Advanced and Metastatic Breast Cancer

It’s okay to consider breast-conserving therapy in breast cancer patients with high-risk hereditary genetic mutations, according to guidelines published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The presence of a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation shouldn’t preclude breast-conserving therapy as long as the patient is otherwise eligible for the procedure, according to the guidelines, which were developed by an expert panel convened by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society for Surgical Oncology.

Nadine M. Tung, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and the rest of the expert panel reviewed evidence from 58 published articles to create the guidelines.

In addition to supporting use of breast-conserving therapy, the guidelines suggest that radiation shouldn’t be withheld because of mutation status, except in patients with TP53 mutations. Furthermore, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with metastatic HER2-negative disease can receive the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib as an “alternative to chemotherapy” for first-, second-, or third-line therapy.

However, it’s the “license to consider breast-conserving therapy” for high-risk individuals that is one of the most noteworthy points in the guidelines, and the one that may surprise some readers, according to William J. Gradishar, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, who was not involved in developing the guidelines.

“We don’t have to be as dogmatic with these patients with respect to local therapies as we were in the past,” Dr. Gradishar said in an interview. “That’s a good thing for patients, but you also have to understand the nuances that go into recommending [breast-conserving surgery] to a patient. Other variables, like the age at which the patient develops breast cancer, family history, etc., all go into it.”

Weighing options for surgery

The guidelines emphasize that, for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations, health care providers need to discuss treatment options for the breast cancer at hand. However, patients should also be made aware of their increased risk of contralateral and new ipsilateral breast cancer as compared with noncarriers.

When weighing breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy in light of contralateral breast cancer risk, the guidelines recommend considering not only age at diagnosis – the strongest predictor of a later contralateral breast cancer – but also family history, comorbidities, life expectancy, ability to undergo MRI, and prognosis from breast or other cancers, such as ovarian cancer.

If a bilateral mastectomy isn’t performed in a BRCA1/2 mutation carrier, an annual mammogram and MRI are warranted thereafter for screening of the remaining breast tissue, according to the guidelines.

The guidelines say breast-conserving therapy should be offered to patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes, including PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM. However, there’s not much data regarding the risk of ipsilateral breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy in these patients.

Likewise, there’s limited evidence on contralateral breast cancer risk for patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes aside from CHEK2. The guidelines say the risk should be discussed with patients “in the context of shared decision making.”

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is “reasonable” to consider in certain newly diagnosed patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, as well as in newly diagnosed patients with moderate-risk mutations, the guidelines state.

Women with breast cancer and a deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation who are undergoing unilateral mastectomy should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy. Likewise, women with moderate-risk mutations should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy, but not solely based on mutation status, according to the guidelines. Data are limited on contralateral breast cancer risk related to those mutations.

Considerations for radiation

Radiation therapy in the context of breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy should not be withheld because of hereditary mutations, except in the case of TP53 mutations, according to the guidelines.

There’s no evidence that radiotherapy increases toxicity or contralateral breast cancer risk for most BRCA1/2 or moderate-penetrance gene mutations. However, the intact breast shouldn’t be irradiated in germline TP53 mutation carriers, the guidelines say, because of the important role that TP53 plays in the ability to repair DNA damage after cellular stress.

“Carriers of a TP53 mutation would be expected to be unable to repair tissue damage from DNA damaging radiotherapy and be at risk for significant [radiotherapy]-associated sequelae,” the guidelines state.

Chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors

For women with metastatic breast cancer harboring germline BRCA1/2 mutations, the guidelines say platinum chemotherapy should be preferred over taxanes for platinum-naive patients.

Provided the breast cancer is HER2 negative, the PARP inhibitors olaparib or talazoparib “should be offered as an alternative to chemotherapy in the first- to third-line settings,” the guidelines state.

The guidelines confirm that PARP inhibitors are a “valid starting point” for treatment of BCRA1/2–associated metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Gradishar said.

“When a patient progresses on a PARP inhibitor, assuming they’re not going on some other investigational drug or clinical trial, they’re going to get chemotherapy,” he said. “So the argument is that, if you have something that’s at least as good or maybe a little bit better and has fewer side effects, why not start with that and then move on to other things?”

By contrast, there’s not enough evidence to recommend PARP inhibitors for germline BRCA mutation carriers with nonmetastatic breast cancers, according to the guidelines, and there’s “no robust data” for using PARP inhibitors in patients with breast cancers with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes.

The guideline authors disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Gradishar has relationships with AstraZeneca, Celltrion, Genentech, MacroGenics, Merck, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Tung NM et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 3;JCO2000299. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00299.

It’s okay to consider breast-conserving therapy in breast cancer patients with high-risk hereditary genetic mutations, according to guidelines published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The presence of a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation shouldn’t preclude breast-conserving therapy as long as the patient is otherwise eligible for the procedure, according to the guidelines, which were developed by an expert panel convened by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society for Surgical Oncology.

Nadine M. Tung, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and the rest of the expert panel reviewed evidence from 58 published articles to create the guidelines.

In addition to supporting use of breast-conserving therapy, the guidelines suggest that radiation shouldn’t be withheld because of mutation status, except in patients with TP53 mutations. Furthermore, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with metastatic HER2-negative disease can receive the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib as an “alternative to chemotherapy” for first-, second-, or third-line therapy.

However, it’s the “license to consider breast-conserving therapy” for high-risk individuals that is one of the most noteworthy points in the guidelines, and the one that may surprise some readers, according to William J. Gradishar, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, who was not involved in developing the guidelines.

“We don’t have to be as dogmatic with these patients with respect to local therapies as we were in the past,” Dr. Gradishar said in an interview. “That’s a good thing for patients, but you also have to understand the nuances that go into recommending [breast-conserving surgery] to a patient. Other variables, like the age at which the patient develops breast cancer, family history, etc., all go into it.”

Weighing options for surgery

The guidelines emphasize that, for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations, health care providers need to discuss treatment options for the breast cancer at hand. However, patients should also be made aware of their increased risk of contralateral and new ipsilateral breast cancer as compared with noncarriers.

When weighing breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy in light of contralateral breast cancer risk, the guidelines recommend considering not only age at diagnosis – the strongest predictor of a later contralateral breast cancer – but also family history, comorbidities, life expectancy, ability to undergo MRI, and prognosis from breast or other cancers, such as ovarian cancer.

If a bilateral mastectomy isn’t performed in a BRCA1/2 mutation carrier, an annual mammogram and MRI are warranted thereafter for screening of the remaining breast tissue, according to the guidelines.

The guidelines say breast-conserving therapy should be offered to patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes, including PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM. However, there’s not much data regarding the risk of ipsilateral breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy in these patients.

Likewise, there’s limited evidence on contralateral breast cancer risk for patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes aside from CHEK2. The guidelines say the risk should be discussed with patients “in the context of shared decision making.”

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is “reasonable” to consider in certain newly diagnosed patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, as well as in newly diagnosed patients with moderate-risk mutations, the guidelines state.

Women with breast cancer and a deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation who are undergoing unilateral mastectomy should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy. Likewise, women with moderate-risk mutations should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy, but not solely based on mutation status, according to the guidelines. Data are limited on contralateral breast cancer risk related to those mutations.

Considerations for radiation

Radiation therapy in the context of breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy should not be withheld because of hereditary mutations, except in the case of TP53 mutations, according to the guidelines.

There’s no evidence that radiotherapy increases toxicity or contralateral breast cancer risk for most BRCA1/2 or moderate-penetrance gene mutations. However, the intact breast shouldn’t be irradiated in germline TP53 mutation carriers, the guidelines say, because of the important role that TP53 plays in the ability to repair DNA damage after cellular stress.

“Carriers of a TP53 mutation would be expected to be unable to repair tissue damage from DNA damaging radiotherapy and be at risk for significant [radiotherapy]-associated sequelae,” the guidelines state.

Chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors

For women with metastatic breast cancer harboring germline BRCA1/2 mutations, the guidelines say platinum chemotherapy should be preferred over taxanes for platinum-naive patients.

Provided the breast cancer is HER2 negative, the PARP inhibitors olaparib or talazoparib “should be offered as an alternative to chemotherapy in the first- to third-line settings,” the guidelines state.

The guidelines confirm that PARP inhibitors are a “valid starting point” for treatment of BCRA1/2–associated metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Gradishar said.

“When a patient progresses on a PARP inhibitor, assuming they’re not going on some other investigational drug or clinical trial, they’re going to get chemotherapy,” he said. “So the argument is that, if you have something that’s at least as good or maybe a little bit better and has fewer side effects, why not start with that and then move on to other things?”

By contrast, there’s not enough evidence to recommend PARP inhibitors for germline BRCA mutation carriers with nonmetastatic breast cancers, according to the guidelines, and there’s “no robust data” for using PARP inhibitors in patients with breast cancers with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes.

The guideline authors disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Gradishar has relationships with AstraZeneca, Celltrion, Genentech, MacroGenics, Merck, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Tung NM et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 3;JCO2000299. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00299.

It’s okay to consider breast-conserving therapy in breast cancer patients with high-risk hereditary genetic mutations, according to guidelines published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The presence of a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation shouldn’t preclude breast-conserving therapy as long as the patient is otherwise eligible for the procedure, according to the guidelines, which were developed by an expert panel convened by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society for Surgical Oncology.

Nadine M. Tung, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and the rest of the expert panel reviewed evidence from 58 published articles to create the guidelines.

In addition to supporting use of breast-conserving therapy, the guidelines suggest that radiation shouldn’t be withheld because of mutation status, except in patients with TP53 mutations. Furthermore, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with metastatic HER2-negative disease can receive the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib as an “alternative to chemotherapy” for first-, second-, or third-line therapy.

However, it’s the “license to consider breast-conserving therapy” for high-risk individuals that is one of the most noteworthy points in the guidelines, and the one that may surprise some readers, according to William J. Gradishar, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, who was not involved in developing the guidelines.

“We don’t have to be as dogmatic with these patients with respect to local therapies as we were in the past,” Dr. Gradishar said in an interview. “That’s a good thing for patients, but you also have to understand the nuances that go into recommending [breast-conserving surgery] to a patient. Other variables, like the age at which the patient develops breast cancer, family history, etc., all go into it.”

Weighing options for surgery

The guidelines emphasize that, for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations, health care providers need to discuss treatment options for the breast cancer at hand. However, patients should also be made aware of their increased risk of contralateral and new ipsilateral breast cancer as compared with noncarriers.

When weighing breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy in light of contralateral breast cancer risk, the guidelines recommend considering not only age at diagnosis – the strongest predictor of a later contralateral breast cancer – but also family history, comorbidities, life expectancy, ability to undergo MRI, and prognosis from breast or other cancers, such as ovarian cancer.

If a bilateral mastectomy isn’t performed in a BRCA1/2 mutation carrier, an annual mammogram and MRI are warranted thereafter for screening of the remaining breast tissue, according to the guidelines.

The guidelines say breast-conserving therapy should be offered to patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes, including PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM. However, there’s not much data regarding the risk of ipsilateral breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy in these patients.

Likewise, there’s limited evidence on contralateral breast cancer risk for patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes aside from CHEK2. The guidelines say the risk should be discussed with patients “in the context of shared decision making.”

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is “reasonable” to consider in certain newly diagnosed patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, as well as in newly diagnosed patients with moderate-risk mutations, the guidelines state.

Women with breast cancer and a deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation who are undergoing unilateral mastectomy should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy. Likewise, women with moderate-risk mutations should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy, but not solely based on mutation status, according to the guidelines. Data are limited on contralateral breast cancer risk related to those mutations.

Considerations for radiation

Radiation therapy in the context of breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy should not be withheld because of hereditary mutations, except in the case of TP53 mutations, according to the guidelines.

There’s no evidence that radiotherapy increases toxicity or contralateral breast cancer risk for most BRCA1/2 or moderate-penetrance gene mutations. However, the intact breast shouldn’t be irradiated in germline TP53 mutation carriers, the guidelines say, because of the important role that TP53 plays in the ability to repair DNA damage after cellular stress.

“Carriers of a TP53 mutation would be expected to be unable to repair tissue damage from DNA damaging radiotherapy and be at risk for significant [radiotherapy]-associated sequelae,” the guidelines state.

Chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors

For women with metastatic breast cancer harboring germline BRCA1/2 mutations, the guidelines say platinum chemotherapy should be preferred over taxanes for platinum-naive patients.

Provided the breast cancer is HER2 negative, the PARP inhibitors olaparib or talazoparib “should be offered as an alternative to chemotherapy in the first- to third-line settings,” the guidelines state.

The guidelines confirm that PARP inhibitors are a “valid starting point” for treatment of BCRA1/2–associated metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Gradishar said.

“When a patient progresses on a PARP inhibitor, assuming they’re not going on some other investigational drug or clinical trial, they’re going to get chemotherapy,” he said. “So the argument is that, if you have something that’s at least as good or maybe a little bit better and has fewer side effects, why not start with that and then move on to other things?”

By contrast, there’s not enough evidence to recommend PARP inhibitors for germline BRCA mutation carriers with nonmetastatic breast cancers, according to the guidelines, and there’s “no robust data” for using PARP inhibitors in patients with breast cancers with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes.

The guideline authors disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Gradishar has relationships with AstraZeneca, Celltrion, Genentech, MacroGenics, Merck, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Tung NM et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 3;JCO2000299. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00299.

Nothing is business as usual during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that includes breast cancer therapy. That’s why two groups have released guidance documents on treating breast cancer patients during the pandemic.

A guidance on surgery, drug therapy, and radiotherapy was created by the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium. This guidance is set to be published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment and can be downloaded from the American College of Surgeons website.

A group from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) created a guidance document on radiotherapy for breast cancer patients, and that guidance was recently published in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
 

Prioritizing certain patients and treatments

As hospital beds and clinics fill with coronavirus-infected patients, oncologists must balance the need for timely therapy for their patients with the imperative to protect vulnerable, immunosuppressed patients from exposure and keep clinical resources as free as possible.

“As we’re taking care of breast cancer patients during this unprecedented pandemic, what we’re all trying to do is balance the most effective treatments for our patients against the risk of additional exposures, either from other patients [or] from being outside, and considerations about the safety of our staff,” said Steven Isakoff, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, who is an author of the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium guidance.

The consortium’s guidance recommends prioritizing treatment according to patient needs and the disease type and stage. The three basic categories for considering when to treat are:

• Priority A: Patients who have immediately life-threatening conditions, are clinically unstable, or would experience a significant change in prognosis with even a short delay in treatment.
• Priority B: Deferring treatment for a short time (6-12 weeks) would not impact overall outcomes in these patients.
• Priority C: These patients are stable enough that treatment can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The consortium highly recommends multidisciplinary discussion regarding priority for elective surgery and adjuvant treatments for your breast cancer patients,” the guidance authors wrote. “The COVID-19 pandemic may vary in severity over time, and these recommendations are subject to change with changing COVID-19 pandemic severity.”

For example, depending on local circumstances, the guidance recommends limiting immediate outpatient visits to patients with potentially unstable conditions such as infection or hematoma. Established patients with new problems or patients with a new diagnosis of noninvasive cancer might be managed with telemedicine visits, and patients who are on follow-up with no new issues or who have benign lesions might have their visits safely postponed.
 

Surgery and drug recommendations

High-priority surgical procedures include operative drainage of a breast abscess in a septic patient and evacuation of expanding hematoma in a hemodynamically unstable patient, according to the consortium guidance.

Other surgical situations are more nuanced. For example, for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or HER2-positive disease, the guidance recommends neoadjuvant chemotherapy or HER2-targeted chemotherapy in some cases. In other cases, institutions may proceed with surgery before chemotherapy, but “these decisions will depend on institutional resources and patient factors,” according to the authors.

The guidance states that chemotherapy and other drug treatments should not be delayed in patients with oncologic emergencies, such as febrile neutropenia, hypercalcemia, intolerable pain, symptomatic pleural effusions, or brain metastases.

In addition, patients with inflammatory breast cancer, TNBC, or HER2-positive breast cancer should receive neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with metastatic disease that is likely to benefit from therapy should start chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or targeted therapy. And patients who have already started neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy or oral adjuvant endocrine therapy should continue on these treatments.
 

Radiation therapy recommendations

The consortium guidance recommends administering radiation to patients with bleeding or painful inoperable locoregional disease, those with symptomatic metastatic disease, and patients who progress on neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

In contrast, older patients (aged 65-70 years) with lower-risk, stage I, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative cancers who are on adjuvant endocrine therapy can safely defer or omit radiation without affecting their overall survival, according to the guidance. Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, especially those with estrogen receptor–positive disease on endocrine therapy, can safely omit radiation.

“There are clearly conditions where radiation might reduce the risk of recurrence but not improve overall survival, where a delay in treatment really will have minimal or no impact,” Dr. Isakoff said.

The MSKCC guidance recommends omitting radiation for some patients with favorable-risk disease and truncating or accelerating regimens using hypofractionation for others who require whole-breast radiation or post-mastectomy treatment.

The MSKCC guidance also contains recommendations for prioritization of patients according to disease state and the urgency of care. It divides cases into high, intermediate, and low priority for breast radiotherapy, as follows:

• Tier 1 (high priority): Patients with inflammatory breast cancer, residual node-positive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, four or more positive nodes (N2), recurrent disease, node-positive TNBC, or extensive lymphovascular invasion.
• Tier 2 (intermediate priority): Patients with estrogen receptor–positive disease with one to three positive nodes (N1a), pathologic stage N0 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lymphovascular invasion not otherwise specified, or node-negative TNBC.
• Tier 3 (low priority): Patients with early-stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (especially patients of advanced age), patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, or those who otherwise do not meet the criteria for tiers 1 or 2.

The MSKCC guidance also contains recommended hypofractionated or accelerated radiotherapy regimens for partial and whole-breast irradiation, post-mastectomy treatment, and breast and regional node irradiation, including recommended techniques (for example, 3-D conformal or intensity modulated approaches).

The authors of the MSKCC guidance disclosed relationships with eContour, Volastra Therapeutics, Sanofi, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Cancer Research UK. The authors of the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium guidance did not disclose any conflicts and said there was no funding source for the guidance.

SOURCES: Braunstein LZ et al. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Apr 1. doi:10.1016/j.adro.2020.03.013; Dietz JR et al. 2020 Apr. Recommendations for prioritization, treatment and triage of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accepted for publication in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

Nothing is business as usual during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that includes breast cancer therapy. That’s why two groups have released guidance documents on treating breast cancer patients during the pandemic.

A guidance on surgery, drug therapy, and radiotherapy was created by the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium. This guidance is set to be published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment and can be downloaded from the American College of Surgeons website.

A group from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) created a guidance document on radiotherapy for breast cancer patients, and that guidance was recently published in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
 

Prioritizing certain patients and treatments

As hospital beds and clinics fill with coronavirus-infected patients, oncologists must balance the need for timely therapy for their patients with the imperative to protect vulnerable, immunosuppressed patients from exposure and keep clinical resources as free as possible.

“As we’re taking care of breast cancer patients during this unprecedented pandemic, what we’re all trying to do is balance the most effective treatments for our patients against the risk of additional exposures, either from other patients [or] from being outside, and considerations about the safety of our staff,” said Steven Isakoff, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, who is an author of the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium guidance.

The consortium’s guidance recommends prioritizing treatment according to patient needs and the disease type and stage. The three basic categories for considering when to treat are:

• Priority A: Patients who have immediately life-threatening conditions, are clinically unstable, or would experience a significant change in prognosis with even a short delay in treatment.
• Priority B: Deferring treatment for a short time (6-12 weeks) would not impact overall outcomes in these patients.
• Priority C: These patients are stable enough that treatment can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The consortium highly recommends multidisciplinary discussion regarding priority for elective surgery and adjuvant treatments for your breast cancer patients,” the guidance authors wrote. “The COVID-19 pandemic may vary in severity over time, and these recommendations are subject to change with changing COVID-19 pandemic severity.”

For example, depending on local circumstances, the guidance recommends limiting immediate outpatient visits to patients with potentially unstable conditions such as infection or hematoma. Established patients with new problems or patients with a new diagnosis of noninvasive cancer might be managed with telemedicine visits, and patients who are on follow-up with no new issues or who have benign lesions might have their visits safely postponed.
 

Surgery and drug recommendations

High-priority surgical procedures include operative drainage of a breast abscess in a septic patient and evacuation of expanding hematoma in a hemodynamically unstable patient, according to the consortium guidance.

Other surgical situations are more nuanced. For example, for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or HER2-positive disease, the guidance recommends neoadjuvant chemotherapy or HER2-targeted chemotherapy in some cases. In other cases, institutions may proceed with surgery before chemotherapy, but “these decisions will depend on institutional resources and patient factors,” according to the authors.

The guidance states that chemotherapy and other drug treatments should not be delayed in patients with oncologic emergencies, such as febrile neutropenia, hypercalcemia, intolerable pain, symptomatic pleural effusions, or brain metastases.

In addition, patients with inflammatory breast cancer, TNBC, or HER2-positive breast cancer should receive neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with metastatic disease that is likely to benefit from therapy should start chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or targeted therapy. And patients who have already started neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy or oral adjuvant endocrine therapy should continue on these treatments.
 

Radiation therapy recommendations

The consortium guidance recommends administering radiation to patients with bleeding or painful inoperable locoregional disease, those with symptomatic metastatic disease, and patients who progress on neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

In contrast, older patients (aged 65-70 years) with lower-risk, stage I, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative cancers who are on adjuvant endocrine therapy can safely defer or omit radiation without affecting their overall survival, according to the guidance. Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, especially those with estrogen receptor–positive disease on endocrine therapy, can safely omit radiation.

“There are clearly conditions where radiation might reduce the risk of recurrence but not improve overall survival, where a delay in treatment really will have minimal or no impact,” Dr. Isakoff said.

The MSKCC guidance recommends omitting radiation for some patients with favorable-risk disease and truncating or accelerating regimens using hypofractionation for others who require whole-breast radiation or post-mastectomy treatment.

The MSKCC guidance also contains recommendations for prioritization of patients according to disease state and the urgency of care. It divides cases into high, intermediate, and low priority for breast radiotherapy, as follows:

• Tier 1 (high priority): Patients with inflammatory breast cancer, residual node-positive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, four or more positive nodes (N2), recurrent disease, node-positive TNBC, or extensive lymphovascular invasion.
• Tier 2 (intermediate priority): Patients with estrogen receptor–positive disease with one to three positive nodes (N1a), pathologic stage N0 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lymphovascular invasion not otherwise specified, or node-negative TNBC.
• Tier 3 (low priority): Patients with early-stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (especially patients of advanced age), patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, or those who otherwise do not meet the criteria for tiers 1 or 2.

The MSKCC guidance also contains recommended hypofractionated or accelerated radiotherapy regimens for partial and whole-breast irradiation, post-mastectomy treatment, and breast and regional node irradiation, including recommended techniques (for example, 3-D conformal or intensity modulated approaches).

The authors of the MSKCC guidance disclosed relationships with eContour, Volastra Therapeutics, Sanofi, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Cancer Research UK. The authors of the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium guidance did not disclose any conflicts and said there was no funding source for the guidance.

SOURCES: Braunstein LZ et al. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Apr 1. doi:10.1016/j.adro.2020.03.013; Dietz JR et al. 2020 Apr. Recommendations for prioritization, treatment and triage of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accepted for publication in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

Nothing is business as usual during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that includes breast cancer therapy. That’s why two groups have released guidance documents on treating breast cancer patients during the pandemic.

A guidance on surgery, drug therapy, and radiotherapy was created by the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium. This guidance is set to be published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment and can be downloaded from the American College of Surgeons website.

A group from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) created a guidance document on radiotherapy for breast cancer patients, and that guidance was recently published in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
 

Prioritizing certain patients and treatments

As hospital beds and clinics fill with coronavirus-infected patients, oncologists must balance the need for timely therapy for their patients with the imperative to protect vulnerable, immunosuppressed patients from exposure and keep clinical resources as free as possible.

“As we’re taking care of breast cancer patients during this unprecedented pandemic, what we’re all trying to do is balance the most effective treatments for our patients against the risk of additional exposures, either from other patients [or] from being outside, and considerations about the safety of our staff,” said Steven Isakoff, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, who is an author of the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium guidance.

The consortium’s guidance recommends prioritizing treatment according to patient needs and the disease type and stage. The three basic categories for considering when to treat are:

• Priority A: Patients who have immediately life-threatening conditions, are clinically unstable, or would experience a significant change in prognosis with even a short delay in treatment.
• Priority B: Deferring treatment for a short time (6-12 weeks) would not impact overall outcomes in these patients.
• Priority C: These patients are stable enough that treatment can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The consortium highly recommends multidisciplinary discussion regarding priority for elective surgery and adjuvant treatments for your breast cancer patients,” the guidance authors wrote. “The COVID-19 pandemic may vary in severity over time, and these recommendations are subject to change with changing COVID-19 pandemic severity.”

For example, depending on local circumstances, the guidance recommends limiting immediate outpatient visits to patients with potentially unstable conditions such as infection or hematoma. Established patients with new problems or patients with a new diagnosis of noninvasive cancer might be managed with telemedicine visits, and patients who are on follow-up with no new issues or who have benign lesions might have their visits safely postponed.
 

Surgery and drug recommendations

High-priority surgical procedures include operative drainage of a breast abscess in a septic patient and evacuation of expanding hematoma in a hemodynamically unstable patient, according to the consortium guidance.

Other surgical situations are more nuanced. For example, for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or HER2-positive disease, the guidance recommends neoadjuvant chemotherapy or HER2-targeted chemotherapy in some cases. In other cases, institutions may proceed with surgery before chemotherapy, but “these decisions will depend on institutional resources and patient factors,” according to the authors.

The guidance states that chemotherapy and other drug treatments should not be delayed in patients with oncologic emergencies, such as febrile neutropenia, hypercalcemia, intolerable pain, symptomatic pleural effusions, or brain metastases.

In addition, patients with inflammatory breast cancer, TNBC, or HER2-positive breast cancer should receive neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with metastatic disease that is likely to benefit from therapy should start chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or targeted therapy. And patients who have already started neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy or oral adjuvant endocrine therapy should continue on these treatments.
 

Radiation therapy recommendations

The consortium guidance recommends administering radiation to patients with bleeding or painful inoperable locoregional disease, those with symptomatic metastatic disease, and patients who progress on neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

In contrast, older patients (aged 65-70 years) with lower-risk, stage I, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative cancers who are on adjuvant endocrine therapy can safely defer or omit radiation without affecting their overall survival, according to the guidance. Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, especially those with estrogen receptor–positive disease on endocrine therapy, can safely omit radiation.

“There are clearly conditions where radiation might reduce the risk of recurrence but not improve overall survival, where a delay in treatment really will have minimal or no impact,” Dr. Isakoff said.

The MSKCC guidance recommends omitting radiation for some patients with favorable-risk disease and truncating or accelerating regimens using hypofractionation for others who require whole-breast radiation or post-mastectomy treatment.

The MSKCC guidance also contains recommendations for prioritization of patients according to disease state and the urgency of care. It divides cases into high, intermediate, and low priority for breast radiotherapy, as follows:

• Tier 1 (high priority): Patients with inflammatory breast cancer, residual node-positive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, four or more positive nodes (N2), recurrent disease, node-positive TNBC, or extensive lymphovascular invasion.
• Tier 2 (intermediate priority): Patients with estrogen receptor–positive disease with one to three positive nodes (N1a), pathologic stage N0 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lymphovascular invasion not otherwise specified, or node-negative TNBC.
• Tier 3 (low priority): Patients with early-stage estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (especially patients of advanced age), patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, or those who otherwise do not meet the criteria for tiers 1 or 2.

The MSKCC guidance also contains recommended hypofractionated or accelerated radiotherapy regimens for partial and whole-breast irradiation, post-mastectomy treatment, and breast and regional node irradiation, including recommended techniques (for example, 3-D conformal or intensity modulated approaches).

The authors of the MSKCC guidance disclosed relationships with eContour, Volastra Therapeutics, Sanofi, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Cancer Research UK. The authors of the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium guidance did not disclose any conflicts and said there was no funding source for the guidance.

SOURCES: Braunstein LZ et al. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Apr 1. doi:10.1016/j.adro.2020.03.013; Dietz JR et al. 2020 Apr. Recommendations for prioritization, treatment and triage of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accepted for publication in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

Pertuzumab has a durable benefit in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer when added to trastuzumab and docetaxel as first-line therapy, with nearly 40% of patients achieving long-term survival, the CLEOPATRA end-of-study analysis shows.

The regimen, combining dual HER2 targeting with chemotherapy, became standard of care in this population as a result of its good efficacy and safety relative to placebo, first established in the phase 3, randomized trial 8 years ago (N Engl J Med. 2012;366:109-19).

Trial updates since then, most recently at a median follow-up of 50 months (N Engl J Med. 2015;372:724-34), have shown clear progression-free and overall survival benefits, with acceptable cardiac and other toxicity.

Investigators led by Sandra M. Swain, MD, of Georgetown University, Washington, performed a final analysis of data from the 808 patients in CLEOPATRA, now at a median follow-up of 99.9 months.

Results reported in The Lancet Oncology showed that, compared with placebo, pertuzumab prolonged investigator-assessed progression-free survival by 6.3 months (the same as that seen in the previous update) and prolonged overall survival by 16.3 months (up from 15.7 months in the previous update).

At 8 years, 37% of patients in the pertuzumab group were still alive, and 16% were still alive without progression.

“The combination of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel remains the standard of care for the first-line treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, owing to its overall survival benefits and maintained long-term overall and cardiac safety,” Dr. Swain and coinvestigators concluded. “Prospective identification of patients who will be long-term responders to treatment is an area for future research.”

In an accompanying comment, Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino in Genova, Italy, and Ines Vaz-Luis, MD, of Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, contended that these results, “which are also observed in real-world datasets, challenge the concept of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer being an incurable disease and open the path to several interconnected clinical and research questions.”

Those questions include the optimal duration of anti-HER2 maintenance therapy in patients without disease progression, best strategies for combining this systemic therapy with local treatment to further improve survival, and new markers to better identify patients likely to be long-term responders, who might benefit from a curative approach, the authors elaborated. They noted that more than half of CLEOPATRA patients had de novo stage IV disease.

“The performance of the current standard pertuzumab-based first-line treatment in patients previously exposed to adjuvant or neoadjuvant anti-HER2 therapy remains to be clarified,” the authors wrote. “Results from several ongoing prospective cohort studies investigating real-world patterns of care and outcomes of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer will help to clarify this important issue and optimize treatment sequencing.”
 

Study details

The end-of-study analysis showed that median progression-free survival was 18.7 months with pertuzumab and 12.4 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.81). The 8-year landmark progression-free survival rate was 16% with the former and 10% with the latter.

The median overall survival was 57.1 months with pertuzumab and 40.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.82). The 8-year landmark overall survival rate was 37% with the former and 23% with the latter.

A comparison of patients who did and did not achieve long-term response showed that, in both treatment groups, the former more often had tumors that were 3+ positive by HER2 immunohistochemistry and PIK3CA wild-type tumors. The leading grade 3 or 4 adverse event was neutropenia, seen in 49% of patients in the pertuzumab group and 46% of those in the placebo group. The rate of treatment-related death was 1% and 2%, respectively.

Since the last update, only two additional serious adverse events were reported: one case of heart failure and one case of symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients given pertuzumab.

The CLEOPATRA trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Swain and coauthors disclosed relationships with these and other companies. Dr. Lambertini disclosed relationships with Roche, Theramex, and Takeda. Dr. Vaz-Luis disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Kephren, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Swain SM et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30863-0; Lambertini M et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30058-9.

Pertuzumab has a durable benefit in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer when added to trastuzumab and docetaxel as first-line therapy, with nearly 40% of patients achieving long-term survival, the CLEOPATRA end-of-study analysis shows.

The regimen, combining dual HER2 targeting with chemotherapy, became standard of care in this population as a result of its good efficacy and safety relative to placebo, first established in the phase 3, randomized trial 8 years ago (N Engl J Med. 2012;366:109-19).

Trial updates since then, most recently at a median follow-up of 50 months (N Engl J Med. 2015;372:724-34), have shown clear progression-free and overall survival benefits, with acceptable cardiac and other toxicity.

Investigators led by Sandra M. Swain, MD, of Georgetown University, Washington, performed a final analysis of data from the 808 patients in CLEOPATRA, now at a median follow-up of 99.9 months.

Results reported in The Lancet Oncology showed that, compared with placebo, pertuzumab prolonged investigator-assessed progression-free survival by 6.3 months (the same as that seen in the previous update) and prolonged overall survival by 16.3 months (up from 15.7 months in the previous update).

At 8 years, 37% of patients in the pertuzumab group were still alive, and 16% were still alive without progression.

“The combination of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel remains the standard of care for the first-line treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, owing to its overall survival benefits and maintained long-term overall and cardiac safety,” Dr. Swain and coinvestigators concluded. “Prospective identification of patients who will be long-term responders to treatment is an area for future research.”

In an accompanying comment, Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino in Genova, Italy, and Ines Vaz-Luis, MD, of Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, contended that these results, “which are also observed in real-world datasets, challenge the concept of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer being an incurable disease and open the path to several interconnected clinical and research questions.”

Those questions include the optimal duration of anti-HER2 maintenance therapy in patients without disease progression, best strategies for combining this systemic therapy with local treatment to further improve survival, and new markers to better identify patients likely to be long-term responders, who might benefit from a curative approach, the authors elaborated. They noted that more than half of CLEOPATRA patients had de novo stage IV disease.

“The performance of the current standard pertuzumab-based first-line treatment in patients previously exposed to adjuvant or neoadjuvant anti-HER2 therapy remains to be clarified,” the authors wrote. “Results from several ongoing prospective cohort studies investigating real-world patterns of care and outcomes of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer will help to clarify this important issue and optimize treatment sequencing.”
 

Study details

The end-of-study analysis showed that median progression-free survival was 18.7 months with pertuzumab and 12.4 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.81). The 8-year landmark progression-free survival rate was 16% with the former and 10% with the latter.

The median overall survival was 57.1 months with pertuzumab and 40.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.82). The 8-year landmark overall survival rate was 37% with the former and 23% with the latter.

A comparison of patients who did and did not achieve long-term response showed that, in both treatment groups, the former more often had tumors that were 3+ positive by HER2 immunohistochemistry and PIK3CA wild-type tumors. The leading grade 3 or 4 adverse event was neutropenia, seen in 49% of patients in the pertuzumab group and 46% of those in the placebo group. The rate of treatment-related death was 1% and 2%, respectively.

Since the last update, only two additional serious adverse events were reported: one case of heart failure and one case of symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients given pertuzumab.

The CLEOPATRA trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Swain and coauthors disclosed relationships with these and other companies. Dr. Lambertini disclosed relationships with Roche, Theramex, and Takeda. Dr. Vaz-Luis disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Kephren, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Swain SM et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30863-0; Lambertini M et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30058-9.

Pertuzumab has a durable benefit in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer when added to trastuzumab and docetaxel as first-line therapy, with nearly 40% of patients achieving long-term survival, the CLEOPATRA end-of-study analysis shows.

The regimen, combining dual HER2 targeting with chemotherapy, became standard of care in this population as a result of its good efficacy and safety relative to placebo, first established in the phase 3, randomized trial 8 years ago (N Engl J Med. 2012;366:109-19).

Trial updates since then, most recently at a median follow-up of 50 months (N Engl J Med. 2015;372:724-34), have shown clear progression-free and overall survival benefits, with acceptable cardiac and other toxicity.

Investigators led by Sandra M. Swain, MD, of Georgetown University, Washington, performed a final analysis of data from the 808 patients in CLEOPATRA, now at a median follow-up of 99.9 months.

Results reported in The Lancet Oncology showed that, compared with placebo, pertuzumab prolonged investigator-assessed progression-free survival by 6.3 months (the same as that seen in the previous update) and prolonged overall survival by 16.3 months (up from 15.7 months in the previous update).

At 8 years, 37% of patients in the pertuzumab group were still alive, and 16% were still alive without progression.

“The combination of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel remains the standard of care for the first-line treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, owing to its overall survival benefits and maintained long-term overall and cardiac safety,” Dr. Swain and coinvestigators concluded. “Prospective identification of patients who will be long-term responders to treatment is an area for future research.”

In an accompanying comment, Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino in Genova, Italy, and Ines Vaz-Luis, MD, of Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, contended that these results, “which are also observed in real-world datasets, challenge the concept of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer being an incurable disease and open the path to several interconnected clinical and research questions.”

Those questions include the optimal duration of anti-HER2 maintenance therapy in patients without disease progression, best strategies for combining this systemic therapy with local treatment to further improve survival, and new markers to better identify patients likely to be long-term responders, who might benefit from a curative approach, the authors elaborated. They noted that more than half of CLEOPATRA patients had de novo stage IV disease.

“The performance of the current standard pertuzumab-based first-line treatment in patients previously exposed to adjuvant or neoadjuvant anti-HER2 therapy remains to be clarified,” the authors wrote. “Results from several ongoing prospective cohort studies investigating real-world patterns of care and outcomes of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer will help to clarify this important issue and optimize treatment sequencing.”
 

Study details

The end-of-study analysis showed that median progression-free survival was 18.7 months with pertuzumab and 12.4 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.81). The 8-year landmark progression-free survival rate was 16% with the former and 10% with the latter.

The median overall survival was 57.1 months with pertuzumab and 40.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.82). The 8-year landmark overall survival rate was 37% with the former and 23% with the latter.

A comparison of patients who did and did not achieve long-term response showed that, in both treatment groups, the former more often had tumors that were 3+ positive by HER2 immunohistochemistry and PIK3CA wild-type tumors. The leading grade 3 or 4 adverse event was neutropenia, seen in 49% of patients in the pertuzumab group and 46% of those in the placebo group. The rate of treatment-related death was 1% and 2%, respectively.

Since the last update, only two additional serious adverse events were reported: one case of heart failure and one case of symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients given pertuzumab.

The CLEOPATRA trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Swain and coauthors disclosed relationships with these and other companies. Dr. Lambertini disclosed relationships with Roche, Theramex, and Takeda. Dr. Vaz-Luis disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Kephren, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Swain SM et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30863-0; Lambertini M et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30058-9.

Disease progression is associated with worsening health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among patients with metastatic cancers, results of an observational study suggest.

The findings highlight the importance of patient-relevant outcomes when evaluating novel therapies for patients with metastatic cancers, according to Norbert Marschner, MD, of Praxis für interdisziplinäre onkologie und hämatologie in Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues. The researchers reported the findings in JAMA Network Open.

They used four nationwide German registries to evaluate the association of disease progression with HRQOL in patients receiving systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal, lung, pancreatic, or breast cancer.

The analysis included 2,314 adults with documented disease progression across 203 institutions in Germany. Data collection occurred during routine follow-up visits at participating centers during 2011-2018.

Various patient-reported outcome questionnaires were used to measure HRQOL and symptom severity among participants. For the present study, the team enrolled patients at the start of any systemic palliative treatment, defined as targeted therapy, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy.

Mixed-model analyses of more than 8,000 questionnaires showed that the first disease progression was associated with significant deterioration in 37 of 45 HRQOL scales overall, 17 of which were considered clinically meaningful.

With respect to cancer type, significant worsening after the first progression occurred in 12 of 14 colorectal cancer HRQOL scales, 11 of 14 lung cancer scales, 10 of 10 pancreatic cancer scales, and 4 of 7 breast cancer scales.

The deterioration in global HRQOL associated with the first progression was of greatest magnitude in lung cancer (6.7 points; P < .001), followed by pancreatic cancer (5.4 points; P < .001), colorectal cancer (3.5 points; P = .002), and breast cancer (2.4 points; P = .001).

The researchers also found that 38 of 45 HRQOL scales showed a greater degree of worsening after the second disease progression than after the first. They observed significant worsening after the second disease progression in 32 of 45 HRQOL scales, and all 32 were considered clinically meaningful.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the observational design. As a result, the study did not include specifications related to tumor assessment, such as frequency, timing, or criteria.

“We suggest that progression-related endpoints in metastatic breast, colorectal, lung, or pancreatic cancer should be considered when evaluating the benefit of novel treatments, in addition to survival, morbidity, and HRQOL outcomes,” the researchers concluded.

The registries used in this study are funded by iOMEDICO and industry sponsors. The authors disclosed relationships with iOMEDICO and several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Marschner N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0643.

Disease progression is associated with worsening health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among patients with metastatic cancers, results of an observational study suggest.

The findings highlight the importance of patient-relevant outcomes when evaluating novel therapies for patients with metastatic cancers, according to Norbert Marschner, MD, of Praxis für interdisziplinäre onkologie und hämatologie in Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues. The researchers reported the findings in JAMA Network Open.

They used four nationwide German registries to evaluate the association of disease progression with HRQOL in patients receiving systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal, lung, pancreatic, or breast cancer.

The analysis included 2,314 adults with documented disease progression across 203 institutions in Germany. Data collection occurred during routine follow-up visits at participating centers during 2011-2018.

Various patient-reported outcome questionnaires were used to measure HRQOL and symptom severity among participants. For the present study, the team enrolled patients at the start of any systemic palliative treatment, defined as targeted therapy, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy.

Mixed-model analyses of more than 8,000 questionnaires showed that the first disease progression was associated with significant deterioration in 37 of 45 HRQOL scales overall, 17 of which were considered clinically meaningful.

With respect to cancer type, significant worsening after the first progression occurred in 12 of 14 colorectal cancer HRQOL scales, 11 of 14 lung cancer scales, 10 of 10 pancreatic cancer scales, and 4 of 7 breast cancer scales.

The deterioration in global HRQOL associated with the first progression was of greatest magnitude in lung cancer (6.7 points; P < .001), followed by pancreatic cancer (5.4 points; P < .001), colorectal cancer (3.5 points; P = .002), and breast cancer (2.4 points; P = .001).

The researchers also found that 38 of 45 HRQOL scales showed a greater degree of worsening after the second disease progression than after the first. They observed significant worsening after the second disease progression in 32 of 45 HRQOL scales, and all 32 were considered clinically meaningful.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the observational design. As a result, the study did not include specifications related to tumor assessment, such as frequency, timing, or criteria.

“We suggest that progression-related endpoints in metastatic breast, colorectal, lung, or pancreatic cancer should be considered when evaluating the benefit of novel treatments, in addition to survival, morbidity, and HRQOL outcomes,” the researchers concluded.

The registries used in this study are funded by iOMEDICO and industry sponsors. The authors disclosed relationships with iOMEDICO and several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Marschner N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0643.

Disease progression is associated with worsening health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among patients with metastatic cancers, results of an observational study suggest.

The findings highlight the importance of patient-relevant outcomes when evaluating novel therapies for patients with metastatic cancers, according to Norbert Marschner, MD, of Praxis für interdisziplinäre onkologie und hämatologie in Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues. The researchers reported the findings in JAMA Network Open.

They used four nationwide German registries to evaluate the association of disease progression with HRQOL in patients receiving systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal, lung, pancreatic, or breast cancer.

The analysis included 2,314 adults with documented disease progression across 203 institutions in Germany. Data collection occurred during routine follow-up visits at participating centers during 2011-2018.

Various patient-reported outcome questionnaires were used to measure HRQOL and symptom severity among participants. For the present study, the team enrolled patients at the start of any systemic palliative treatment, defined as targeted therapy, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy.

Mixed-model analyses of more than 8,000 questionnaires showed that the first disease progression was associated with significant deterioration in 37 of 45 HRQOL scales overall, 17 of which were considered clinically meaningful.

With respect to cancer type, significant worsening after the first progression occurred in 12 of 14 colorectal cancer HRQOL scales, 11 of 14 lung cancer scales, 10 of 10 pancreatic cancer scales, and 4 of 7 breast cancer scales.

The deterioration in global HRQOL associated with the first progression was of greatest magnitude in lung cancer (6.7 points; P < .001), followed by pancreatic cancer (5.4 points; P < .001), colorectal cancer (3.5 points; P = .002), and breast cancer (2.4 points; P = .001).

The researchers also found that 38 of 45 HRQOL scales showed a greater degree of worsening after the second disease progression than after the first. They observed significant worsening after the second disease progression in 32 of 45 HRQOL scales, and all 32 were considered clinically meaningful.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the observational design. As a result, the study did not include specifications related to tumor assessment, such as frequency, timing, or criteria.

“We suggest that progression-related endpoints in metastatic breast, colorectal, lung, or pancreatic cancer should be considered when evaluating the benefit of novel treatments, in addition to survival, morbidity, and HRQOL outcomes,” the researchers concluded.

The registries used in this study are funded by iOMEDICO and industry sponsors. The authors disclosed relationships with iOMEDICO and several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Marschner N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0643.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved neratinib (NERLYNX) in combination with capecitabine for use in adults with advanced or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have received at least two prior anti-HER2 based regimens in the metastatic setting.

The recommended dose for neratinib in this population is 240 mg once daily with food on days 1-21 of a 21-day cycle. Neratinib should be given with capecitabine at 750 mg/m² twice daily on days 1-14 until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The full prescribing information for neratinib is available from the FDA website.

The FDA’s new approval of neratinib is based on results from the NALA trial (NCT01808573). The trial enrolled 621 patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who had received at least two prior anti-HER2 based regimens in the metastatic setting.

The patients were randomized to neratinib plus capecitabine or lapatinib plus capecitabine and received treatment until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The objective response rate was 32.8% in the neratinib arm and 26.7% in the lapatinib arm. The median duration of response was 8.5 months and 5.6 months, respectively.

The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the neratinib arm and 5.5 months in the lapatinib arm (hazard ratio 0.76; P = .0059). The median overall survival was 21 months and 18.7 months, respectively (HR 0.88; P = .2086).

The most common grade 3/4 adverse events in the neratinib arm were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and decreased appetite.

jensmith@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved neratinib (NERLYNX) in combination with capecitabine for use in adults with advanced or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have received at least two prior anti-HER2 based regimens in the metastatic setting.

The recommended dose for neratinib in this population is 240 mg once daily with food on days 1-21 of a 21-day cycle. Neratinib should be given with capecitabine at 750 mg/m² twice daily on days 1-14 until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The full prescribing information for neratinib is available from the FDA website.

The FDA’s new approval of neratinib is based on results from the NALA trial (NCT01808573). The trial enrolled 621 patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who had received at least two prior anti-HER2 based regimens in the metastatic setting.

The patients were randomized to neratinib plus capecitabine or lapatinib plus capecitabine and received treatment until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The objective response rate was 32.8% in the neratinib arm and 26.7% in the lapatinib arm. The median duration of response was 8.5 months and 5.6 months, respectively.

The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the neratinib arm and 5.5 months in the lapatinib arm (hazard ratio 0.76; P = .0059). The median overall survival was 21 months and 18.7 months, respectively (HR 0.88; P = .2086).

The most common grade 3/4 adverse events in the neratinib arm were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and decreased appetite.

jensmith@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved neratinib (NERLYNX) in combination with capecitabine for use in adults with advanced or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have received at least two prior anti-HER2 based regimens in the metastatic setting.

The recommended dose for neratinib in this population is 240 mg once daily with food on days 1-21 of a 21-day cycle. Neratinib should be given with capecitabine at 750 mg/m² twice daily on days 1-14 until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The full prescribing information for neratinib is available from the FDA website.

The FDA’s new approval of neratinib is based on results from the NALA trial (NCT01808573). The trial enrolled 621 patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who had received at least two prior anti-HER2 based regimens in the metastatic setting.

The patients were randomized to neratinib plus capecitabine or lapatinib plus capecitabine and received treatment until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The objective response rate was 32.8% in the neratinib arm and 26.7% in the lapatinib arm. The median duration of response was 8.5 months and 5.6 months, respectively.

The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the neratinib arm and 5.5 months in the lapatinib arm (hazard ratio 0.76; P = .0059). The median overall survival was 21 months and 18.7 months, respectively (HR 0.88; P = .2086).

The most common grade 3/4 adverse events in the neratinib arm were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and decreased appetite.

jensmith@mdedge.com

The immune microenvironment of metastatic breast cancer lesions is relatively inert and depleted versus primary tumors, results of a recent study suggest.

“These results predict that immune therapy may be more successful in early stage breast cancers rather than in metastatic disease,” Lajos Pusztai, MD, and study coinvestigators reported in Annals of Oncology.

However, metastatic breast cancers showed high expression levels of some targetable molecules that may provide a “foundation for rational immunotherapy combination strategies,” wrote Dr. Pusztai, director of breast cancer translational research at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., and his coinvestigators.

The investigators looked at tumor PD-L1 protein expression, tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) count, and mRNA expression for 730 immune-related genes in both primary and metastatic cancer samples obtained from pathologists at Yale.

The study included one cohort with full sections of paired metastatic and primary tumors from 45 patients, and a second cohort of tissue microarrays from 55 other patients.

Compared with primary lesions, metastatic lesions had substantially lower levels of PD-L1 expression and TIL counts, the investigators found.

Staining of PD-L1 was primarily seen in stromal immune cells, rather than tumor cells, according to investigators. The median stromal PD-L1 positivity was 14% for metastases and 52% for primary tumors in the first cohort (P = .0004), and 7% for metastases and 22% for primary tumors in the second cohort (P = .03).

They also reported significant decreased TIL counts in metastatic lesions for both the first (P = .026) and second (P = .089) cohorts, the report shows.

Immune gene expression profiling results, similarly, showed that most immune cell types and functions were “depleted” in the metastatic lesions, including a decreased mRNA expression of CTLA4, Dr. Pusztai and his colleagues reported.

The “lesser immunogenicity” of metastatic breast cancer cells was shown by decreased expression of immune proteasome and MHC class I genes, along with increased expression of HLA-E, which has been shown to suppress immunity, and reduced presence of dendritic cells, they said.

However, they also found high expression of targetable molecules in metastatic lesions. Those included macrophage markers such as CD68 and CD163, cytokine ligand/receptor pairs that mediate pro-tumorigenic effects, such as CCL2/CCR2 and CXCR4/CXCL12, and signaling molecules such as STAT-3 and JAK2, among others.

“We suggest that targeting these molecules may lead to synergy with PD1/PD-L1 blockade in metastatic breast cancer,” they wrote.

The work by Dr. Pusztai and his colleagues was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Susan G Komen for the Cure, Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program Awards, and the Rosztoczy Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Szekely B, et al. Ann Oncol. 2018 Sep 10. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy399.

The immune microenvironment of metastatic breast cancer lesions is relatively inert and depleted versus primary tumors, results of a recent study suggest.

“These results predict that immune therapy may be more successful in early stage breast cancers rather than in metastatic disease,” Lajos Pusztai, MD, and study coinvestigators reported in Annals of Oncology.

However, metastatic breast cancers showed high expression levels of some targetable molecules that may provide a “foundation for rational immunotherapy combination strategies,” wrote Dr. Pusztai, director of breast cancer translational research at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., and his coinvestigators.

The investigators looked at tumor PD-L1 protein expression, tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) count, and mRNA expression for 730 immune-related genes in both primary and metastatic cancer samples obtained from pathologists at Yale.

The study included one cohort with full sections of paired metastatic and primary tumors from 45 patients, and a second cohort of tissue microarrays from 55 other patients.

Compared with primary lesions, metastatic lesions had substantially lower levels of PD-L1 expression and TIL counts, the investigators found.

Staining of PD-L1 was primarily seen in stromal immune cells, rather than tumor cells, according to investigators. The median stromal PD-L1 positivity was 14% for metastases and 52% for primary tumors in the first cohort (P = .0004), and 7% for metastases and 22% for primary tumors in the second cohort (P = .03).

They also reported significant decreased TIL counts in metastatic lesions for both the first (P = .026) and second (P = .089) cohorts, the report shows.

Immune gene expression profiling results, similarly, showed that most immune cell types and functions were “depleted” in the metastatic lesions, including a decreased mRNA expression of CTLA4, Dr. Pusztai and his colleagues reported.

The “lesser immunogenicity” of metastatic breast cancer cells was shown by decreased expression of immune proteasome and MHC class I genes, along with increased expression of HLA-E, which has been shown to suppress immunity, and reduced presence of dendritic cells, they said.

However, they also found high expression of targetable molecules in metastatic lesions. Those included macrophage markers such as CD68 and CD163, cytokine ligand/receptor pairs that mediate pro-tumorigenic effects, such as CCL2/CCR2 and CXCR4/CXCL12, and signaling molecules such as STAT-3 and JAK2, among others.

“We suggest that targeting these molecules may lead to synergy with PD1/PD-L1 blockade in metastatic breast cancer,” they wrote.

The work by Dr. Pusztai and his colleagues was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Susan G Komen for the Cure, Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program Awards, and the Rosztoczy Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Szekely B, et al. Ann Oncol. 2018 Sep 10. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy399.

The immune microenvironment of metastatic breast cancer lesions is relatively inert and depleted versus primary tumors, results of a recent study suggest.

“These results predict that immune therapy may be more successful in early stage breast cancers rather than in metastatic disease,” Lajos Pusztai, MD, and study coinvestigators reported in Annals of Oncology.

However, metastatic breast cancers showed high expression levels of some targetable molecules that may provide a “foundation for rational immunotherapy combination strategies,” wrote Dr. Pusztai, director of breast cancer translational research at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., and his coinvestigators.

The investigators looked at tumor PD-L1 protein expression, tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) count, and mRNA expression for 730 immune-related genes in both primary and metastatic cancer samples obtained from pathologists at Yale.

The study included one cohort with full sections of paired metastatic and primary tumors from 45 patients, and a second cohort of tissue microarrays from 55 other patients.

Compared with primary lesions, metastatic lesions had substantially lower levels of PD-L1 expression and TIL counts, the investigators found.

Staining of PD-L1 was primarily seen in stromal immune cells, rather than tumor cells, according to investigators. The median stromal PD-L1 positivity was 14% for metastases and 52% for primary tumors in the first cohort (P = .0004), and 7% for metastases and 22% for primary tumors in the second cohort (P = .03).

They also reported significant decreased TIL counts in metastatic lesions for both the first (P = .026) and second (P = .089) cohorts, the report shows.

Immune gene expression profiling results, similarly, showed that most immune cell types and functions were “depleted” in the metastatic lesions, including a decreased mRNA expression of CTLA4, Dr. Pusztai and his colleagues reported.

The “lesser immunogenicity” of metastatic breast cancer cells was shown by decreased expression of immune proteasome and MHC class I genes, along with increased expression of HLA-E, which has been shown to suppress immunity, and reduced presence of dendritic cells, they said.

However, they also found high expression of targetable molecules in metastatic lesions. Those included macrophage markers such as CD68 and CD163, cytokine ligand/receptor pairs that mediate pro-tumorigenic effects, such as CCL2/CCR2 and CXCR4/CXCL12, and signaling molecules such as STAT-3 and JAK2, among others.

“We suggest that targeting these molecules may lead to synergy with PD1/PD-L1 blockade in metastatic breast cancer,” they wrote.

The work by Dr. Pusztai and his colleagues was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Susan G Komen for the Cure, Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program Awards, and the Rosztoczy Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Szekely B, et al. Ann Oncol. 2018 Sep 10. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy399.

CHICAGO – A circulating tumor cell (CTC) count less than 5 per 7.5 mL of blood in patients with metastatic breast cancer indicates an indolent disease subset, according to a pooled analysis of individual patient data from two large cohorts.

The findings, which were independent of molecular subtype, disease location, or line of treatment, have important implications for CTC-based staging of metastatic breast cancer (MBC), which in turn could guide treatment decision making and drug development, Andrew A. Davis, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and his colleagues reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

In 1,944 patients from the European Pooled Analysis Consortium (EPAC) and 492 from MD Anderson Cancer Center, CTC counts of 5 per 7.5mL or greater were associated with worse outcomes overall (hazard ratio, 2.43), the investigators said.

Median overall survival (OS) among all patients with CTC counts less than 5, who were considered to have stage IV indolent disease (stage IV_indolent), was 36.3 months, and OS among those with de novo disease and CDC counts less than 5 was greater than 5.5 years, they said, noting that the survival benefit persisted across all disease subtypes.

For example, median OS in patients with stage IV_indolent vs. stage IV_aggressive (those with CTC counts of 5 or greater ) was 44.0 vs. 17.3 months in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease, 23.8 vs. 9.0 months in triple negative breast cancer patients, and 36.7 vs. 20.4 months in patients with HER2+ disease, respectively, they explained.They also noted that stage IV_indolent disease could discriminate a less aggressive cohort both for patients with and without prior treatment; the hazard ratios were 0.40 and 0.42 favoring indolent disease for both first-line treatment and treatment beyond the first line, respectively.

In early-stage breast cancer, diagnostic tools have been incorporated into practice to help identify patients who will benefit from conservative vs. aggressive therapy, and the current findings suggest that CTC counts could be used in that manner for staging MBC.

“We propose a CTC-based staging system for MBC based on indolent and aggressive disease to incorporate into the American Joint Committee on Cancer [tumor node metastasis] staging classification,” they wrote, adding that prospective studies of single-agent, cost-effective treatments for stage IVindolent disease in the first-line setting are needed.

This study was supported by the Lynn Sage Breast Cancer Research OncoSET Program at Robert H. Lurie Cancer Center. Dr. Davis reported having no disclosures.

SOURCE: Davis A et al., ASCO 2018 Poster 1019.

CHICAGO – A circulating tumor cell (CTC) count less than 5 per 7.5 mL of blood in patients with metastatic breast cancer indicates an indolent disease subset, according to a pooled analysis of individual patient data from two large cohorts.

The findings, which were independent of molecular subtype, disease location, or line of treatment, have important implications for CTC-based staging of metastatic breast cancer (MBC), which in turn could guide treatment decision making and drug development, Andrew A. Davis, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and his colleagues reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

In 1,944 patients from the European Pooled Analysis Consortium (EPAC) and 492 from MD Anderson Cancer Center, CTC counts of 5 per 7.5mL or greater were associated with worse outcomes overall (hazard ratio, 2.43), the investigators said.

Median overall survival (OS) among all patients with CTC counts less than 5, who were considered to have stage IV indolent disease (stage IV_indolent), was 36.3 months, and OS among those with de novo disease and CDC counts less than 5 was greater than 5.5 years, they said, noting that the survival benefit persisted across all disease subtypes.

For example, median OS in patients with stage IV_indolent vs. stage IV_aggressive (those with CTC counts of 5 or greater ) was 44.0 vs. 17.3 months in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease, 23.8 vs. 9.0 months in triple negative breast cancer patients, and 36.7 vs. 20.4 months in patients with HER2+ disease, respectively, they explained.They also noted that stage IV_indolent disease could discriminate a less aggressive cohort both for patients with and without prior treatment; the hazard ratios were 0.40 and 0.42 favoring indolent disease for both first-line treatment and treatment beyond the first line, respectively.

In early-stage breast cancer, diagnostic tools have been incorporated into practice to help identify patients who will benefit from conservative vs. aggressive therapy, and the current findings suggest that CTC counts could be used in that manner for staging MBC.

“We propose a CTC-based staging system for MBC based on indolent and aggressive disease to incorporate into the American Joint Committee on Cancer [tumor node metastasis] staging classification,” they wrote, adding that prospective studies of single-agent, cost-effective treatments for stage IVindolent disease in the first-line setting are needed.

This study was supported by the Lynn Sage Breast Cancer Research OncoSET Program at Robert H. Lurie Cancer Center. Dr. Davis reported having no disclosures.

SOURCE: Davis A et al., ASCO 2018 Poster 1019.

CHICAGO – A circulating tumor cell (CTC) count less than 5 per 7.5 mL of blood in patients with metastatic breast cancer indicates an indolent disease subset, according to a pooled analysis of individual patient data from two large cohorts.

The findings, which were independent of molecular subtype, disease location, or line of treatment, have important implications for CTC-based staging of metastatic breast cancer (MBC), which in turn could guide treatment decision making and drug development, Andrew A. Davis, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and his colleagues reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

In 1,944 patients from the European Pooled Analysis Consortium (EPAC) and 492 from MD Anderson Cancer Center, CTC counts of 5 per 7.5mL or greater were associated with worse outcomes overall (hazard ratio, 2.43), the investigators said.

Median overall survival (OS) among all patients with CTC counts less than 5, who were considered to have stage IV indolent disease (stage IV_indolent), was 36.3 months, and OS among those with de novo disease and CDC counts less than 5 was greater than 5.5 years, they said, noting that the survival benefit persisted across all disease subtypes.

For example, median OS in patients with stage IV_indolent vs. stage IV_aggressive (those with CTC counts of 5 or greater ) was 44.0 vs. 17.3 months in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease, 23.8 vs. 9.0 months in triple negative breast cancer patients, and 36.7 vs. 20.4 months in patients with HER2+ disease, respectively, they explained.They also noted that stage IV_indolent disease could discriminate a less aggressive cohort both for patients with and without prior treatment; the hazard ratios were 0.40 and 0.42 favoring indolent disease for both first-line treatment and treatment beyond the first line, respectively.

In early-stage breast cancer, diagnostic tools have been incorporated into practice to help identify patients who will benefit from conservative vs. aggressive therapy, and the current findings suggest that CTC counts could be used in that manner for staging MBC.

“We propose a CTC-based staging system for MBC based on indolent and aggressive disease to incorporate into the American Joint Committee on Cancer [tumor node metastasis] staging classification,” they wrote, adding that prospective studies of single-agent, cost-effective treatments for stage IVindolent disease in the first-line setting are needed.

This study was supported by the Lynn Sage Breast Cancer Research OncoSET Program at Robert H. Lurie Cancer Center. Dr. Davis reported having no disclosures.

SOURCE: Davis A et al., ASCO 2018 Poster 1019.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ribociclib (Kisqali) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) for the treatment of pre/perimenopausal or postmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, as initial endocrine-based therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ribociclib (Kisqali) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) for the treatment of pre/perimenopausal or postmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, as initial endocrine-based therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ribociclib (Kisqali) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) for the treatment of pre/perimenopausal or postmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, as initial endocrine-based therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved abemaciclib (Verzenio) to be given in combination with fulvestrant, to treat patients who have hormone receptor (HR)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after taking endocrine therapy.

lnikolaides@frontlinemedcom.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved abemaciclib (Verzenio) to be given in combination with fulvestrant, to treat patients who have hormone receptor (HR)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after taking endocrine therapy.

lnikolaides@frontlinemedcom.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved abemaciclib (Verzenio) to be given in combination with fulvestrant, to treat patients who have hormone receptor (HR)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after taking endocrine therapy.

lnikolaides@frontlinemedcom.com

Discordance in HER2 status between the primary breast tumor and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in women with HER2-negative metastatic disease was 18.8% in a prospective cohort of patients.

The probability of discordance decreased with increasing age but increased with primary tumors that were hormone-receptor positive, higher grade, and of lobular histology, Amelie De Gregorio, MD, and associates reported in JCO Precision Oncology.

The investigators evaluated the HER2 status of CTCs obtained from women with HER2-negative breast cancer screened in the ongoing German DETECT III trial, which is aimed at determining the efficacy of lapatinib in patients with initially HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer but HER2-positive CTCs. HER2 discordance was defined as the presence of a single CTC or more within 7.5 mL of peripheral blood that showed a strong immunohistochemical (IHC) staining intensity (IHC score 3+).

Out of 1,123 women screened, at least one CTC was detected in blood samples from 711 women (63.3%; 95% confidence interval, 60.4%-66.1%). The median number of CTCs detected was seven (interquartile range, 2-30; range, 1-35,078 CTCs), and discordance in HER2 phenotype between primary tumor and CTCs was found in 134 patients (18.8%), Dr. De Gregorio of University Hospital Ulm (Germany) and associates reported (JCO Precis Oncol. 2017 Sep 28. doi: 10.1200/PO.17.00023).

In a multivariable analysis, histologic type (lobular vs. ductal; odds ratio, 2.67; P less than .001), hormone receptor status (positive vs. negative; OR, 2.84; P = .024), and CTC number (greater than 5 vs. 1-4 CTCs; OR, 7.64; P less than .001) significantly and independently predicted discordance in HER2 phenotype between primary tumor and CTCs. There was also a significant effect of age, with the probability of discordance decreasing with increasing age, the investigators noted.

“The knowledge of factors associated with discordance in HER2 status may be incorporated into today’s clinical practice by guiding the decision process for performing biopsy to characterize metastatic relapse,” the investigators wrote.

“Moreover, the concept of liquid biopsy using CTCs as a real-time noninvasive monitoring tool to evaluate tumor biology, progression, and heterogeneity as a basis for more personalized treatment decisions should be tested in prospective randomized clinical trials,” they added.

The DETECT study program is supported by the Investigator-Initiated Study Program of Janssen Diagnostics, with clinical trials also supported by Pierre Fabre Pharma, TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries, Amgen, Novartis Pharma, and Eisai. Dr. De Gregorio disclosed an advisory role with Roche Pharma AG; several coauthors disclosed consultancy and funding from various pharmaceutical companies.

lnikolaides@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @nikolaideslaura

Discordance in HER2 status between the primary breast tumor and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in women with HER2-negative metastatic disease was 18.8% in a prospective cohort of patients.

The probability of discordance decreased with increasing age but increased with primary tumors that were hormone-receptor positive, higher grade, and of lobular histology, Amelie De Gregorio, MD, and associates reported in JCO Precision Oncology.

The investigators evaluated the HER2 status of CTCs obtained from women with HER2-negative breast cancer screened in the ongoing German DETECT III trial, which is aimed at determining the efficacy of lapatinib in patients with initially HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer but HER2-positive CTCs. HER2 discordance was defined as the presence of a single CTC or more within 7.5 mL of peripheral blood that showed a strong immunohistochemical (IHC) staining intensity (IHC score 3+).

Out of 1,123 women screened, at least one CTC was detected in blood samples from 711 women (63.3%; 95% confidence interval, 60.4%-66.1%). The median number of CTCs detected was seven (interquartile range, 2-30; range, 1-35,078 CTCs), and discordance in HER2 phenotype between primary tumor and CTCs was found in 134 patients (18.8%), Dr. De Gregorio of University Hospital Ulm (Germany) and associates reported (JCO Precis Oncol. 2017 Sep 28. doi: 10.1200/PO.17.00023).

In a multivariable analysis, histologic type (lobular vs. ductal; odds ratio, 2.67; P less than .001), hormone receptor status (positive vs. negative; OR, 2.84; P = .024), and CTC number (greater than 5 vs. 1-4 CTCs; OR, 7.64; P less than .001) significantly and independently predicted discordance in HER2 phenotype between primary tumor and CTCs. There was also a significant effect of age, with the probability of discordance decreasing with increasing age, the investigators noted.

“The knowledge of factors associated with discordance in HER2 status may be incorporated into today’s clinical practice by guiding the decision process for performing biopsy to characterize metastatic relapse,” the investigators wrote.

“Moreover, the concept of liquid biopsy using CTCs as a real-time noninvasive monitoring tool to evaluate tumor biology, progression, and heterogeneity as a basis for more personalized treatment decisions should be tested in prospective randomized clinical trials,” they added.

The DETECT study program is supported by the Investigator-Initiated Study Program of Janssen Diagnostics, with clinical trials also supported by Pierre Fabre Pharma, TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries, Amgen, Novartis Pharma, and Eisai. Dr. De Gregorio disclosed an advisory role with Roche Pharma AG; several coauthors disclosed consultancy and funding from various pharmaceutical companies.

lnikolaides@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @nikolaideslaura

Discordance in HER2 status between the primary breast tumor and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in women with HER2-negative metastatic disease was 18.8% in a prospective cohort of patients.

The probability of discordance decreased with increasing age but increased with primary tumors that were hormone-receptor positive, higher grade, and of lobular histology, Amelie De Gregorio, MD, and associates reported in JCO Precision Oncology.

The investigators evaluated the HER2 status of CTCs obtained from women with HER2-negative breast cancer screened in the ongoing German DETECT III trial, which is aimed at determining the efficacy of lapatinib in patients with initially HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer but HER2-positive CTCs. HER2 discordance was defined as the presence of a single CTC or more within 7.5 mL of peripheral blood that showed a strong immunohistochemical (IHC) staining intensity (IHC score 3+).

Out of 1,123 women screened, at least one CTC was detected in blood samples from 711 women (63.3%; 95% confidence interval, 60.4%-66.1%). The median number of CTCs detected was seven (interquartile range, 2-30; range, 1-35,078 CTCs), and discordance in HER2 phenotype between primary tumor and CTCs was found in 134 patients (18.8%), Dr. De Gregorio of University Hospital Ulm (Germany) and associates reported (JCO Precis Oncol. 2017 Sep 28. doi: 10.1200/PO.17.00023).

In a multivariable analysis, histologic type (lobular vs. ductal; odds ratio, 2.67; P less than .001), hormone receptor status (positive vs. negative; OR, 2.84; P = .024), and CTC number (greater than 5 vs. 1-4 CTCs; OR, 7.64; P less than .001) significantly and independently predicted discordance in HER2 phenotype between primary tumor and CTCs. There was also a significant effect of age, with the probability of discordance decreasing with increasing age, the investigators noted.

“The knowledge of factors associated with discordance in HER2 status may be incorporated into today’s clinical practice by guiding the decision process for performing biopsy to characterize metastatic relapse,” the investigators wrote.

“Moreover, the concept of liquid biopsy using CTCs as a real-time noninvasive monitoring tool to evaluate tumor biology, progression, and heterogeneity as a basis for more personalized treatment decisions should be tested in prospective randomized clinical trials,” they added.

The DETECT study program is supported by the Investigator-Initiated Study Program of Janssen Diagnostics, with clinical trials also supported by Pierre Fabre Pharma, TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries, Amgen, Novartis Pharma, and Eisai. Dr. De Gregorio disclosed an advisory role with Roche Pharma AG; several coauthors disclosed consultancy and funding from various pharmaceutical companies.

lnikolaides@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @nikolaideslaura