clinical trial data,” he said.
“In my opinion, it is very important to prospectively validate this finding with other cohorts,” he said. “Moving forward, I think there may come a time where there may be interest in studying radiosensitizing agents for poor-Rst ductal carcinoma in situ that are resistant to standard doses of radiation, and it may be that we consider the Rst as a factor moving forward in selecting patients for BCT versus mastectomy.”
However, because 75% of patients at elevated risk with poor Rst who undergo lumpectomy and radiotherapy do not experience recurrence in the decade following their treatment, it would be “inappropriate and misguided” to start recommending mastectomy for patients at DCISionRT elevated risk who have poor Rst, he said.
The study was funded by PreludeDx. Dr. Vicini reported employment with 21st Century Oncology and financial relationships with ImpediMed, Prelude Therapeutics, and Concure Oncology. Dr. Smith, through his employer, has an equity interest in Oncora Medical through a partnership agreement. He also has an uncompensated relationship with the American Society for Radiation Oncology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A biosignature tool helps women avoid unnecessary radiotherapy after undergoing lumpectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) – and also identifies women who need more intense treatment.
The DCISionRT test (PreludeDx) and its response subtype (Rst) biosignature provide personalized risk assessment, explains Frank Vicini, MD, a radiation oncologist at GenesisCare and a member of NRG Oncology, Pontiac, Mich.
He presented data on the test at a poster at the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.
They can also identify patients who would likely benefit from radiotherapy, Dr. Vicini reported.
The tool shows promise for identifying those whose cancer is likely to recur despite undergoing postlumpectomy radiotherapy – women who might benefit from intensified or alternate treatment approaches, he added.
The latter finding is particularly provocative because it suggests that the biosignatures “may appropriately identify patients with very radioresistant ductal carcinoma in situ,” Benjamin D. Smith, MD, commented during a poster discussion session at the meeting.
“I think these findings merit validation in translational research models,” said Dr. Smith, a radiation oncologist and professor of radiation oncology and health services research at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
DCISionRT, Rst, and risk
DCISionRT combines molecular biology innovations with risk-based scores to assess risk for recurrence, which is classified as either low or elevated, according to the test developer, PreludeDx.
Dr. Vicini and colleagues used the test to classify tissue samples from 485 women who were part of previous DCISionRT validation cohorts in Sweden, Australia, and the United States. The patients underwent breast cancer surgery (BCS) with or without radiotherapy between 1996 and 2011.
The Rst biosignature was used to further categorize those in the elevated-risk group as having a good response subtype (good Rst) or a poor response subtype (poor Rst) after BCS plus radiotherapy.
Radiotherapy was associated with significantly reduced recurrence rates among women with elevated risk and a good Rst (the hazard ratios for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence [IBTR] and invasive breast cancer [IBC] were 0.18 and 0.15, respectively).
No radiotherapy benefit was seen among those with elevated risk and poor Rst.
The investigators also reported that, among patients with a poor Rst, 10-year IBTR and IBC rates were 25% and 16%, respectively, regardless of whether they received radiotherapy. These rates were much higher than the rates among women with good Rst (6.6% and 4.5%; hazard ratio, 3.6 and 4.4, respectively).
No significant difference was seen in 10-year IBTR and IBC rates among patients in the low-risk group, with or without radiotherapy.
Traditional clinicopathologic risk factors, including age younger than 50 years, grade 3 disease, and tumor size greater than 2.5 cm, did not identify poor versus good response subtypes in this cohort, and on multivariable analysis, neither of these factors nor endocrine therapy was significantly associated with IBTR or IBC.
Prospective validation needed
In his discussion, Dr. Smith said that the study provides “important data” that further validate the DCISionRT platform alone for assessing risk among women with DCIS who undergo BCS. But it is the Rst biosignature, which allows clinicians to “predict radioresistance of residual malignant chromogens following lumpectomy plus radiation therapy,” that really stands out, he added.
From the data presented, “it is reasonable to conclude that patients with a poor Rst score treated with lumpectomy and radiation had a much higher risk of in-breast tumor recurrence than one might predict or anticipate based on existing published randomized clinical trial data,” he said.
“In my opinion, it is very important to prospectively validate this finding with other cohorts,” he said. “Moving forward, I think there may come a time where there may be interest in studying radiosensitizing agents for poor-Rst ductal carcinoma in situ that are resistant to standard doses of radiation, and it may be that we consider the Rst as a factor moving forward in selecting patients for BCT versus mastectomy.”
However, because 75% of patients at elevated risk with poor Rst who undergo lumpectomy and radiotherapy do not experience recurrence in the decade following their treatment, it would be “inappropriate and misguided” to start recommending mastectomy for patients at DCISionRT elevated risk who have poor Rst, he said.
The study was funded by PreludeDx. Dr. Vicini reported employment with 21st Century Oncology and financial relationships with ImpediMed, Prelude Therapeutics, and Concure Oncology. Dr. Smith, through his employer, has an equity interest in Oncora Medical through a partnership agreement. He also has an uncompensated relationship with the American Society for Radiation Oncology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Key strategies for managing breast cancer brain metastases
Brain metastases remain a frequent and often fatal consequence of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). MBC carries a median survival of about 3 years, but that rate drops significantly when cancer cells move to the brain. A recent analysis estimates median survival in patients with brain metastases ranges from 6 months in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) to 21 months in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive disease.
This news organization spoke to Kevin M. Kalinsky, MD, acting associate professor in the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta and director of the Glenn Family Breast Center at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, about the risk for brain metastases in patients with MBC, strategies for screening and treatment, and the work being done to achieve a better understanding of the disease.
Question: Before we dig into strategies to manage MBC brain metastasis, let’s talk about the risks. When and how often do brain metastases present in patients with MBC? What factors increase the likelihood of developing brain metastasis?
Dr. Kalinsky: The biggest risk factor for MBC spreading to the central nervous system (CNS), which includes the brain and spine, is breast cancer subtype. For patients with metastatic TNBC, the risk for brain metastasis can be more than 50%. For patients with HER2-positive disease, the risk may be slightly lower, with estimates in the range of 25%-50%, whereas the likelihood of brain metastasis in patients with hormone receptor–positive MBC is significantly lower at close to 14%. In addition, patients with metastatic TNBC may have brain metastases a little earlier in their disease progression compared with patients with HER2-positive or estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers, where brain metastases generally develop a little later in the disease course.
At what point is it recommended to screen patients with MBC for brain metastasis?
Current guidelines suggest that we scan for brain metastasis in the presence of new neurologic symptoms, such as headache, dizziness, or weakness in the arms or legs. MRI, in particular, is useful for evaluating brain metastasis, especially for smaller lesions, but lesions are sometimes detected through CT imaging of the head, too.
That’s where the guidelines are now. But as our systemic agents improve, there’s always the possibility these recommendations will be revisited and potentially include imaging as screening tools in asymptomatic patients, as well.
How do you assess which patients with MBC should receive local therapy?
Increasingly, because our systemic therapies in breast cancer are getting better in terms of crossing the blood-brain barrier, we think about local therapy on a case-by-case basis. We think about it with the question of whether we delay surgery or radiation — whole brain radiation, in particular — given concerns surrounding the side effects of these modalities, namely cognitive dysfunction for radiation and increased risk of bleeding and infection for surgery.
Giving a patient-directed local therapy, such as Gamma Knife radiosurgery or whole-brain radiotherapy, ultimately depends on the burden of brain metastasis, the status of systemic disease outside of the brain, and the number and size of the lesions seen on imaging. If, for instance, a patient has a large lesion that will immediately impact their neurologic status, we may opt to resect the lesion. If there are innumerable lesions, some of which are large, we may do whole-brain radiotherapy. If, however, a patient has systemic disease that is largely under control but is experiencing local progression in the brain, we may use local radiotherapy while continuing systemic therapy.
What about systemic therapies that cross the blood-brain barrier? What’s available now and how do you choose among the options?The subtype of breast cancer informs treatment with systemic therapies. For instance, patients with HER2-positive disease may receive oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as tucatinib, neratinib, and lapatinib, which have strong CNS penetration. For patients with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative MBC, estrogen therapies including aromatase inhibitors, as well as targeted therapies such as the mTOR inhibitor everolimus, have good CNS penetration. For patients with metastatic TNBC, we have chemotherapies that cross the blood-brain barrier, such as capecitabine and platinum-based chemotherapy.
Evidence suggests that tumors in the brain may harbor different genetic abnormalities from tumors in the breast. How do you consider the potential genetic heterogeneity in CNS tumors vs. the primary breast tumor?When a patient’s disease has spread to the brain, we may preferentially use agents we know cross the blood-brain barrier, so we can obtain systemic control both intracranially and extracranially. If we have already resected or biopsied cancerous brain tissue, it’s good to check the tumor’s estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status and do next-generation sequencing to see if the tumor has any other targetable mutations, such as PIK3CA mutations.
But when a patient has multiple lesions, we don’t go in and biopsy all of them to check for heterogeneity. We have to make decisions based on samples we have. In cases where we start systemic therapy and notice one lesion is not responding to these agents while others are, the nonresponsive lesion may be an outlier in terms of its biologic characteristics. It may be worth targeting that lesion for biopsy and further sequencing to determine the next best systemic approach.
How do quality of life considerations factor into the management of patients with MBC brain metastases?
We use a multidisciplinary approach when treating patients. This means patient care involves a team of experts, which can include medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and neuro-oncologists who help determine a treatment plan that takes factors such as survival and quality of life into account.
This is why, for example, we try to delay whole brain radiotherapy when we can. The HER2CLIMB study, which led to the approval of tucatinib as a treatment option for patients with HER2-positive MBC, showed us that patients with treated or untreated brain metastases receiving systemic therapy before local therapy could benefit from the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine. These patients exhibited a median progression-free survival of 7.6 months compared with 5.4 months in the placebo group.
HER2CLIMB has been practice changing because it showed us that tucatinib has good CNS activity in patients with brain metastases. The HER2CLIMB findings raise an important question: As our systemic therapies improve, how aggressive do we need to be with local therapy? Can we push off modalities like whole-brain radiotherapy, which are associated with toxicity?
This study also highlights how important it is for patients with metastatic disease to seek clinical trials. Although some trials exclude patients with brain metastases and others may have criteria that require the stability of brain metastasis for a certain amount of time, the knowledge gained can be invaluable.
Where are some of the main gaps in our understanding of brain metastases in patients with MBC?
One issue is our understanding of tropism to the brain. In other words, why does MBC spread to the brain? Once we understand this key piece, we can work on developing more effective therapies and therapeutic combinations to block brain metastasis.
For hormone receptor–positive disease, in particular, a central question is whether the current antiestrogen therapies — such as selective estrogen receptor degraders like fulvestrant, as well as targeted AKT inhibitors — have the potential to affect brain tumor activity. The same holds true for TNBC, where antibody drug conjugates and immunotherapies are being evaluated for treatment of brain tumors. For patients with HER2-positive MBC that has spread to the brain, understanding the continued role for tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as tucatinib and neratinib, as well as whether antibody drug conjugates, including trastuzumab deruxtecan and trastuzumab emtansine, have CNS activity are important areas to explore further.
The CompassHER2 trial, going on now, is randomizing patients with residual HER2-positive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy to receive trastuzumab emtansine with or without tucatinib. One of the core questions of this study is whether trastuzumab emtansine/tucatinib lowers the rate of brain metastasis and the incidence of systemic metastasis.
Another area in MBC that requires greater scrutiny is patients who develop leptomeningeal disease, which is when cancer cells spread to the cerebrospinal fluid. These patients have a particularly poor prognosis, and it would be helpful to evaluate the efficacy of existing therapies, but these patients are often excluded from clinical trials.
Overall, the ultimate goal in these endeavors is to decrease the rate of metastasis to the brain and improve survival and quality of life in patients with MBC who do experience brain metastases.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Brain metastases remain a frequent and often fatal consequence of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). MBC carries a median survival of about 3 years, but that rate drops significantly when cancer cells move to the brain. A recent analysis estimates median survival in patients with brain metastases ranges from 6 months in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) to 21 months in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive disease.
This news organization spoke to Kevin M. Kalinsky, MD, acting associate professor in the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta and director of the Glenn Family Breast Center at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, about the risk for brain metastases in patients with MBC, strategies for screening and treatment, and the work being done to achieve a better understanding of the disease.
Question: Before we dig into strategies to manage MBC brain metastasis, let’s talk about the risks. When and how often do brain metastases present in patients with MBC? What factors increase the likelihood of developing brain metastasis?
Dr. Kalinsky: The biggest risk factor for MBC spreading to the central nervous system (CNS), which includes the brain and spine, is breast cancer subtype. For patients with metastatic TNBC, the risk for brain metastasis can be more than 50%. For patients with HER2-positive disease, the risk may be slightly lower, with estimates in the range of 25%-50%, whereas the likelihood of brain metastasis in patients with hormone receptor–positive MBC is significantly lower at close to 14%. In addition, patients with metastatic TNBC may have brain metastases a little earlier in their disease progression compared with patients with HER2-positive or estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers, where brain metastases generally develop a little later in the disease course.
At what point is it recommended to screen patients with MBC for brain metastasis?
Current guidelines suggest that we scan for brain metastasis in the presence of new neurologic symptoms, such as headache, dizziness, or weakness in the arms or legs. MRI, in particular, is useful for evaluating brain metastasis, especially for smaller lesions, but lesions are sometimes detected through CT imaging of the head, too.
That’s where the guidelines are now. But as our systemic agents improve, there’s always the possibility these recommendations will be revisited and potentially include imaging as screening tools in asymptomatic patients, as well.
How do you assess which patients with MBC should receive local therapy?
Increasingly, because our systemic therapies in breast cancer are getting better in terms of crossing the blood-brain barrier, we think about local therapy on a case-by-case basis. We think about it with the question of whether we delay surgery or radiation — whole brain radiation, in particular — given concerns surrounding the side effects of these modalities, namely cognitive dysfunction for radiation and increased risk of bleeding and infection for surgery.
Giving a patient-directed local therapy, such as Gamma Knife radiosurgery or whole-brain radiotherapy, ultimately depends on the burden of brain metastasis, the status of systemic disease outside of the brain, and the number and size of the lesions seen on imaging. If, for instance, a patient has a large lesion that will immediately impact their neurologic status, we may opt to resect the lesion. If there are innumerable lesions, some of which are large, we may do whole-brain radiotherapy. If, however, a patient has systemic disease that is largely under control but is experiencing local progression in the brain, we may use local radiotherapy while continuing systemic therapy.
What about systemic therapies that cross the blood-brain barrier? What’s available now and how do you choose among the options?The subtype of breast cancer informs treatment with systemic therapies. For instance, patients with HER2-positive disease may receive oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as tucatinib, neratinib, and lapatinib, which have strong CNS penetration. For patients with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative MBC, estrogen therapies including aromatase inhibitors, as well as targeted therapies such as the mTOR inhibitor everolimus, have good CNS penetration. For patients with metastatic TNBC, we have chemotherapies that cross the blood-brain barrier, such as capecitabine and platinum-based chemotherapy.
Evidence suggests that tumors in the brain may harbor different genetic abnormalities from tumors in the breast. How do you consider the potential genetic heterogeneity in CNS tumors vs. the primary breast tumor?When a patient’s disease has spread to the brain, we may preferentially use agents we know cross the blood-brain barrier, so we can obtain systemic control both intracranially and extracranially. If we have already resected or biopsied cancerous brain tissue, it’s good to check the tumor’s estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status and do next-generation sequencing to see if the tumor has any other targetable mutations, such as PIK3CA mutations.
But when a patient has multiple lesions, we don’t go in and biopsy all of them to check for heterogeneity. We have to make decisions based on samples we have. In cases where we start systemic therapy and notice one lesion is not responding to these agents while others are, the nonresponsive lesion may be an outlier in terms of its biologic characteristics. It may be worth targeting that lesion for biopsy and further sequencing to determine the next best systemic approach.
How do quality of life considerations factor into the management of patients with MBC brain metastases?
We use a multidisciplinary approach when treating patients. This means patient care involves a team of experts, which can include medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and neuro-oncologists who help determine a treatment plan that takes factors such as survival and quality of life into account.
This is why, for example, we try to delay whole brain radiotherapy when we can. The HER2CLIMB study, which led to the approval of tucatinib as a treatment option for patients with HER2-positive MBC, showed us that patients with treated or untreated brain metastases receiving systemic therapy before local therapy could benefit from the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine. These patients exhibited a median progression-free survival of 7.6 months compared with 5.4 months in the placebo group.
HER2CLIMB has been practice changing because it showed us that tucatinib has good CNS activity in patients with brain metastases. The HER2CLIMB findings raise an important question: As our systemic therapies improve, how aggressive do we need to be with local therapy? Can we push off modalities like whole-brain radiotherapy, which are associated with toxicity?
This study also highlights how important it is for patients with metastatic disease to seek clinical trials. Although some trials exclude patients with brain metastases and others may have criteria that require the stability of brain metastasis for a certain amount of time, the knowledge gained can be invaluable.
Where are some of the main gaps in our understanding of brain metastases in patients with MBC?
One issue is our understanding of tropism to the brain. In other words, why does MBC spread to the brain? Once we understand this key piece, we can work on developing more effective therapies and therapeutic combinations to block brain metastasis.
For hormone receptor–positive disease, in particular, a central question is whether the current antiestrogen therapies — such as selective estrogen receptor degraders like fulvestrant, as well as targeted AKT inhibitors — have the potential to affect brain tumor activity. The same holds true for TNBC, where antibody drug conjugates and immunotherapies are being evaluated for treatment of brain tumors. For patients with HER2-positive MBC that has spread to the brain, understanding the continued role for tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as tucatinib and neratinib, as well as whether antibody drug conjugates, including trastuzumab deruxtecan and trastuzumab emtansine, have CNS activity are important areas to explore further.
The CompassHER2 trial, going on now, is randomizing patients with residual HER2-positive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy to receive trastuzumab emtansine with or without tucatinib. One of the core questions of this study is whether trastuzumab emtansine/tucatinib lowers the rate of brain metastasis and the incidence of systemic metastasis.
Another area in MBC that requires greater scrutiny is patients who develop leptomeningeal disease, which is when cancer cells spread to the cerebrospinal fluid. These patients have a particularly poor prognosis, and it would be helpful to evaluate the efficacy of existing therapies, but these patients are often excluded from clinical trials.
Overall, the ultimate goal in these endeavors is to decrease the rate of metastasis to the brain and improve survival and quality of life in patients with MBC who do experience brain metastases.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Brain metastases remain a frequent and often fatal consequence of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). MBC carries a median survival of about 3 years, but that rate drops significantly when cancer cells move to the brain. A recent analysis estimates median survival in patients with brain metastases ranges from 6 months in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) to 21 months in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive disease.
This news organization spoke to Kevin M. Kalinsky, MD, acting associate professor in the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta and director of the Glenn Family Breast Center at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, about the risk for brain metastases in patients with MBC, strategies for screening and treatment, and the work being done to achieve a better understanding of the disease.
Question: Before we dig into strategies to manage MBC brain metastasis, let’s talk about the risks. When and how often do brain metastases present in patients with MBC? What factors increase the likelihood of developing brain metastasis?
Dr. Kalinsky: The biggest risk factor for MBC spreading to the central nervous system (CNS), which includes the brain and spine, is breast cancer subtype. For patients with metastatic TNBC, the risk for brain metastasis can be more than 50%. For patients with HER2-positive disease, the risk may be slightly lower, with estimates in the range of 25%-50%, whereas the likelihood of brain metastasis in patients with hormone receptor–positive MBC is significantly lower at close to 14%. In addition, patients with metastatic TNBC may have brain metastases a little earlier in their disease progression compared with patients with HER2-positive or estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers, where brain metastases generally develop a little later in the disease course.
At what point is it recommended to screen patients with MBC for brain metastasis?
Current guidelines suggest that we scan for brain metastasis in the presence of new neurologic symptoms, such as headache, dizziness, or weakness in the arms or legs. MRI, in particular, is useful for evaluating brain metastasis, especially for smaller lesions, but lesions are sometimes detected through CT imaging of the head, too.
That’s where the guidelines are now. But as our systemic agents improve, there’s always the possibility these recommendations will be revisited and potentially include imaging as screening tools in asymptomatic patients, as well.
How do you assess which patients with MBC should receive local therapy?
Increasingly, because our systemic therapies in breast cancer are getting better in terms of crossing the blood-brain barrier, we think about local therapy on a case-by-case basis. We think about it with the question of whether we delay surgery or radiation — whole brain radiation, in particular — given concerns surrounding the side effects of these modalities, namely cognitive dysfunction for radiation and increased risk of bleeding and infection for surgery.
Giving a patient-directed local therapy, such as Gamma Knife radiosurgery or whole-brain radiotherapy, ultimately depends on the burden of brain metastasis, the status of systemic disease outside of the brain, and the number and size of the lesions seen on imaging. If, for instance, a patient has a large lesion that will immediately impact their neurologic status, we may opt to resect the lesion. If there are innumerable lesions, some of which are large, we may do whole-brain radiotherapy. If, however, a patient has systemic disease that is largely under control but is experiencing local progression in the brain, we may use local radiotherapy while continuing systemic therapy.
What about systemic therapies that cross the blood-brain barrier? What’s available now and how do you choose among the options?The subtype of breast cancer informs treatment with systemic therapies. For instance, patients with HER2-positive disease may receive oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as tucatinib, neratinib, and lapatinib, which have strong CNS penetration. For patients with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative MBC, estrogen therapies including aromatase inhibitors, as well as targeted therapies such as the mTOR inhibitor everolimus, have good CNS penetration. For patients with metastatic TNBC, we have chemotherapies that cross the blood-brain barrier, such as capecitabine and platinum-based chemotherapy.
Evidence suggests that tumors in the brain may harbor different genetic abnormalities from tumors in the breast. How do you consider the potential genetic heterogeneity in CNS tumors vs. the primary breast tumor?When a patient’s disease has spread to the brain, we may preferentially use agents we know cross the blood-brain barrier, so we can obtain systemic control both intracranially and extracranially. If we have already resected or biopsied cancerous brain tissue, it’s good to check the tumor’s estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status and do next-generation sequencing to see if the tumor has any other targetable mutations, such as PIK3CA mutations.
But when a patient has multiple lesions, we don’t go in and biopsy all of them to check for heterogeneity. We have to make decisions based on samples we have. In cases where we start systemic therapy and notice one lesion is not responding to these agents while others are, the nonresponsive lesion may be an outlier in terms of its biologic characteristics. It may be worth targeting that lesion for biopsy and further sequencing to determine the next best systemic approach.
How do quality of life considerations factor into the management of patients with MBC brain metastases?
We use a multidisciplinary approach when treating patients. This means patient care involves a team of experts, which can include medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and neuro-oncologists who help determine a treatment plan that takes factors such as survival and quality of life into account.
This is why, for example, we try to delay whole brain radiotherapy when we can. The HER2CLIMB study, which led to the approval of tucatinib as a treatment option for patients with HER2-positive MBC, showed us that patients with treated or untreated brain metastases receiving systemic therapy before local therapy could benefit from the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine. These patients exhibited a median progression-free survival of 7.6 months compared with 5.4 months in the placebo group.
HER2CLIMB has been practice changing because it showed us that tucatinib has good CNS activity in patients with brain metastases. The HER2CLIMB findings raise an important question: As our systemic therapies improve, how aggressive do we need to be with local therapy? Can we push off modalities like whole-brain radiotherapy, which are associated with toxicity?
This study also highlights how important it is for patients with metastatic disease to seek clinical trials. Although some trials exclude patients with brain metastases and others may have criteria that require the stability of brain metastasis for a certain amount of time, the knowledge gained can be invaluable.
Where are some of the main gaps in our understanding of brain metastases in patients with MBC?
One issue is our understanding of tropism to the brain. In other words, why does MBC spread to the brain? Once we understand this key piece, we can work on developing more effective therapies and therapeutic combinations to block brain metastasis.
For hormone receptor–positive disease, in particular, a central question is whether the current antiestrogen therapies — such as selective estrogen receptor degraders like fulvestrant, as well as targeted AKT inhibitors — have the potential to affect brain tumor activity. The same holds true for TNBC, where antibody drug conjugates and immunotherapies are being evaluated for treatment of brain tumors. For patients with HER2-positive MBC that has spread to the brain, understanding the continued role for tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as tucatinib and neratinib, as well as whether antibody drug conjugates, including trastuzumab deruxtecan and trastuzumab emtansine, have CNS activity are important areas to explore further.
The CompassHER2 trial, going on now, is randomizing patients with residual HER2-positive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy to receive trastuzumab emtansine with or without tucatinib. One of the core questions of this study is whether trastuzumab emtansine/tucatinib lowers the rate of brain metastasis and the incidence of systemic metastasis.
Another area in MBC that requires greater scrutiny is patients who develop leptomeningeal disease, which is when cancer cells spread to the cerebrospinal fluid. These patients have a particularly poor prognosis, and it would be helpful to evaluate the efficacy of existing therapies, but these patients are often excluded from clinical trials.
Overall, the ultimate goal in these endeavors is to decrease the rate of metastasis to the brain and improve survival and quality of life in patients with MBC who do experience brain metastases.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CONCERT: Better QoL but not survival with cabazitaxel in metastatic HER2– breast cancer
For patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, first line chemotherapy with cabazitaxel (Jevtana) every 3 weeks offers efficacy comparable to that of once-weekly paclitaxel, but with lower risk for peripheral neuropathy and better patient-reported quality of life, investigators in the multicenter CONCERT trial found.
In an open-label clinical trial of 158 patients from 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) or a secondary overall survival endpoint between patients randomly assigned to initial chemotherapy with cabazitaxel every 3 weeks or weekly paclitaxel, reported Amit Bahl, MD, of University Hospital Bristol, England, and colleagues.
“Cabazitaxel is safe and well tolerated for metastatic breast cancer and requires fewer hospital visits than weekly paclitaxel, which is very important for patients and health care providers, but more so in the current situation,” he said in an oral abstract session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting (Abstract 1008).
Cabazitaxel is currently approved in the United States and Europe in combination with prednisone for treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing treatment regimen. It is not currently approved for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, but has been explored for this indication in clinical trials.
“In the metastatic setting, where patients continue on treatment pretty much indefinitely until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, the use of an every-3-week regimen could be attractive, because it means less visits for the patients, and it appears that this drug has lower toxicity in terms of peripheral neuropathy,” said breast cancer specialist Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the study.
Dr. Bardia, of Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, commented on the study in an interview.
Although paclitaxel is commonly used as first-line chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, it is associated with only modest response rates, ranging from 21.5% to 53.7% and carries significant risk of peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Bahl and colleagues noted.
“There is an unmet need for an alternative first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy agent, and cabazitaxel is a taxoid agent which has showed promising results in phase 2 trial of metastatic breast cancer patients in the second-line setting, even those with taxane resistance,” he said.
Open-label trial
To see whether cabazitaxel could meet those requirements, the investigators conducted a phase 2 randomized trial in which patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer not previously treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy were assigned, 79 in each arm, to receive cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly.
The median patient age was 56 years in the cabazitaxel group and 61 years in the paclitaxel group. Roughly two-thirds of patients in each arm had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, and the remainder had ECOG performance status 1.
In each arm, the median time on treatment was 15 weeks, but treatment delays and dose reductions were more common among patients on paclitaxel than cabazitaxel (61% vs. 39%, and 37% vs. 24%, respectively).
There were 149 PFS events at the time of the analysis. The median PFS with cabazitaxel was 6.7 months vs. 5.8 months with paclitaxel. This difference was not statistically significant. Median overall survival was 20.6 months in the cabazitaxel arm, vs. 18.2 months 20.0 months, respectively.
Similarly, there were no significant differences in either the overall response rates (42% vs. 37%), or time to response.
There were no complete responses with cabazitaxel vs. two (2.5%) with paclitaxel. The respective partial response rates were 41.8% vs. 34.2%.
In a subgroup analysis of PFS, there were no significant between-arm differences, except for an improved PFS in patients 65 and older with cabazitaxel (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.80).
Quality of life favors cabazitaxel
Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 42% of patients on cabazitaxel vs. 51% on paclitaxel. Diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and nausea were the most common grade 3 or greater events in the cabazitaxel arm, whereas grade 3 or greater lung infection and peripheral neuropathy were more common with paclitaxel.
Sensory peripheral neuropathy of any grade occurred in 16% of patients assigned to cabazitaxel, compared with 54% assigned to paclitaxel. The respective rates of alopecia were 27% and 42%.
Over the course of treatment, the mean EuroQuol EQ-5D-5L single index utility score and visual analogue scale score were higher with cabazitaxel arm compared to paclitaxel, suggesting better patient quality of life with cabazitaxel.
In addition, throughout treatment patients in the cabazitaxel arm reported significantly better scores on The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Breast (FACT-B) breast cancer subscale, Dr. Bahl said.
Second-line may be better
ASCO invited discussant Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, pointed out that in the phase 2 GENEVIEVE trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel versus weekly paclitaxel as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with triple negative or luminal B/HER2 normal breast cancer the pathologic complete response rate with cabazitaxel was 1.2%, compared with 11% with paclitaxel.
“This GENEVIEVE trial, together with the CONCERT trial, suggests that there is not a big role for cabazitaxel to be used upfront before other taxanes,” she said.
However, in a phase 2 study of cabazitaxel as second-line therapy in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with taxanes, the overall response rate was 23%, “which is still of interest and importance for our patients,” she added.
Dr. Kok did not address quality of life differences between the regimens, however.
In a side note, Dr. Bardia said that “if there were an oral form of paclitaxel, that would certainly be very welcome, in that an oral drug is more convenient for patients, and would require fewer visits to the hospital.”
The CONCERT trial was funded by an investigator-sponsored study grant from Sanofi. Dr. Bahl disclosed honoraria and institutional research funding from Sanofi/Aventis and others, and travel expenses from Bayer and Roche. Dr. Kok disclosed a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, and institutional research funding from that company and others. Dr. Bardia disclosed a consulting or advisory role and research funding to his institution from multiple companies.
For patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, first line chemotherapy with cabazitaxel (Jevtana) every 3 weeks offers efficacy comparable to that of once-weekly paclitaxel, but with lower risk for peripheral neuropathy and better patient-reported quality of life, investigators in the multicenter CONCERT trial found.
In an open-label clinical trial of 158 patients from 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) or a secondary overall survival endpoint between patients randomly assigned to initial chemotherapy with cabazitaxel every 3 weeks or weekly paclitaxel, reported Amit Bahl, MD, of University Hospital Bristol, England, and colleagues.
“Cabazitaxel is safe and well tolerated for metastatic breast cancer and requires fewer hospital visits than weekly paclitaxel, which is very important for patients and health care providers, but more so in the current situation,” he said in an oral abstract session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting (Abstract 1008).
Cabazitaxel is currently approved in the United States and Europe in combination with prednisone for treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing treatment regimen. It is not currently approved for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, but has been explored for this indication in clinical trials.
“In the metastatic setting, where patients continue on treatment pretty much indefinitely until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, the use of an every-3-week regimen could be attractive, because it means less visits for the patients, and it appears that this drug has lower toxicity in terms of peripheral neuropathy,” said breast cancer specialist Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the study.
Dr. Bardia, of Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, commented on the study in an interview.
Although paclitaxel is commonly used as first-line chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, it is associated with only modest response rates, ranging from 21.5% to 53.7% and carries significant risk of peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Bahl and colleagues noted.
“There is an unmet need for an alternative first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy agent, and cabazitaxel is a taxoid agent which has showed promising results in phase 2 trial of metastatic breast cancer patients in the second-line setting, even those with taxane resistance,” he said.
Open-label trial
To see whether cabazitaxel could meet those requirements, the investigators conducted a phase 2 randomized trial in which patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer not previously treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy were assigned, 79 in each arm, to receive cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly.
The median patient age was 56 years in the cabazitaxel group and 61 years in the paclitaxel group. Roughly two-thirds of patients in each arm had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, and the remainder had ECOG performance status 1.
In each arm, the median time on treatment was 15 weeks, but treatment delays and dose reductions were more common among patients on paclitaxel than cabazitaxel (61% vs. 39%, and 37% vs. 24%, respectively).
There were 149 PFS events at the time of the analysis. The median PFS with cabazitaxel was 6.7 months vs. 5.8 months with paclitaxel. This difference was not statistically significant. Median overall survival was 20.6 months in the cabazitaxel arm, vs. 18.2 months 20.0 months, respectively.
Similarly, there were no significant differences in either the overall response rates (42% vs. 37%), or time to response.
There were no complete responses with cabazitaxel vs. two (2.5%) with paclitaxel. The respective partial response rates were 41.8% vs. 34.2%.
In a subgroup analysis of PFS, there were no significant between-arm differences, except for an improved PFS in patients 65 and older with cabazitaxel (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.80).
Quality of life favors cabazitaxel
Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 42% of patients on cabazitaxel vs. 51% on paclitaxel. Diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and nausea were the most common grade 3 or greater events in the cabazitaxel arm, whereas grade 3 or greater lung infection and peripheral neuropathy were more common with paclitaxel.
Sensory peripheral neuropathy of any grade occurred in 16% of patients assigned to cabazitaxel, compared with 54% assigned to paclitaxel. The respective rates of alopecia were 27% and 42%.
Over the course of treatment, the mean EuroQuol EQ-5D-5L single index utility score and visual analogue scale score were higher with cabazitaxel arm compared to paclitaxel, suggesting better patient quality of life with cabazitaxel.
In addition, throughout treatment patients in the cabazitaxel arm reported significantly better scores on The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Breast (FACT-B) breast cancer subscale, Dr. Bahl said.
Second-line may be better
ASCO invited discussant Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, pointed out that in the phase 2 GENEVIEVE trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel versus weekly paclitaxel as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with triple negative or luminal B/HER2 normal breast cancer the pathologic complete response rate with cabazitaxel was 1.2%, compared with 11% with paclitaxel.
“This GENEVIEVE trial, together with the CONCERT trial, suggests that there is not a big role for cabazitaxel to be used upfront before other taxanes,” she said.
However, in a phase 2 study of cabazitaxel as second-line therapy in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with taxanes, the overall response rate was 23%, “which is still of interest and importance for our patients,” she added.
Dr. Kok did not address quality of life differences between the regimens, however.
In a side note, Dr. Bardia said that “if there were an oral form of paclitaxel, that would certainly be very welcome, in that an oral drug is more convenient for patients, and would require fewer visits to the hospital.”
The CONCERT trial was funded by an investigator-sponsored study grant from Sanofi. Dr. Bahl disclosed honoraria and institutional research funding from Sanofi/Aventis and others, and travel expenses from Bayer and Roche. Dr. Kok disclosed a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, and institutional research funding from that company and others. Dr. Bardia disclosed a consulting or advisory role and research funding to his institution from multiple companies.
For patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, first line chemotherapy with cabazitaxel (Jevtana) every 3 weeks offers efficacy comparable to that of once-weekly paclitaxel, but with lower risk for peripheral neuropathy and better patient-reported quality of life, investigators in the multicenter CONCERT trial found.
In an open-label clinical trial of 158 patients from 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) or a secondary overall survival endpoint between patients randomly assigned to initial chemotherapy with cabazitaxel every 3 weeks or weekly paclitaxel, reported Amit Bahl, MD, of University Hospital Bristol, England, and colleagues.
“Cabazitaxel is safe and well tolerated for metastatic breast cancer and requires fewer hospital visits than weekly paclitaxel, which is very important for patients and health care providers, but more so in the current situation,” he said in an oral abstract session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting (Abstract 1008).
Cabazitaxel is currently approved in the United States and Europe in combination with prednisone for treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing treatment regimen. It is not currently approved for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, but has been explored for this indication in clinical trials.
“In the metastatic setting, where patients continue on treatment pretty much indefinitely until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, the use of an every-3-week regimen could be attractive, because it means less visits for the patients, and it appears that this drug has lower toxicity in terms of peripheral neuropathy,” said breast cancer specialist Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the study.
Dr. Bardia, of Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, commented on the study in an interview.
Although paclitaxel is commonly used as first-line chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, it is associated with only modest response rates, ranging from 21.5% to 53.7% and carries significant risk of peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Bahl and colleagues noted.
“There is an unmet need for an alternative first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy agent, and cabazitaxel is a taxoid agent which has showed promising results in phase 2 trial of metastatic breast cancer patients in the second-line setting, even those with taxane resistance,” he said.
Open-label trial
To see whether cabazitaxel could meet those requirements, the investigators conducted a phase 2 randomized trial in which patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer not previously treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy were assigned, 79 in each arm, to receive cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly.
The median patient age was 56 years in the cabazitaxel group and 61 years in the paclitaxel group. Roughly two-thirds of patients in each arm had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, and the remainder had ECOG performance status 1.
In each arm, the median time on treatment was 15 weeks, but treatment delays and dose reductions were more common among patients on paclitaxel than cabazitaxel (61% vs. 39%, and 37% vs. 24%, respectively).
There were 149 PFS events at the time of the analysis. The median PFS with cabazitaxel was 6.7 months vs. 5.8 months with paclitaxel. This difference was not statistically significant. Median overall survival was 20.6 months in the cabazitaxel arm, vs. 18.2 months 20.0 months, respectively.
Similarly, there were no significant differences in either the overall response rates (42% vs. 37%), or time to response.
There were no complete responses with cabazitaxel vs. two (2.5%) with paclitaxel. The respective partial response rates were 41.8% vs. 34.2%.
In a subgroup analysis of PFS, there were no significant between-arm differences, except for an improved PFS in patients 65 and older with cabazitaxel (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.80).
Quality of life favors cabazitaxel
Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 42% of patients on cabazitaxel vs. 51% on paclitaxel. Diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and nausea were the most common grade 3 or greater events in the cabazitaxel arm, whereas grade 3 or greater lung infection and peripheral neuropathy were more common with paclitaxel.
Sensory peripheral neuropathy of any grade occurred in 16% of patients assigned to cabazitaxel, compared with 54% assigned to paclitaxel. The respective rates of alopecia were 27% and 42%.
Over the course of treatment, the mean EuroQuol EQ-5D-5L single index utility score and visual analogue scale score were higher with cabazitaxel arm compared to paclitaxel, suggesting better patient quality of life with cabazitaxel.
In addition, throughout treatment patients in the cabazitaxel arm reported significantly better scores on The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Breast (FACT-B) breast cancer subscale, Dr. Bahl said.
Second-line may be better
ASCO invited discussant Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, pointed out that in the phase 2 GENEVIEVE trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel versus weekly paclitaxel as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with triple negative or luminal B/HER2 normal breast cancer the pathologic complete response rate with cabazitaxel was 1.2%, compared with 11% with paclitaxel.
“This GENEVIEVE trial, together with the CONCERT trial, suggests that there is not a big role for cabazitaxel to be used upfront before other taxanes,” she said.
However, in a phase 2 study of cabazitaxel as second-line therapy in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with taxanes, the overall response rate was 23%, “which is still of interest and importance for our patients,” she added.
Dr. Kok did not address quality of life differences between the regimens, however.
In a side note, Dr. Bardia said that “if there were an oral form of paclitaxel, that would certainly be very welcome, in that an oral drug is more convenient for patients, and would require fewer visits to the hospital.”
The CONCERT trial was funded by an investigator-sponsored study grant from Sanofi. Dr. Bahl disclosed honoraria and institutional research funding from Sanofi/Aventis and others, and travel expenses from Bayer and Roche. Dr. Kok disclosed a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, and institutional research funding from that company and others. Dr. Bardia disclosed a consulting or advisory role and research funding to his institution from multiple companies.
FROM ASCO 2021