ASCO Breast Cancer

It may not be always necessary to approach the treatment of HER2-positive, hormone receptor–negative (HER2+/HR–) early breast cancer with added chemotherapy, survival results of a prospective multicenter randomized trial suggest.

In the ADAPT-HER2+/HR– trial, comparing a de-escalated 12-week neoadjuvant regimen consisting of dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab (Herceptin) and pertuzumab (Perjeta) with or without weekly paclitaxel, the three-drug regimen was associated with high pathologic complete response(pCR) rates and excellent 5-year survival, irrespective of whether patients received additional chemotherapy, reported Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, of the University of Munich.

“Chemotherapy-free regimens are promising in highly sensitive tumors with early response, but future investigation of such chemotherapy-free regimens need to be focused on selected patients, like those with HER2 3+ tumors, non–basal-like tumors, those showing early response to the de-escalated therapy, and those with predictive RNA signatures such as immune signatures,” she said in an oral abstract session during the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting (Abstract 503).
 

Under the WGS umbrella

The ADAPT HER2+/HR– trial (NCT01779206) is one of several conducted by the West German Study Group (WGS) on therapy for intrinsic breast cancer types.

In this study, 134 patients with HER2-positive, estrogen and progesterone receptor–negative tumors with no metastatic disease and good performance status were assigned on a 5:2 basis to neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab at a loading dose of 8 mg/kg for the first cycle followed by 6 mg/kg for subsequent cycles every 3 weeks x 4, plus pertuzumab at a loading dose of 840 mg followed by 420 mg every 3 weeks x 4 (92 patients), or to trastuzumab and pertuzumab at the same dose and schedule plus paclitaxel 80 mg/m² once weekly for 12 weeks.

Patients had surgery within 3 weeks of the end of study therapy unless they did not have a histologically confirmed pCR, in which case they went on to receive standard neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgery.

Adjuvant therapy was performed according to national guidelines, although patients with a pCR after 12 weeks of study therapy could be spared from adjuvant chemotherapy at the investigator’s discretion.

Patients underwent biopsy at 3 weeks for therapy for early response assessment, defined as either a Ki67 decrease of at least 30% from baseline, or low cellularity (less than 500 invasive tumor cells).
 

First survival results

The investigators previously reported the primary pCR endpoint from the trial, which showed a rate of 90% after 12 weeks in the three-drug arm, and a “substantial and clinically meaningful” pCR rate of 34% after the trastuzumab plus pertuzumab alone.

At ASCO 2021, Dr. Harbeck reported the first survival data from the trial.

After a median follow-up of 59.9 months, there were no statistically significant differences between trial arms in either overall survival, invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), or distant disease-free survival (dDFS).

The 5-year iDFS rate in the three-drug arm was 98%, compared with 87% for the dual HER2 blockade-only arm, a difference that was not statistically significant.

The 5-year dDFS rates were 98% and 92% respectively. There were only seven dDFS events during follow-up, Dr. Harbeck noted.

There were only six deaths during follow-up, with overall survival rates of 98% in the paclitaxel-containing arm, and 94% in the anti-HER2 antibodies–only arm, a difference of one overall survival event, Dr. Harbeck said.
 

pCR counts

However, patients who did not have pathologic complete responses at the end of first-line de-escalated therapy had worse outcomes, with a 5-year iDFS rate of 82%, compared with 98% for patients who had achieved a pCR. This translated into a hazard ratio for invasive disease in patients with pCRs of 0.14 (P = .011).

This difference occurred despite the study requirement that all patients who did not have pCR after 12 weeks of initial therapy would receive additional chemotherapy.

Looking at the tumor subtype among patients in the paclitaxel-free arm to see whether they could identify predictors of early response, the researchers found a pCR rate of 36.5% among 85 patients with nonbasal tumors, but 0% among 7 patients with basal tumors.

The investigators identified a population of patients whose tumors could be considered nonsensitive to dual HER2 blockade alone: Those with basal tumors, those tumors with low immunohistochemical HER2 expression, and those without an early response to therapy on biopsy 3 weeks into initial therapy. Among 31 of the 92 patients in the dual HER2 arm who met this description, 2 had pCRs, Dr. Harbeck noted.

The 5-year iDFS rate among patients in the dual blockade–only arm with nonsensitive tumors was 79%, compared with 93% for patients with treatment-responsive types, although there were only 13 invasive events total in this arm.

“If we look at the whole trial population, the negative prognostic impact of what we termed nonsensitive tumors was even significant regarding dDFS, with a hazard ratio of about 5,” she said.
 

‘A consistent theme’

Invited discussant Lisa A. Carey, MD, ScM, of the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, noted that the trial was underpowered for outcomes, but that results nonetheless suggest that patients with strongly HER2-driven tumors might get comparable benefits from less chemotherapy.

“This trial included only hormone receptor–negative, HER2-positive tumors, and these we know are likely to be HER2-enriched in terms of subtype, about three-quarters of them,”she said.

The previously reported pCR rate of 90% in the paclitaxel-containing arm, with 80% of patients requiring no further chemotherapy, resulted in the excellent 5-year iDFS and dDFS in this group, despite the relatively highly clinical stage, with about 60% of patients having clinical stage 2 or higher tumors, and more than 40% being node positive.

The idea that pCR itself can predict which patients could be spared from more intensive chemotherapy “is starting to look like a consistent theme,” she said.

Dr. Carey pointed out that in the KRISTINE trial comparing the combination of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) and pertuzumab with standard chemotherapy in patients with HER2-positive stage I-III breast cancer, although the experimental combination was associated with lower pCR rates and worse event-free survival, rates of iDFS/dDFS were virtually identical for patients in both arms who achieved a pCR.

“So the question is can pCR mean that we can either eliminate additional therapy,” she said, noting that the question is currently being addressed prospectively in two clinical trials, COMPASS-pCR and DECRESCENDO.

ADAPT HER2+/HR- is sponsored by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Harbeck disclosed institutional research funding from Roche/Genentech, as well as honoraria and consulting/advising for multiple companies. Dr. Carey disclosed institutional research funding and other relationships with various companies.

It may not be always necessary to approach the treatment of HER2-positive, hormone receptor–negative (HER2+/HR–) early breast cancer with added chemotherapy, survival results of a prospective multicenter randomized trial suggest.

In the ADAPT-HER2+/HR– trial, comparing a de-escalated 12-week neoadjuvant regimen consisting of dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab (Herceptin) and pertuzumab (Perjeta) with or without weekly paclitaxel, the three-drug regimen was associated with high pathologic complete response(pCR) rates and excellent 5-year survival, irrespective of whether patients received additional chemotherapy, reported Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, of the University of Munich.

“Chemotherapy-free regimens are promising in highly sensitive tumors with early response, but future investigation of such chemotherapy-free regimens need to be focused on selected patients, like those with HER2 3+ tumors, non–basal-like tumors, those showing early response to the de-escalated therapy, and those with predictive RNA signatures such as immune signatures,” she said in an oral abstract session during the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting (Abstract 503).
 

Under the WGS umbrella

The ADAPT HER2+/HR– trial (NCT01779206) is one of several conducted by the West German Study Group (WGS) on therapy for intrinsic breast cancer types.

In this study, 134 patients with HER2-positive, estrogen and progesterone receptor–negative tumors with no metastatic disease and good performance status were assigned on a 5:2 basis to neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab at a loading dose of 8 mg/kg for the first cycle followed by 6 mg/kg for subsequent cycles every 3 weeks x 4, plus pertuzumab at a loading dose of 840 mg followed by 420 mg every 3 weeks x 4 (92 patients), or to trastuzumab and pertuzumab at the same dose and schedule plus paclitaxel 80 mg/m² once weekly for 12 weeks.

Patients had surgery within 3 weeks of the end of study therapy unless they did not have a histologically confirmed pCR, in which case they went on to receive standard neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgery.

Adjuvant therapy was performed according to national guidelines, although patients with a pCR after 12 weeks of study therapy could be spared from adjuvant chemotherapy at the investigator’s discretion.

Patients underwent biopsy at 3 weeks for therapy for early response assessment, defined as either a Ki67 decrease of at least 30% from baseline, or low cellularity (less than 500 invasive tumor cells).
 

First survival results

The investigators previously reported the primary pCR endpoint from the trial, which showed a rate of 90% after 12 weeks in the three-drug arm, and a “substantial and clinically meaningful” pCR rate of 34% after the trastuzumab plus pertuzumab alone.

At ASCO 2021, Dr. Harbeck reported the first survival data from the trial.

After a median follow-up of 59.9 months, there were no statistically significant differences between trial arms in either overall survival, invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), or distant disease-free survival (dDFS).

The 5-year iDFS rate in the three-drug arm was 98%, compared with 87% for the dual HER2 blockade-only arm, a difference that was not statistically significant.

The 5-year dDFS rates were 98% and 92% respectively. There were only seven dDFS events during follow-up, Dr. Harbeck noted.

There were only six deaths during follow-up, with overall survival rates of 98% in the paclitaxel-containing arm, and 94% in the anti-HER2 antibodies–only arm, a difference of one overall survival event, Dr. Harbeck said.
 

pCR counts

However, patients who did not have pathologic complete responses at the end of first-line de-escalated therapy had worse outcomes, with a 5-year iDFS rate of 82%, compared with 98% for patients who had achieved a pCR. This translated into a hazard ratio for invasive disease in patients with pCRs of 0.14 (P = .011).

This difference occurred despite the study requirement that all patients who did not have pCR after 12 weeks of initial therapy would receive additional chemotherapy.

Looking at the tumor subtype among patients in the paclitaxel-free arm to see whether they could identify predictors of early response, the researchers found a pCR rate of 36.5% among 85 patients with nonbasal tumors, but 0% among 7 patients with basal tumors.

The investigators identified a population of patients whose tumors could be considered nonsensitive to dual HER2 blockade alone: Those with basal tumors, those tumors with low immunohistochemical HER2 expression, and those without an early response to therapy on biopsy 3 weeks into initial therapy. Among 31 of the 92 patients in the dual HER2 arm who met this description, 2 had pCRs, Dr. Harbeck noted.

The 5-year iDFS rate among patients in the dual blockade–only arm with nonsensitive tumors was 79%, compared with 93% for patients with treatment-responsive types, although there were only 13 invasive events total in this arm.

“If we look at the whole trial population, the negative prognostic impact of what we termed nonsensitive tumors was even significant regarding dDFS, with a hazard ratio of about 5,” she said.
 

‘A consistent theme’

Invited discussant Lisa A. Carey, MD, ScM, of the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, noted that the trial was underpowered for outcomes, but that results nonetheless suggest that patients with strongly HER2-driven tumors might get comparable benefits from less chemotherapy.

“This trial included only hormone receptor–negative, HER2-positive tumors, and these we know are likely to be HER2-enriched in terms of subtype, about three-quarters of them,”she said.

The previously reported pCR rate of 90% in the paclitaxel-containing arm, with 80% of patients requiring no further chemotherapy, resulted in the excellent 5-year iDFS and dDFS in this group, despite the relatively highly clinical stage, with about 60% of patients having clinical stage 2 or higher tumors, and more than 40% being node positive.

The idea that pCR itself can predict which patients could be spared from more intensive chemotherapy “is starting to look like a consistent theme,” she said.

Dr. Carey pointed out that in the KRISTINE trial comparing the combination of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) and pertuzumab with standard chemotherapy in patients with HER2-positive stage I-III breast cancer, although the experimental combination was associated with lower pCR rates and worse event-free survival, rates of iDFS/dDFS were virtually identical for patients in both arms who achieved a pCR.

“So the question is can pCR mean that we can either eliminate additional therapy,” she said, noting that the question is currently being addressed prospectively in two clinical trials, COMPASS-pCR and DECRESCENDO.

ADAPT HER2+/HR- is sponsored by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Harbeck disclosed institutional research funding from Roche/Genentech, as well as honoraria and consulting/advising for multiple companies. Dr. Carey disclosed institutional research funding and other relationships with various companies.

It may not be always necessary to approach the treatment of HER2-positive, hormone receptor–negative (HER2+/HR–) early breast cancer with added chemotherapy, survival results of a prospective multicenter randomized trial suggest.

In the ADAPT-HER2+/HR– trial, comparing a de-escalated 12-week neoadjuvant regimen consisting of dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab (Herceptin) and pertuzumab (Perjeta) with or without weekly paclitaxel, the three-drug regimen was associated with high pathologic complete response(pCR) rates and excellent 5-year survival, irrespective of whether patients received additional chemotherapy, reported Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, of the University of Munich.

“Chemotherapy-free regimens are promising in highly sensitive tumors with early response, but future investigation of such chemotherapy-free regimens need to be focused on selected patients, like those with HER2 3+ tumors, non–basal-like tumors, those showing early response to the de-escalated therapy, and those with predictive RNA signatures such as immune signatures,” she said in an oral abstract session during the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting (Abstract 503).
 

Under the WGS umbrella

The ADAPT HER2+/HR– trial (NCT01779206) is one of several conducted by the West German Study Group (WGS) on therapy for intrinsic breast cancer types.

In this study, 134 patients with HER2-positive, estrogen and progesterone receptor–negative tumors with no metastatic disease and good performance status were assigned on a 5:2 basis to neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab at a loading dose of 8 mg/kg for the first cycle followed by 6 mg/kg for subsequent cycles every 3 weeks x 4, plus pertuzumab at a loading dose of 840 mg followed by 420 mg every 3 weeks x 4 (92 patients), or to trastuzumab and pertuzumab at the same dose and schedule plus paclitaxel 80 mg/m² once weekly for 12 weeks.

Patients had surgery within 3 weeks of the end of study therapy unless they did not have a histologically confirmed pCR, in which case they went on to receive standard neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgery.

Adjuvant therapy was performed according to national guidelines, although patients with a pCR after 12 weeks of study therapy could be spared from adjuvant chemotherapy at the investigator’s discretion.

Patients underwent biopsy at 3 weeks for therapy for early response assessment, defined as either a Ki67 decrease of at least 30% from baseline, or low cellularity (less than 500 invasive tumor cells).
 

First survival results

The investigators previously reported the primary pCR endpoint from the trial, which showed a rate of 90% after 12 weeks in the three-drug arm, and a “substantial and clinically meaningful” pCR rate of 34% after the trastuzumab plus pertuzumab alone.

At ASCO 2021, Dr. Harbeck reported the first survival data from the trial.

After a median follow-up of 59.9 months, there were no statistically significant differences between trial arms in either overall survival, invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), or distant disease-free survival (dDFS).

The 5-year iDFS rate in the three-drug arm was 98%, compared with 87% for the dual HER2 blockade-only arm, a difference that was not statistically significant.

The 5-year dDFS rates were 98% and 92% respectively. There were only seven dDFS events during follow-up, Dr. Harbeck noted.

There were only six deaths during follow-up, with overall survival rates of 98% in the paclitaxel-containing arm, and 94% in the anti-HER2 antibodies–only arm, a difference of one overall survival event, Dr. Harbeck said.
 

pCR counts

However, patients who did not have pathologic complete responses at the end of first-line de-escalated therapy had worse outcomes, with a 5-year iDFS rate of 82%, compared with 98% for patients who had achieved a pCR. This translated into a hazard ratio for invasive disease in patients with pCRs of 0.14 (P = .011).

This difference occurred despite the study requirement that all patients who did not have pCR after 12 weeks of initial therapy would receive additional chemotherapy.

Looking at the tumor subtype among patients in the paclitaxel-free arm to see whether they could identify predictors of early response, the researchers found a pCR rate of 36.5% among 85 patients with nonbasal tumors, but 0% among 7 patients with basal tumors.

The investigators identified a population of patients whose tumors could be considered nonsensitive to dual HER2 blockade alone: Those with basal tumors, those tumors with low immunohistochemical HER2 expression, and those without an early response to therapy on biopsy 3 weeks into initial therapy. Among 31 of the 92 patients in the dual HER2 arm who met this description, 2 had pCRs, Dr. Harbeck noted.

The 5-year iDFS rate among patients in the dual blockade–only arm with nonsensitive tumors was 79%, compared with 93% for patients with treatment-responsive types, although there were only 13 invasive events total in this arm.

“If we look at the whole trial population, the negative prognostic impact of what we termed nonsensitive tumors was even significant regarding dDFS, with a hazard ratio of about 5,” she said.
 

‘A consistent theme’

Invited discussant Lisa A. Carey, MD, ScM, of the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, noted that the trial was underpowered for outcomes, but that results nonetheless suggest that patients with strongly HER2-driven tumors might get comparable benefits from less chemotherapy.

“This trial included only hormone receptor–negative, HER2-positive tumors, and these we know are likely to be HER2-enriched in terms of subtype, about three-quarters of them,”she said.

The previously reported pCR rate of 90% in the paclitaxel-containing arm, with 80% of patients requiring no further chemotherapy, resulted in the excellent 5-year iDFS and dDFS in this group, despite the relatively highly clinical stage, with about 60% of patients having clinical stage 2 or higher tumors, and more than 40% being node positive.

The idea that pCR itself can predict which patients could be spared from more intensive chemotherapy “is starting to look like a consistent theme,” she said.

Dr. Carey pointed out that in the KRISTINE trial comparing the combination of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) and pertuzumab with standard chemotherapy in patients with HER2-positive stage I-III breast cancer, although the experimental combination was associated with lower pCR rates and worse event-free survival, rates of iDFS/dDFS were virtually identical for patients in both arms who achieved a pCR.

“So the question is can pCR mean that we can either eliminate additional therapy,” she said, noting that the question is currently being addressed prospectively in two clinical trials, COMPASS-pCR and DECRESCENDO.

ADAPT HER2+/HR- is sponsored by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Harbeck disclosed institutional research funding from Roche/Genentech, as well as honoraria and consulting/advising for multiple companies. Dr. Carey disclosed institutional research funding and other relationships with various companies.

For patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, first line chemotherapy with cabazitaxel (Jevtana) every 3 weeks offers efficacy comparable to that of once-weekly paclitaxel, but with lower risk for peripheral neuropathy and better patient-reported quality of life, investigators in the multicenter CONCERT trial found.

In an open-label clinical trial of 158 patients from 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) or a secondary overall survival endpoint between patients randomly assigned to initial chemotherapy with cabazitaxel every 3 weeks or weekly paclitaxel, reported Amit Bahl, MD, of University Hospital Bristol, England, and colleagues.

“Cabazitaxel is safe and well tolerated for metastatic breast cancer and requires fewer hospital visits than weekly paclitaxel, which is very important for patients and health care providers, but more so in the current situation,” he said in an oral abstract session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting (Abstract 1008).

Cabazitaxel is currently approved in the United States and Europe in combination with prednisone for treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing treatment regimen. It is not currently approved for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, but has been explored for this indication in clinical trials.

“In the metastatic setting, where patients continue on treatment pretty much indefinitely until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, the use of an every-3-week regimen could be attractive, because it means less visits for the patients, and it appears that this drug has lower toxicity in terms of peripheral neuropathy,” said breast cancer specialist Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Bardia, of Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, commented on the study in an interview.

Although paclitaxel is commonly used as first-line chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, it is associated with only modest response rates, ranging from 21.5% to 53.7% and carries significant risk of peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Bahl and colleagues noted.

“There is an unmet need for an alternative first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy agent, and cabazitaxel is a taxoid agent which has showed promising results in phase 2 trial of metastatic breast cancer patients in the second-line setting, even those with taxane resistance,” he said.
 

Open-label trial

To see whether cabazitaxel could meet those requirements, the investigators conducted a phase 2 randomized trial in which patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer not previously treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy were assigned, 79 in each arm, to receive cabazitaxel 25 mg/m² every 3 weeks, or paclitaxel 80 mg/m² weekly.

The median patient age was 56 years in the cabazitaxel group and 61 years in the paclitaxel group. Roughly two-thirds of patients in each arm had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, and the remainder had ECOG performance status 1.

In each arm, the median time on treatment was 15 weeks, but treatment delays and dose reductions were more common among patients on paclitaxel than cabazitaxel (61% vs. 39%, and 37% vs. 24%, respectively).

There were 149 PFS events at the time of the analysis. The median PFS with cabazitaxel was 6.7 months vs. 5.8 months with paclitaxel. This difference was not statistically significant. Median overall survival was 20.6 months in the cabazitaxel arm, vs. 18.2 months 20.0 months, respectively.

Similarly, there were no significant differences in either the overall response rates (42% vs. 37%), or time to response.

There were no complete responses with cabazitaxel vs. two (2.5%) with paclitaxel. The respective partial response rates were 41.8% vs. 34.2%.

In a subgroup analysis of PFS, there were no significant between-arm differences, except for an improved PFS in patients 65 and older with cabazitaxel (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.80).
 

Quality of life favors cabazitaxel

Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 42% of patients on cabazitaxel vs. 51% on paclitaxel. Diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and nausea were the most common grade 3 or greater events in the cabazitaxel arm, whereas grade 3 or greater lung infection and peripheral neuropathy were more common with paclitaxel.

Sensory peripheral neuropathy of any grade occurred in 16% of patients assigned to cabazitaxel, compared with 54% assigned to paclitaxel. The respective rates of alopecia were 27% and 42%.

Over the course of treatment, the mean EuroQuol EQ-5D-5L single index utility score and visual analogue scale score were higher with cabazitaxel arm compared to paclitaxel, suggesting better patient quality of life with cabazitaxel.

In addition, throughout treatment patients in the cabazitaxel arm reported significantly better scores on The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Breast (FACT-B) breast cancer subscale, Dr. Bahl said.
 

Second-line may be better

ASCO invited discussant Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, pointed out that in the phase 2 GENEVIEVE trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel versus weekly paclitaxel as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with triple negative or luminal B/HER2 normal breast cancer the pathologic complete response rate with cabazitaxel was 1.2%, compared with 11% with paclitaxel.

“This GENEVIEVE trial, together with the CONCERT trial, suggests that there is not a big role for cabazitaxel to be used upfront before other taxanes,” she said.

However, in a phase 2 study of cabazitaxel as second-line therapy in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with taxanes, the overall response rate was 23%, “which is still of interest and importance for our patients,” she added.

Dr. Kok did not address quality of life differences between the regimens, however.

In a side note, Dr. Bardia said that “if there were an oral form of paclitaxel, that would certainly be very welcome, in that an oral drug is more convenient for patients, and would require fewer visits to the hospital.”

The CONCERT trial was funded by an investigator-sponsored study grant from Sanofi. Dr. Bahl disclosed honoraria and institutional research funding from Sanofi/Aventis and others, and travel expenses from Bayer and Roche. Dr. Kok disclosed a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, and institutional research funding from that company and others. Dr. Bardia disclosed a consulting or advisory role and research funding to his institution from multiple companies.

For patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, first line chemotherapy with cabazitaxel (Jevtana) every 3 weeks offers efficacy comparable to that of once-weekly paclitaxel, but with lower risk for peripheral neuropathy and better patient-reported quality of life, investigators in the multicenter CONCERT trial found.

In an open-label clinical trial of 158 patients from 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) or a secondary overall survival endpoint between patients randomly assigned to initial chemotherapy with cabazitaxel every 3 weeks or weekly paclitaxel, reported Amit Bahl, MD, of University Hospital Bristol, England, and colleagues.

“Cabazitaxel is safe and well tolerated for metastatic breast cancer and requires fewer hospital visits than weekly paclitaxel, which is very important for patients and health care providers, but more so in the current situation,” he said in an oral abstract session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting (Abstract 1008).

Cabazitaxel is currently approved in the United States and Europe in combination with prednisone for treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing treatment regimen. It is not currently approved for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, but has been explored for this indication in clinical trials.

“In the metastatic setting, where patients continue on treatment pretty much indefinitely until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, the use of an every-3-week regimen could be attractive, because it means less visits for the patients, and it appears that this drug has lower toxicity in terms of peripheral neuropathy,” said breast cancer specialist Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Bardia, of Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, commented on the study in an interview.

Although paclitaxel is commonly used as first-line chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, it is associated with only modest response rates, ranging from 21.5% to 53.7% and carries significant risk of peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Bahl and colleagues noted.

“There is an unmet need for an alternative first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy agent, and cabazitaxel is a taxoid agent which has showed promising results in phase 2 trial of metastatic breast cancer patients in the second-line setting, even those with taxane resistance,” he said.
 

Open-label trial

To see whether cabazitaxel could meet those requirements, the investigators conducted a phase 2 randomized trial in which patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer not previously treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy were assigned, 79 in each arm, to receive cabazitaxel 25 mg/m² every 3 weeks, or paclitaxel 80 mg/m² weekly.

The median patient age was 56 years in the cabazitaxel group and 61 years in the paclitaxel group. Roughly two-thirds of patients in each arm had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, and the remainder had ECOG performance status 1.

In each arm, the median time on treatment was 15 weeks, but treatment delays and dose reductions were more common among patients on paclitaxel than cabazitaxel (61% vs. 39%, and 37% vs. 24%, respectively).

There were 149 PFS events at the time of the analysis. The median PFS with cabazitaxel was 6.7 months vs. 5.8 months with paclitaxel. This difference was not statistically significant. Median overall survival was 20.6 months in the cabazitaxel arm, vs. 18.2 months 20.0 months, respectively.

Similarly, there were no significant differences in either the overall response rates (42% vs. 37%), or time to response.

There were no complete responses with cabazitaxel vs. two (2.5%) with paclitaxel. The respective partial response rates were 41.8% vs. 34.2%.

In a subgroup analysis of PFS, there were no significant between-arm differences, except for an improved PFS in patients 65 and older with cabazitaxel (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.80).
 

Quality of life favors cabazitaxel

Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 42% of patients on cabazitaxel vs. 51% on paclitaxel. Diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and nausea were the most common grade 3 or greater events in the cabazitaxel arm, whereas grade 3 or greater lung infection and peripheral neuropathy were more common with paclitaxel.

Sensory peripheral neuropathy of any grade occurred in 16% of patients assigned to cabazitaxel, compared with 54% assigned to paclitaxel. The respective rates of alopecia were 27% and 42%.

Over the course of treatment, the mean EuroQuol EQ-5D-5L single index utility score and visual analogue scale score were higher with cabazitaxel arm compared to paclitaxel, suggesting better patient quality of life with cabazitaxel.

In addition, throughout treatment patients in the cabazitaxel arm reported significantly better scores on The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Breast (FACT-B) breast cancer subscale, Dr. Bahl said.
 

Second-line may be better

ASCO invited discussant Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, pointed out that in the phase 2 GENEVIEVE trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel versus weekly paclitaxel as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with triple negative or luminal B/HER2 normal breast cancer the pathologic complete response rate with cabazitaxel was 1.2%, compared with 11% with paclitaxel.

“This GENEVIEVE trial, together with the CONCERT trial, suggests that there is not a big role for cabazitaxel to be used upfront before other taxanes,” she said.

However, in a phase 2 study of cabazitaxel as second-line therapy in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with taxanes, the overall response rate was 23%, “which is still of interest and importance for our patients,” she added.

Dr. Kok did not address quality of life differences between the regimens, however.

In a side note, Dr. Bardia said that “if there were an oral form of paclitaxel, that would certainly be very welcome, in that an oral drug is more convenient for patients, and would require fewer visits to the hospital.”

The CONCERT trial was funded by an investigator-sponsored study grant from Sanofi. Dr. Bahl disclosed honoraria and institutional research funding from Sanofi/Aventis and others, and travel expenses from Bayer and Roche. Dr. Kok disclosed a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, and institutional research funding from that company and others. Dr. Bardia disclosed a consulting or advisory role and research funding to his institution from multiple companies.

For patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, first line chemotherapy with cabazitaxel (Jevtana) every 3 weeks offers efficacy comparable to that of once-weekly paclitaxel, but with lower risk for peripheral neuropathy and better patient-reported quality of life, investigators in the multicenter CONCERT trial found.

In an open-label clinical trial of 158 patients from 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) or a secondary overall survival endpoint between patients randomly assigned to initial chemotherapy with cabazitaxel every 3 weeks or weekly paclitaxel, reported Amit Bahl, MD, of University Hospital Bristol, England, and colleagues.

“Cabazitaxel is safe and well tolerated for metastatic breast cancer and requires fewer hospital visits than weekly paclitaxel, which is very important for patients and health care providers, but more so in the current situation,” he said in an oral abstract session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting (Abstract 1008).

Cabazitaxel is currently approved in the United States and Europe in combination with prednisone for treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing treatment regimen. It is not currently approved for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, but has been explored for this indication in clinical trials.

“In the metastatic setting, where patients continue on treatment pretty much indefinitely until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, the use of an every-3-week regimen could be attractive, because it means less visits for the patients, and it appears that this drug has lower toxicity in terms of peripheral neuropathy,” said breast cancer specialist Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Bardia, of Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, commented on the study in an interview.

Although paclitaxel is commonly used as first-line chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, it is associated with only modest response rates, ranging from 21.5% to 53.7% and carries significant risk of peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Bahl and colleagues noted.

“There is an unmet need for an alternative first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy agent, and cabazitaxel is a taxoid agent which has showed promising results in phase 2 trial of metastatic breast cancer patients in the second-line setting, even those with taxane resistance,” he said.
 

Open-label trial

To see whether cabazitaxel could meet those requirements, the investigators conducted a phase 2 randomized trial in which patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer not previously treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy were assigned, 79 in each arm, to receive cabazitaxel 25 mg/m² every 3 weeks, or paclitaxel 80 mg/m² weekly.

The median patient age was 56 years in the cabazitaxel group and 61 years in the paclitaxel group. Roughly two-thirds of patients in each arm had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, and the remainder had ECOG performance status 1.

In each arm, the median time on treatment was 15 weeks, but treatment delays and dose reductions were more common among patients on paclitaxel than cabazitaxel (61% vs. 39%, and 37% vs. 24%, respectively).

There were 149 PFS events at the time of the analysis. The median PFS with cabazitaxel was 6.7 months vs. 5.8 months with paclitaxel. This difference was not statistically significant. Median overall survival was 20.6 months in the cabazitaxel arm, vs. 18.2 months 20.0 months, respectively.

Similarly, there were no significant differences in either the overall response rates (42% vs. 37%), or time to response.

There were no complete responses with cabazitaxel vs. two (2.5%) with paclitaxel. The respective partial response rates were 41.8% vs. 34.2%.

In a subgroup analysis of PFS, there were no significant between-arm differences, except for an improved PFS in patients 65 and older with cabazitaxel (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.80).
 

Quality of life favors cabazitaxel

Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 42% of patients on cabazitaxel vs. 51% on paclitaxel. Diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and nausea were the most common grade 3 or greater events in the cabazitaxel arm, whereas grade 3 or greater lung infection and peripheral neuropathy were more common with paclitaxel.

Sensory peripheral neuropathy of any grade occurred in 16% of patients assigned to cabazitaxel, compared with 54% assigned to paclitaxel. The respective rates of alopecia were 27% and 42%.

Over the course of treatment, the mean EuroQuol EQ-5D-5L single index utility score and visual analogue scale score were higher with cabazitaxel arm compared to paclitaxel, suggesting better patient quality of life with cabazitaxel.

In addition, throughout treatment patients in the cabazitaxel arm reported significantly better scores on The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Breast (FACT-B) breast cancer subscale, Dr. Bahl said.
 

Second-line may be better

ASCO invited discussant Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, pointed out that in the phase 2 GENEVIEVE trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel versus weekly paclitaxel as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with triple negative or luminal B/HER2 normal breast cancer the pathologic complete response rate with cabazitaxel was 1.2%, compared with 11% with paclitaxel.

“This GENEVIEVE trial, together with the CONCERT trial, suggests that there is not a big role for cabazitaxel to be used upfront before other taxanes,” she said.

However, in a phase 2 study of cabazitaxel as second-line therapy in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with taxanes, the overall response rate was 23%, “which is still of interest and importance for our patients,” she added.

Dr. Kok did not address quality of life differences between the regimens, however.

In a side note, Dr. Bardia said that “if there were an oral form of paclitaxel, that would certainly be very welcome, in that an oral drug is more convenient for patients, and would require fewer visits to the hospital.”

The CONCERT trial was funded by an investigator-sponsored study grant from Sanofi. Dr. Bahl disclosed honoraria and institutional research funding from Sanofi/Aventis and others, and travel expenses from Bayer and Roche. Dr. Kok disclosed a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, and institutional research funding from that company and others. Dr. Bardia disclosed a consulting or advisory role and research funding to his institution from multiple companies.

A novel 16-gene panel based on the biology of locoregional recurrence in early invasive breast cancer can both identify patients with a low risk of recurrence if they were to skip postsurgery radiation therapy, and predict which patients would be unlikely to benefit from adjuvant radiation, investigators reported.

Among 354 patients with stage I or II invasive estrogen receptor–positive (ER+), HER2-negative breast cancers who did not receive adjuvant systemic therapy, the genomic signature, dubbed POLAR (Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation) was prognostic for locoregional recurrence in patients who did not undergo radiation therapy, reported Martin Sjöström, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

They reported their findings in a poster presented during the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting (Abstract 512).

“This is to our knowledge the first radiation-omission signature that is both prognostic and predictive: prognostic for outcomes in the absence of radiation, and predictive of benefits,” coauthor Corey Speers MD, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

The investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of data on patients enrolled in the SweBCG 91 RT trial, in which 1,187 patients with T1-2N0M0 breast cancer underwent a standardized radical sector resection and were then randomly assigned to either postoperative radiotherapy or no further treatment.

As the investigators reported in a long-term follow-up study presented in 2010 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, the addition of postoperative radiation did not significantly affect overall survival, but was associated with a significant improvement in recurrence-free survival.

In the study presented at ASCO 2021, Dr. Sjöström and colleagues in Sweden, the United States, and Canada sought to determine whether they could identify a genomic signature that would identify women at very low risk for recurrence who could safely be spared from radiotherapy.

They focused on those patients in the study with ER+, HER2-negative tumors who did not receive adjuvant systemic therapy. The patients were divided into a training cohort of 243, and a validation cohort of 354 patients.

The investigators performed transcriptome-wide profiling of tumors, and identified both biological gene sets and individuals genes associated with locoregional recurrence among patients in the training set who did not receive radiotherapy.

The final POLAR genomic signature, containing 16 genes, was locked prior to testing in the validation cohort.

In a multivariable Cox model adjusting for age, grade, tumor size and luminal A vs. luminal B subtype, the POLAR gene set was prognostic for locoregional recurrence, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.7 (P < .001).

The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate for patients in the POLAR low-risk category who had not received radiation was 7%, and there was no significant benefit for POLAR low-risk patients who did receive radiation (HR 1.1, P = ns).

In contrast, patients classified as POLAR high risk who received radiotherapy had significantly lower risk for locoregional recurrence than high-risk patients who did not receive radiotherapy (HR 0.43, P = .0053).

Dr. Speers said that the POLAR signature appears to be unique in its ability to discriminate radiation-omission risk.

“At least looking in this cohort in the Swedish trial, none of other previously derived signatures – Mammaprint, ProSigna, Oncotype – were prognostic or predictive of locoregional recurrence events with radiation,” he said.

The investigators are currently exploring the POLAR signature in other clinical trials in which patients were randomized to receive radiation or no radiation.
 

­‘A true victory’

Invited discussant Benjamin D. Smith, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, pointed out that in randomized clinical trials, approximately 60% of patients treated for early breast cancer did not experience recurrence in the absence of radiation, and that radiation prevented recurrence in about 30%, while about 10% experienced recurrence despite receiving radiation.

He said that the study by Dr. Sjöström and colleagues asks the question “can we use molecular factors to help identify patients who will not recur with lumpectomy alone without radiation therapy?”

The 60% of patients who will not experience recurrence in the absence of radiation can be categorized into two subpopulations: those with no residual malignant clonogens – the population included in this study by Dr. Sjöström and colleagues – and those with residual clonogens in the breast or elsewhere in the body that are sensitive to adjuvant endocrine therapy.

He said that the 7% 10-year risk of recurrence among patients in the POLAR low-risk group, who had neither radiation nor endocrine therapy, “is an exceptional outcome, which should be applauded, and I would point out that this risk of local recurrence of only 7% is at least in the same ballpark as the risk of recurrence that we accept every day when we treat early stage breast cancer patients with mastectomy alone, so this is a true victory.

“When we reflect on these provocative results from Dr. Sjöström and colleagues, it prompts in mind the question, could there be a group of patients with early breast cancer for whom a true ‘one-and-done’ strategy could be effective and safe?” Dr. Smith said.

Getting there will require a multidisciplinary, multimodality approach, involving imaging features of the primary tumor, clinical and pathologic features, and molecular information such as that provided by the POLAR genomic signature, he said.

The study was supported by PFS Genomics. Dr. Sjöström reported institutional funding from PFS Genomics. Dr. Speers disclosed stock and other ownership interests in the company, and he has applied for a patent on methods and genomic classifiers for prognosis of breast cancer and predicting benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy. Dr. Smith reported an equity interest in Oncora Medical, and an uncompensated relationship with the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

A novel 16-gene panel based on the biology of locoregional recurrence in early invasive breast cancer can both identify patients with a low risk of recurrence if they were to skip postsurgery radiation therapy, and predict which patients would be unlikely to benefit from adjuvant radiation, investigators reported.

Among 354 patients with stage I or II invasive estrogen receptor–positive (ER+), HER2-negative breast cancers who did not receive adjuvant systemic therapy, the genomic signature, dubbed POLAR (Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation) was prognostic for locoregional recurrence in patients who did not undergo radiation therapy, reported Martin Sjöström, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

They reported their findings in a poster presented during the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting (Abstract 512).

“This is to our knowledge the first radiation-omission signature that is both prognostic and predictive: prognostic for outcomes in the absence of radiation, and predictive of benefits,” coauthor Corey Speers MD, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

The investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of data on patients enrolled in the SweBCG 91 RT trial, in which 1,187 patients with T1-2N0M0 breast cancer underwent a standardized radical sector resection and were then randomly assigned to either postoperative radiotherapy or no further treatment.

As the investigators reported in a long-term follow-up study presented in 2010 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, the addition of postoperative radiation did not significantly affect overall survival, but was associated with a significant improvement in recurrence-free survival.

In the study presented at ASCO 2021, Dr. Sjöström and colleagues in Sweden, the United States, and Canada sought to determine whether they could identify a genomic signature that would identify women at very low risk for recurrence who could safely be spared from radiotherapy.

They focused on those patients in the study with ER+, HER2-negative tumors who did not receive adjuvant systemic therapy. The patients were divided into a training cohort of 243, and a validation cohort of 354 patients.

The investigators performed transcriptome-wide profiling of tumors, and identified both biological gene sets and individuals genes associated with locoregional recurrence among patients in the training set who did not receive radiotherapy.

The final POLAR genomic signature, containing 16 genes, was locked prior to testing in the validation cohort.

In a multivariable Cox model adjusting for age, grade, tumor size and luminal A vs. luminal B subtype, the POLAR gene set was prognostic for locoregional recurrence, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.7 (P < .001).

The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate for patients in the POLAR low-risk category who had not received radiation was 7%, and there was no significant benefit for POLAR low-risk patients who did receive radiation (HR 1.1, P = ns).

In contrast, patients classified as POLAR high risk who received radiotherapy had significantly lower risk for locoregional recurrence than high-risk patients who did not receive radiotherapy (HR 0.43, P = .0053).

Dr. Speers said that the POLAR signature appears to be unique in its ability to discriminate radiation-omission risk.

“At least looking in this cohort in the Swedish trial, none of other previously derived signatures – Mammaprint, ProSigna, Oncotype – were prognostic or predictive of locoregional recurrence events with radiation,” he said.

The investigators are currently exploring the POLAR signature in other clinical trials in which patients were randomized to receive radiation or no radiation.
 

­‘A true victory’

Invited discussant Benjamin D. Smith, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, pointed out that in randomized clinical trials, approximately 60% of patients treated for early breast cancer did not experience recurrence in the absence of radiation, and that radiation prevented recurrence in about 30%, while about 10% experienced recurrence despite receiving radiation.

He said that the study by Dr. Sjöström and colleagues asks the question “can we use molecular factors to help identify patients who will not recur with lumpectomy alone without radiation therapy?”

The 60% of patients who will not experience recurrence in the absence of radiation can be categorized into two subpopulations: those with no residual malignant clonogens – the population included in this study by Dr. Sjöström and colleagues – and those with residual clonogens in the breast or elsewhere in the body that are sensitive to adjuvant endocrine therapy.

He said that the 7% 10-year risk of recurrence among patients in the POLAR low-risk group, who had neither radiation nor endocrine therapy, “is an exceptional outcome, which should be applauded, and I would point out that this risk of local recurrence of only 7% is at least in the same ballpark as the risk of recurrence that we accept every day when we treat early stage breast cancer patients with mastectomy alone, so this is a true victory.

“When we reflect on these provocative results from Dr. Sjöström and colleagues, it prompts in mind the question, could there be a group of patients with early breast cancer for whom a true ‘one-and-done’ strategy could be effective and safe?” Dr. Smith said.

Getting there will require a multidisciplinary, multimodality approach, involving imaging features of the primary tumor, clinical and pathologic features, and molecular information such as that provided by the POLAR genomic signature, he said.

The study was supported by PFS Genomics. Dr. Sjöström reported institutional funding from PFS Genomics. Dr. Speers disclosed stock and other ownership interests in the company, and he has applied for a patent on methods and genomic classifiers for prognosis of breast cancer and predicting benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy. Dr. Smith reported an equity interest in Oncora Medical, and an uncompensated relationship with the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

A novel 16-gene panel based on the biology of locoregional recurrence in early invasive breast cancer can both identify patients with a low risk of recurrence if they were to skip postsurgery radiation therapy, and predict which patients would be unlikely to benefit from adjuvant radiation, investigators reported.

Among 354 patients with stage I or II invasive estrogen receptor–positive (ER+), HER2-negative breast cancers who did not receive adjuvant systemic therapy, the genomic signature, dubbed POLAR (Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation) was prognostic for locoregional recurrence in patients who did not undergo radiation therapy, reported Martin Sjöström, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

They reported their findings in a poster presented during the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting (Abstract 512).

“This is to our knowledge the first radiation-omission signature that is both prognostic and predictive: prognostic for outcomes in the absence of radiation, and predictive of benefits,” coauthor Corey Speers MD, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

The investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of data on patients enrolled in the SweBCG 91 RT trial, in which 1,187 patients with T1-2N0M0 breast cancer underwent a standardized radical sector resection and were then randomly assigned to either postoperative radiotherapy or no further treatment.

As the investigators reported in a long-term follow-up study presented in 2010 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, the addition of postoperative radiation did not significantly affect overall survival, but was associated with a significant improvement in recurrence-free survival.

In the study presented at ASCO 2021, Dr. Sjöström and colleagues in Sweden, the United States, and Canada sought to determine whether they could identify a genomic signature that would identify women at very low risk for recurrence who could safely be spared from radiotherapy.

They focused on those patients in the study with ER+, HER2-negative tumors who did not receive adjuvant systemic therapy. The patients were divided into a training cohort of 243, and a validation cohort of 354 patients.

The investigators performed transcriptome-wide profiling of tumors, and identified both biological gene sets and individuals genes associated with locoregional recurrence among patients in the training set who did not receive radiotherapy.

The final POLAR genomic signature, containing 16 genes, was locked prior to testing in the validation cohort.

In a multivariable Cox model adjusting for age, grade, tumor size and luminal A vs. luminal B subtype, the POLAR gene set was prognostic for locoregional recurrence, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.7 (P < .001).

The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate for patients in the POLAR low-risk category who had not received radiation was 7%, and there was no significant benefit for POLAR low-risk patients who did receive radiation (HR 1.1, P = ns).

In contrast, patients classified as POLAR high risk who received radiotherapy had significantly lower risk for locoregional recurrence than high-risk patients who did not receive radiotherapy (HR 0.43, P = .0053).

Dr. Speers said that the POLAR signature appears to be unique in its ability to discriminate radiation-omission risk.

“At least looking in this cohort in the Swedish trial, none of other previously derived signatures – Mammaprint, ProSigna, Oncotype – were prognostic or predictive of locoregional recurrence events with radiation,” he said.

The investigators are currently exploring the POLAR signature in other clinical trials in which patients were randomized to receive radiation or no radiation.
 

­‘A true victory’

Invited discussant Benjamin D. Smith, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, pointed out that in randomized clinical trials, approximately 60% of patients treated for early breast cancer did not experience recurrence in the absence of radiation, and that radiation prevented recurrence in about 30%, while about 10% experienced recurrence despite receiving radiation.

He said that the study by Dr. Sjöström and colleagues asks the question “can we use molecular factors to help identify patients who will not recur with lumpectomy alone without radiation therapy?”

The 60% of patients who will not experience recurrence in the absence of radiation can be categorized into two subpopulations: those with no residual malignant clonogens – the population included in this study by Dr. Sjöström and colleagues – and those with residual clonogens in the breast or elsewhere in the body that are sensitive to adjuvant endocrine therapy.

He said that the 7% 10-year risk of recurrence among patients in the POLAR low-risk group, who had neither radiation nor endocrine therapy, “is an exceptional outcome, which should be applauded, and I would point out that this risk of local recurrence of only 7% is at least in the same ballpark as the risk of recurrence that we accept every day when we treat early stage breast cancer patients with mastectomy alone, so this is a true victory.

“When we reflect on these provocative results from Dr. Sjöström and colleagues, it prompts in mind the question, could there be a group of patients with early breast cancer for whom a true ‘one-and-done’ strategy could be effective and safe?” Dr. Smith said.

Getting there will require a multidisciplinary, multimodality approach, involving imaging features of the primary tumor, clinical and pathologic features, and molecular information such as that provided by the POLAR genomic signature, he said.

The study was supported by PFS Genomics. Dr. Sjöström reported institutional funding from PFS Genomics. Dr. Speers disclosed stock and other ownership interests in the company, and he has applied for a patent on methods and genomic classifiers for prognosis of breast cancer and predicting benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy. Dr. Smith reported an equity interest in Oncora Medical, and an uncompensated relationship with the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

For women with HER2-positive early breast cancer treated with an anthracycline-based regimen followed by trastuzumab (Herceptin), concurrent therapy with the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor lisinopril can help to prevent a decline in left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below 50%, investigators in a community-based study found.

Among 424 women with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer, the rate of LVEF decline to below 50% was 21.4% among patients randomized to receive an anthracycline-based regimen, compared with 4.1% for patients who were treated with a non–anthracycline-based regimen.

Among patients in the anthracycline arm, treatment with lisinopril, but not carvedilol or placebo, was associated with significant protection against LVEF decline, reported Pamela N. Munster, MD, of the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco.

“The findings of this study suggested that the drop in left ventricular ejection fraction to below 50% or to below normal was much larger than previously reported in the anthracycline group,” she said in a video presentation during a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. (Abstract 509).

Although HER2 inhibition is a highly effective treatment strategy for patients with HER2-positive tumors, trastuzumab-associated decline in LVEF and clinical heart failure can result in treatment interruption or discontinuation of therapy, the authors noted.

They conducted the prospective randomized trial to see whether trastuzumab-associated cardiotoxicity could be mitigated by concurrent use of either an ACE inhibitor or beta-blocker.

They enrolled women with early HER2-positive breast cancer from 127 community-based oncology centers.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive either an anthracycline- or non–anthracycline-containing regimen, followed by a year of trastuzumab, and were then randomized again to receive either lisinopril, carvedilol, or placebo concurrently with trastuzumab.

The patients were assessed for cardiotoxicity every 12 weeks with a multiple-gated acquisition (MUGA) scan and echocardiogram. Cardiotoxicity was defined as an absolute decrease in LVEF of 10% or more, or at least 5% decrease in LVEF below 50% at baseline.
 

Small LVEF declines in all

The investigators observed that all patients in the study experienced a small but not clinically relevant decrease in LVEF during trastuzumab therapy, and that this decline was not significantly ameliorated by any of the interventions.

However, as noted before, among patients assigned to anthracycline-based regimens the rate of decline to LVEF below 50% was 21.4%, compared with 4.1 for patients assigned to non–anthracycline regimens.

LVEF declines of at least 10% occurred in 5.5% of patients who received anthracyclines, and in 14.4% of those who received a non-anthracycline regimen.

Among patients who received anthracycline, only 10.8% randomized to receive lisinopril prophylaxis experienced a decline in LVEF, compared with 30.5% assigned to placebo (P = .045).

“In contrast, while carvedilol showed a numerical prevention of LVEF below 50% to 22.8%, this was not statistically significant,” Dr. Munster said.

Decreases in LVEF of 10% or greater within the normal LVEF range were similar in both chemotherapy arms and were not affected by either lisinopril or carvedilol.

“Lisinopril was well tolerated in this group, even in patients without hypertension,” she said.

“In women treated in a community-based environment who could benefit from anthracyclines or where anthracyclines are indicated, one should anticipate the decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction to below normal to be larger than is reported by other groups. However, this could be prevented by lisinopril,” she concluded.
 

Low numbers overall

Invited discussant Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, noted that the overall number of cardiotoxicity events and the rate of important decreases in LVEF were comparatively low.

She also pointed out that the findings are in line with another recent analysis of the same cohort by the same authors, although in the earlier analysis the investigators found that the effect on cardiotoxicity-free survival was good with both agents compared with placebo, but slightly better with carvedilol (hazard ratio 0.49, P = .009) than with lisinopril (HR 0.53, P = .015).

“Lisinopril has the most important effect regarding preventing decrease of LVEF below 50%. When we look at the curves of LVEF drops above 10%, carvedilol seems to have a slightly bigger effect,” she said.

The trial was cosponsored by the SunCoast Community Clinical Oncology Programs Research Base at University of South Florida, Tampa, and by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Munster disclosed leadership positions, stock ownership, and consulting or advisory roles with several companies. Dr. Cardoso disclosed consulting or advisory roles and travel support from multiple companies.

For women with HER2-positive early breast cancer treated with an anthracycline-based regimen followed by trastuzumab (Herceptin), concurrent therapy with the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor lisinopril can help to prevent a decline in left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below 50%, investigators in a community-based study found.

Among 424 women with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer, the rate of LVEF decline to below 50% was 21.4% among patients randomized to receive an anthracycline-based regimen, compared with 4.1% for patients who were treated with a non–anthracycline-based regimen.

Among patients in the anthracycline arm, treatment with lisinopril, but not carvedilol or placebo, was associated with significant protection against LVEF decline, reported Pamela N. Munster, MD, of the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco.

“The findings of this study suggested that the drop in left ventricular ejection fraction to below 50% or to below normal was much larger than previously reported in the anthracycline group,” she said in a video presentation during a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. (Abstract 509).

Although HER2 inhibition is a highly effective treatment strategy for patients with HER2-positive tumors, trastuzumab-associated decline in LVEF and clinical heart failure can result in treatment interruption or discontinuation of therapy, the authors noted.

They conducted the prospective randomized trial to see whether trastuzumab-associated cardiotoxicity could be mitigated by concurrent use of either an ACE inhibitor or beta-blocker.

They enrolled women with early HER2-positive breast cancer from 127 community-based oncology centers.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive either an anthracycline- or non–anthracycline-containing regimen, followed by a year of trastuzumab, and were then randomized again to receive either lisinopril, carvedilol, or placebo concurrently with trastuzumab.

The patients were assessed for cardiotoxicity every 12 weeks with a multiple-gated acquisition (MUGA) scan and echocardiogram. Cardiotoxicity was defined as an absolute decrease in LVEF of 10% or more, or at least 5% decrease in LVEF below 50% at baseline.
 

Small LVEF declines in all

The investigators observed that all patients in the study experienced a small but not clinically relevant decrease in LVEF during trastuzumab therapy, and that this decline was not significantly ameliorated by any of the interventions.

However, as noted before, among patients assigned to anthracycline-based regimens the rate of decline to LVEF below 50% was 21.4%, compared with 4.1 for patients assigned to non–anthracycline regimens.

LVEF declines of at least 10% occurred in 5.5% of patients who received anthracyclines, and in 14.4% of those who received a non-anthracycline regimen.

Among patients who received anthracycline, only 10.8% randomized to receive lisinopril prophylaxis experienced a decline in LVEF, compared with 30.5% assigned to placebo (P = .045).

“In contrast, while carvedilol showed a numerical prevention of LVEF below 50% to 22.8%, this was not statistically significant,” Dr. Munster said.

Decreases in LVEF of 10% or greater within the normal LVEF range were similar in both chemotherapy arms and were not affected by either lisinopril or carvedilol.

“Lisinopril was well tolerated in this group, even in patients without hypertension,” she said.

“In women treated in a community-based environment who could benefit from anthracyclines or where anthracyclines are indicated, one should anticipate the decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction to below normal to be larger than is reported by other groups. However, this could be prevented by lisinopril,” she concluded.
 

Low numbers overall

Invited discussant Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, noted that the overall number of cardiotoxicity events and the rate of important decreases in LVEF were comparatively low.

She also pointed out that the findings are in line with another recent analysis of the same cohort by the same authors, although in the earlier analysis the investigators found that the effect on cardiotoxicity-free survival was good with both agents compared with placebo, but slightly better with carvedilol (hazard ratio 0.49, P = .009) than with lisinopril (HR 0.53, P = .015).

“Lisinopril has the most important effect regarding preventing decrease of LVEF below 50%. When we look at the curves of LVEF drops above 10%, carvedilol seems to have a slightly bigger effect,” she said.

The trial was cosponsored by the SunCoast Community Clinical Oncology Programs Research Base at University of South Florida, Tampa, and by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Munster disclosed leadership positions, stock ownership, and consulting or advisory roles with several companies. Dr. Cardoso disclosed consulting or advisory roles and travel support from multiple companies.

For women with HER2-positive early breast cancer treated with an anthracycline-based regimen followed by trastuzumab (Herceptin), concurrent therapy with the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor lisinopril can help to prevent a decline in left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below 50%, investigators in a community-based study found.

Among 424 women with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer, the rate of LVEF decline to below 50% was 21.4% among patients randomized to receive an anthracycline-based regimen, compared with 4.1% for patients who were treated with a non–anthracycline-based regimen.

Among patients in the anthracycline arm, treatment with lisinopril, but not carvedilol or placebo, was associated with significant protection against LVEF decline, reported Pamela N. Munster, MD, of the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco.

“The findings of this study suggested that the drop in left ventricular ejection fraction to below 50% or to below normal was much larger than previously reported in the anthracycline group,” she said in a video presentation during a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. (Abstract 509).

Although HER2 inhibition is a highly effective treatment strategy for patients with HER2-positive tumors, trastuzumab-associated decline in LVEF and clinical heart failure can result in treatment interruption or discontinuation of therapy, the authors noted.

They conducted the prospective randomized trial to see whether trastuzumab-associated cardiotoxicity could be mitigated by concurrent use of either an ACE inhibitor or beta-blocker.

They enrolled women with early HER2-positive breast cancer from 127 community-based oncology centers.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive either an anthracycline- or non–anthracycline-containing regimen, followed by a year of trastuzumab, and were then randomized again to receive either lisinopril, carvedilol, or placebo concurrently with trastuzumab.

The patients were assessed for cardiotoxicity every 12 weeks with a multiple-gated acquisition (MUGA) scan and echocardiogram. Cardiotoxicity was defined as an absolute decrease in LVEF of 10% or more, or at least 5% decrease in LVEF below 50% at baseline.
 

Small LVEF declines in all

The investigators observed that all patients in the study experienced a small but not clinically relevant decrease in LVEF during trastuzumab therapy, and that this decline was not significantly ameliorated by any of the interventions.

However, as noted before, among patients assigned to anthracycline-based regimens the rate of decline to LVEF below 50% was 21.4%, compared with 4.1 for patients assigned to non–anthracycline regimens.

LVEF declines of at least 10% occurred in 5.5% of patients who received anthracyclines, and in 14.4% of those who received a non-anthracycline regimen.

Among patients who received anthracycline, only 10.8% randomized to receive lisinopril prophylaxis experienced a decline in LVEF, compared with 30.5% assigned to placebo (P = .045).

“In contrast, while carvedilol showed a numerical prevention of LVEF below 50% to 22.8%, this was not statistically significant,” Dr. Munster said.

Decreases in LVEF of 10% or greater within the normal LVEF range were similar in both chemotherapy arms and were not affected by either lisinopril or carvedilol.

“Lisinopril was well tolerated in this group, even in patients without hypertension,” she said.

“In women treated in a community-based environment who could benefit from anthracyclines or where anthracyclines are indicated, one should anticipate the decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction to below normal to be larger than is reported by other groups. However, this could be prevented by lisinopril,” she concluded.
 

Low numbers overall

Invited discussant Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, noted that the overall number of cardiotoxicity events and the rate of important decreases in LVEF were comparatively low.

She also pointed out that the findings are in line with another recent analysis of the same cohort by the same authors, although in the earlier analysis the investigators found that the effect on cardiotoxicity-free survival was good with both agents compared with placebo, but slightly better with carvedilol (hazard ratio 0.49, P = .009) than with lisinopril (HR 0.53, P = .015).

“Lisinopril has the most important effect regarding preventing decrease of LVEF below 50%. When we look at the curves of LVEF drops above 10%, carvedilol seems to have a slightly bigger effect,” she said.

The trial was cosponsored by the SunCoast Community Clinical Oncology Programs Research Base at University of South Florida, Tampa, and by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Munster disclosed leadership positions, stock ownership, and consulting or advisory roles with several companies. Dr. Cardoso disclosed consulting or advisory roles and travel support from multiple companies.

Reassuring news for women who receive a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy: Pregnancy-induced alterations in the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapy do not appear to compromise outcomes for the mother.

That’s according to investigators who reviewed registry data on 662 pregnant women and 2,081 nonpregnant women with a diagnosis of breast cancer. After a median follow-up of 66 months, there were no significant differences in either disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS), and women who received more than 60% of their chemotherapy doses during pregnancy had survival comparable to that of nonpregnant women, reported Frédéric Amant, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium).

“These results support initiation of chemotherapy for breast cancer during pregnancy where indicated for oncological reasons,” they reported in a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. (Abstract 515).

Although in general a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy does not appear to affect the mother’s prognosis when standard therapy is used, “caution is warranted as gestational changes in pharmacokinetics with respect to the distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs may lead to reduced chemotherapy concentration in pregnant patients,” the authors wrote.

To get a better picture of the prognosis for women diagnosed with breast cancer during pregnancy, the investigators created a cohort of patients from two multicenter registries: the International Network of Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy and the German Breast Group. Both registries collect data retrospectively and prospectively,

They used propensity scoring to smooth out differences in the baseline characteristics of pregnant women and nonpregnant controls.

The median age at diagnosis was 34 year for pregnant women, and 38 years for controls. Pregnant women were more likely than were controls to have stage II disease (60.1% vs. 56, 1%, P = .035), grade 3 tumors (74% vs. 62.2%, P < .001), hormone receptor–negative breast tumors (48.4% vs. 30%), and triple-negative breast cancer (38.9% vs. 26.9%, P < .001).

In Cox proportional hazard regression analysis controlling for age, stage, grade, hormone receptor status, HER2 status and histology, there were no significant differences between pregnant women and controls in either DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, P = .83) or OS (HR 1.08, P = .57).

As noted before, a subgroup analysis of 339 women who received more than 60% of their assigned chemotherapy doses during pregnancy also showed that survival was not significantly different from that of nonpregnant women (HR for DFS 0,71, P = .13; HR for OS 0.85, P = .39).
 

Termination does not benefit the mother

“Thanks to the important work of Dr. Amant in the INCIP [International Network on Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy] network and others around the world, we now have sufficient data to know that it’s safe to treat breast cancer during pregnancy, and that the prognosis of breast cancer during pregnancy is comparable to nonpregnant controls if we adjust for certain characteristics such as age and others,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, Portugal, the invited discussant.

­­“With this and other studies, we can come to the conclusion that pregnancy-induced alterations in the chemotherapy concentration due to altered pharmacokinetics does not seem to affect maternal prognosis, and therefore we should initiate treatment of breast cancer during wherever it’s indicated for oncological reasons, knowing that you can only use chemotherapy during the second or third trimester,” she said.

Dr. Cardoso emphasized that breast cancer during pregnancy is a rare situation requiring that treatment be given in a specialized center by an experienced multidisciplinary team, and that interrupting the pregnancy does not improve the mother’s prognosis.

“We have to spread the word to all health professionals who come across these women to stop advising them to immediately terminate pregnancy. For the children, the most important take-home message is avoid prematurely delivery,” she said.

Treatment for women with a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy should be similar to that for nonpregnant women, with the exception of endocrine therapy and anti-HER2 agents, which should be withheld until after delivery, she added.

The study was supported by the European Research Council, Research Foundation Flanders, and Kom op tegen kanker (Stand Up to Cancer). Dr. Amant disclosed a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Cardoso disclosed consulting or advisory roles and travel support from multiple companies.

Reassuring news for women who receive a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy: Pregnancy-induced alterations in the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapy do not appear to compromise outcomes for the mother.

That’s according to investigators who reviewed registry data on 662 pregnant women and 2,081 nonpregnant women with a diagnosis of breast cancer. After a median follow-up of 66 months, there were no significant differences in either disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS), and women who received more than 60% of their chemotherapy doses during pregnancy had survival comparable to that of nonpregnant women, reported Frédéric Amant, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium).

“These results support initiation of chemotherapy for breast cancer during pregnancy where indicated for oncological reasons,” they reported in a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. (Abstract 515).

Although in general a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy does not appear to affect the mother’s prognosis when standard therapy is used, “caution is warranted as gestational changes in pharmacokinetics with respect to the distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs may lead to reduced chemotherapy concentration in pregnant patients,” the authors wrote.

To get a better picture of the prognosis for women diagnosed with breast cancer during pregnancy, the investigators created a cohort of patients from two multicenter registries: the International Network of Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy and the German Breast Group. Both registries collect data retrospectively and prospectively,

They used propensity scoring to smooth out differences in the baseline characteristics of pregnant women and nonpregnant controls.

The median age at diagnosis was 34 year for pregnant women, and 38 years for controls. Pregnant women were more likely than were controls to have stage II disease (60.1% vs. 56, 1%, P = .035), grade 3 tumors (74% vs. 62.2%, P < .001), hormone receptor–negative breast tumors (48.4% vs. 30%), and triple-negative breast cancer (38.9% vs. 26.9%, P < .001).

In Cox proportional hazard regression analysis controlling for age, stage, grade, hormone receptor status, HER2 status and histology, there were no significant differences between pregnant women and controls in either DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, P = .83) or OS (HR 1.08, P = .57).

As noted before, a subgroup analysis of 339 women who received more than 60% of their assigned chemotherapy doses during pregnancy also showed that survival was not significantly different from that of nonpregnant women (HR for DFS 0,71, P = .13; HR for OS 0.85, P = .39).
 

Termination does not benefit the mother

“Thanks to the important work of Dr. Amant in the INCIP [International Network on Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy] network and others around the world, we now have sufficient data to know that it’s safe to treat breast cancer during pregnancy, and that the prognosis of breast cancer during pregnancy is comparable to nonpregnant controls if we adjust for certain characteristics such as age and others,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, Portugal, the invited discussant.

­­“With this and other studies, we can come to the conclusion that pregnancy-induced alterations in the chemotherapy concentration due to altered pharmacokinetics does not seem to affect maternal prognosis, and therefore we should initiate treatment of breast cancer during wherever it’s indicated for oncological reasons, knowing that you can only use chemotherapy during the second or third trimester,” she said.

Dr. Cardoso emphasized that breast cancer during pregnancy is a rare situation requiring that treatment be given in a specialized center by an experienced multidisciplinary team, and that interrupting the pregnancy does not improve the mother’s prognosis.

“We have to spread the word to all health professionals who come across these women to stop advising them to immediately terminate pregnancy. For the children, the most important take-home message is avoid prematurely delivery,” she said.

Treatment for women with a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy should be similar to that for nonpregnant women, with the exception of endocrine therapy and anti-HER2 agents, which should be withheld until after delivery, she added.

The study was supported by the European Research Council, Research Foundation Flanders, and Kom op tegen kanker (Stand Up to Cancer). Dr. Amant disclosed a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Cardoso disclosed consulting or advisory roles and travel support from multiple companies.

Reassuring news for women who receive a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy: Pregnancy-induced alterations in the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapy do not appear to compromise outcomes for the mother.

That’s according to investigators who reviewed registry data on 662 pregnant women and 2,081 nonpregnant women with a diagnosis of breast cancer. After a median follow-up of 66 months, there were no significant differences in either disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS), and women who received more than 60% of their chemotherapy doses during pregnancy had survival comparable to that of nonpregnant women, reported Frédéric Amant, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium).

“These results support initiation of chemotherapy for breast cancer during pregnancy where indicated for oncological reasons,” they reported in a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. (Abstract 515).

Although in general a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy does not appear to affect the mother’s prognosis when standard therapy is used, “caution is warranted as gestational changes in pharmacokinetics with respect to the distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs may lead to reduced chemotherapy concentration in pregnant patients,” the authors wrote.

To get a better picture of the prognosis for women diagnosed with breast cancer during pregnancy, the investigators created a cohort of patients from two multicenter registries: the International Network of Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy and the German Breast Group. Both registries collect data retrospectively and prospectively,

They used propensity scoring to smooth out differences in the baseline characteristics of pregnant women and nonpregnant controls.

The median age at diagnosis was 34 year for pregnant women, and 38 years for controls. Pregnant women were more likely than were controls to have stage II disease (60.1% vs. 56, 1%, P = .035), grade 3 tumors (74% vs. 62.2%, P < .001), hormone receptor–negative breast tumors (48.4% vs. 30%), and triple-negative breast cancer (38.9% vs. 26.9%, P < .001).

In Cox proportional hazard regression analysis controlling for age, stage, grade, hormone receptor status, HER2 status and histology, there were no significant differences between pregnant women and controls in either DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, P = .83) or OS (HR 1.08, P = .57).

As noted before, a subgroup analysis of 339 women who received more than 60% of their assigned chemotherapy doses during pregnancy also showed that survival was not significantly different from that of nonpregnant women (HR for DFS 0,71, P = .13; HR for OS 0.85, P = .39).
 

Termination does not benefit the mother

“Thanks to the important work of Dr. Amant in the INCIP [International Network on Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy] network and others around the world, we now have sufficient data to know that it’s safe to treat breast cancer during pregnancy, and that the prognosis of breast cancer during pregnancy is comparable to nonpregnant controls if we adjust for certain characteristics such as age and others,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, Portugal, the invited discussant.

­­“With this and other studies, we can come to the conclusion that pregnancy-induced alterations in the chemotherapy concentration due to altered pharmacokinetics does not seem to affect maternal prognosis, and therefore we should initiate treatment of breast cancer during wherever it’s indicated for oncological reasons, knowing that you can only use chemotherapy during the second or third trimester,” she said.

Dr. Cardoso emphasized that breast cancer during pregnancy is a rare situation requiring that treatment be given in a specialized center by an experienced multidisciplinary team, and that interrupting the pregnancy does not improve the mother’s prognosis.

“We have to spread the word to all health professionals who come across these women to stop advising them to immediately terminate pregnancy. For the children, the most important take-home message is avoid prematurely delivery,” she said.

Treatment for women with a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy should be similar to that for nonpregnant women, with the exception of endocrine therapy and anti-HER2 agents, which should be withheld until after delivery, she added.

The study was supported by the European Research Council, Research Foundation Flanders, and Kom op tegen kanker (Stand Up to Cancer). Dr. Amant disclosed a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Cardoso disclosed consulting or advisory roles and travel support from multiple companies.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Vidyard Video

Hello. It’s Dr. Kathy Miller from Indiana University.

I have to admit that time has snuck up on me this year. It is already time for the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

I found it hard to keep track of time this year with the pandemic. Many of the things that help mark the passage of time haven’t happened, have happened at different times of the year than is typical, or have happened in different ways that just haven’t had the same impact in my brain.

Just recently, I was taking a look through the breast cancer program at ASCO and there is a special clinical science symposium that I want to make sure you know about and tune into. It’s the sort of session that might not otherwise reach you.

This has been a year of incredible turmoil and critical thinking about issues of race, ethnicity, justice, and how we can make sure that the medical care we’re providing is inclusive and equitable. How we can make sure we are giving the best outcome to all of our patients.

This special clinical science symposium this year includes several presentations that will delve into how genetically determined ancestry and socially determined race might impact the outcome of our patients. This is a tangled web that is difficult to unpack and separate, but there are clear distinctions here: The genes we inherit do affect how we metabolize drugs, what side effects we might have from drugs, and what drugs might be the best choices for us.

Our socially determined race affects how the world interacts with us. Those biases, be they conscious or unconscious, can affect where we live, where we go to school, how people treat us, what opportunities we have, and how the medical system treats us. They’re related, but they’re not the same. Tune into that clinical science symposium to begin thinking about those differences and how we can make sure we give our patients the best care.

There are other high-profile presentations that you’re going to want to see as well, looking at how we can optimize therapy in patients with HER2-positive disease and beginning to think about who might not need chemotherapy to have an excellent outcome in early-stage disease.

Also, we will be thinking about those patients with triple-negative disease who have residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We were all caught off guard with the results of the CREATE-X trial, quite frankly, several years ago.

This year we will hear the results of a postneoadjuvant trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group comparing platinum therapy with capecitabine. Tune in to think more about whether capecitabine really should be the standard of care in this population.

As always, I’m interested in your thoughts before or after ASCO. What stood out for you this year in breast cancer? Drop us a comment and let us know about these sessions and what else you found worthwhile.

Dr. Miller is associate director of clinical research and codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis. Her career has combined both laboratory and clinical research in breast cancer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Vidyard Video

Hello. It’s Dr. Kathy Miller from Indiana University.

I have to admit that time has snuck up on me this year. It is already time for the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

I found it hard to keep track of time this year with the pandemic. Many of the things that help mark the passage of time haven’t happened, have happened at different times of the year than is typical, or have happened in different ways that just haven’t had the same impact in my brain.

Just recently, I was taking a look through the breast cancer program at ASCO and there is a special clinical science symposium that I want to make sure you know about and tune into. It’s the sort of session that might not otherwise reach you.

This has been a year of incredible turmoil and critical thinking about issues of race, ethnicity, justice, and how we can make sure that the medical care we’re providing is inclusive and equitable. How we can make sure we are giving the best outcome to all of our patients.

This special clinical science symposium this year includes several presentations that will delve into how genetically determined ancestry and socially determined race might impact the outcome of our patients. This is a tangled web that is difficult to unpack and separate, but there are clear distinctions here: The genes we inherit do affect how we metabolize drugs, what side effects we might have from drugs, and what drugs might be the best choices for us.

Our socially determined race affects how the world interacts with us. Those biases, be they conscious or unconscious, can affect where we live, where we go to school, how people treat us, what opportunities we have, and how the medical system treats us. They’re related, but they’re not the same. Tune into that clinical science symposium to begin thinking about those differences and how we can make sure we give our patients the best care.

There are other high-profile presentations that you’re going to want to see as well, looking at how we can optimize therapy in patients with HER2-positive disease and beginning to think about who might not need chemotherapy to have an excellent outcome in early-stage disease.

Also, we will be thinking about those patients with triple-negative disease who have residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We were all caught off guard with the results of the CREATE-X trial, quite frankly, several years ago.

This year we will hear the results of a postneoadjuvant trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group comparing platinum therapy with capecitabine. Tune in to think more about whether capecitabine really should be the standard of care in this population.

As always, I’m interested in your thoughts before or after ASCO. What stood out for you this year in breast cancer? Drop us a comment and let us know about these sessions and what else you found worthwhile.

Dr. Miller is associate director of clinical research and codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis. Her career has combined both laboratory and clinical research in breast cancer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Vidyard Video

Hello. It’s Dr. Kathy Miller from Indiana University.

I have to admit that time has snuck up on me this year. It is already time for the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

I found it hard to keep track of time this year with the pandemic. Many of the things that help mark the passage of time haven’t happened, have happened at different times of the year than is typical, or have happened in different ways that just haven’t had the same impact in my brain.

Just recently, I was taking a look through the breast cancer program at ASCO and there is a special clinical science symposium that I want to make sure you know about and tune into. It’s the sort of session that might not otherwise reach you.

This has been a year of incredible turmoil and critical thinking about issues of race, ethnicity, justice, and how we can make sure that the medical care we’re providing is inclusive and equitable. How we can make sure we are giving the best outcome to all of our patients.

This special clinical science symposium this year includes several presentations that will delve into how genetically determined ancestry and socially determined race might impact the outcome of our patients. This is a tangled web that is difficult to unpack and separate, but there are clear distinctions here: The genes we inherit do affect how we metabolize drugs, what side effects we might have from drugs, and what drugs might be the best choices for us.

Our socially determined race affects how the world interacts with us. Those biases, be they conscious or unconscious, can affect where we live, where we go to school, how people treat us, what opportunities we have, and how the medical system treats us. They’re related, but they’re not the same. Tune into that clinical science symposium to begin thinking about those differences and how we can make sure we give our patients the best care.

There are other high-profile presentations that you’re going to want to see as well, looking at how we can optimize therapy in patients with HER2-positive disease and beginning to think about who might not need chemotherapy to have an excellent outcome in early-stage disease.

Also, we will be thinking about those patients with triple-negative disease who have residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We were all caught off guard with the results of the CREATE-X trial, quite frankly, several years ago.

This year we will hear the results of a postneoadjuvant trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group comparing platinum therapy with capecitabine. Tune in to think more about whether capecitabine really should be the standard of care in this population.

As always, I’m interested in your thoughts before or after ASCO. What stood out for you this year in breast cancer? Drop us a comment and let us know about these sessions and what else you found worthwhile.

Dr. Miller is associate director of clinical research and codirector of the breast cancer program at the Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center at Indiana University, Indianapolis. Her career has combined both laboratory and clinical research in breast cancer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New clinical data show that the PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca/Merck) also has a place in the treatment of early stage breast cancer with BRCA mutations, in addition to its already established role in the treatment of metastatic disease.

It’s a notable outcome given that at least 5% of all breast cancers are associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, said first author Andrew Tutt, MBChB, PhD, head of the division of breast cancer research at the Institute of Cancer Research and Guy’s Hospital, King’s College London.

The new results come from the phase 3 OlympiA trial, which involved nearly 2,000 women and showed that 1 year of adjuvant treatment with olaparib improved invasive and distant disease-free survival when used following adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm) high-risk HER2-negative early breast cancer.

The study was highlighted at a press briefing ahead of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, where the data will be presented during a plenary session. The study will also be published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The “exciting findings” highlight the importance of genetic testing in appropriate patients to identify those who might benefit from this treatment, and could open the door to additional trials of adjuvant PARP inhibitor in other BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated cancers, ASCO President Lori J. Pierce, MD, said during the press briefing.

“I think the implications are ... one, it’s an early stage disease, and two, it’s a reminder that when you see a patient in clinic and you’re taking a history that you query them for family history,” Dr. Pierce said in an interview. “You try to find out which of these patients could have a mutation so we [can] refer them for testing, and if they have a mutation this will be a therapy that they would be able to get and will likely benefit from.”
 

Improved IDFS and DDFS

The double-blind OlympiA trial enrolled 1,836 patients with gBRCAm and HER2-negative stage II-III breast cancer, including triple-negative or hormone receptor–positive disease with high risk of recurrence after completion of primary local treatment and adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 1 year of continuous oral olaparib at a dose of 300 mg twice daily or placebo.

“Compared with placebo, patients receiving olaparib had a 42% reduction in the risk of the following events: local recurrence of breast cancer, metastatic recurrence of breast cancer, other new cancers, or death due to any cause,” Dr. Tutt said, describing the factors comprising the study’s primary endpoint of invasive disease-free survival (IDSF).

The hazard ratio for IDSF with olaparib versus placebo at a median follow-up of 2.5 years was 0.58, prompting the independent data monitoring committee to recommend unblinding the study at the time of the interim analysis.

At 3 years, 85.9% of patients in the olaparib group and 77.1% in the placebo group were alive and free from invasive disease, for a difference of 8.8%, Dr. Tutt said.

For the secondary endpoint of distant disease-free survival (DDFS), defined as the absence of metastatic breast cancer, new cancer, and death due to any cause, a highly statistically significant 43% reduction was observed with olaparib versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57). The survival curves separated early and remained separated, with 3-year DDFS of 87.5% and 80.4%, for a 7.1% difference between the treatment and placebo group, he said.

“The secondary endpoint of overall survival is inevitably immature,” he added, noting that fewer deaths were nonetheless reported with olaparib at 3 years (3-year overall survival 92.0% vs. 88.3%; HR, 0.68), although the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Adverse events observed in the trial were limited and manageable, and were consistent with known effects and product labeling, he said.

Grade 3 adverse events that occurred in more than 10% of patients receiving olaparib were anemia (8.7%), neutropenia (4.8%), leukopenia (3.0%), and fatigue (1.8%). Serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest, including myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia, new primary malignancy, and pneumonitis, were not increased with olaparib; they occurred in 8.7% vs. 8.4% and 2.6% vs. 4.6% of patients in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively. 
 

Future implications

The findings have important implications for the future of breast cancer treatment, Dr. Tutt said.

Olaparib was already approved for use in the metastatic setting for gBRCAm HER2-negative breast cancer in 2018 on the basis of data from the pivotal OlympiAD trial, led by Mark E. Robson, MD, and colleagues.

In the high-risk early breast cancer setting, however, recurrence rates can be high even after chemotherapy, and novel adjuvant treatments have been lacking, Dr. Tutt said.

The latest findings from OlympiA appear to represent “a major advance for the subset of patients who have inherited BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations,” Dr. Robson said in an interview.

“The absolute differences – even with relatively short follow-up – in invasive disease-free survival are impressive, and even though overall survival is not yet statistically significant, one surely would be hopeful that with further follow-up a difference would emerge,” he said.

There was some suggestion, even in the OlympiAD trial, that the earlier patients with metastatic disease were treated with PARP inhibition, the more benefit they received, so it’s not surprising that research has moved into the early stage disease setting, he noted.

Future directions may include looking at different drug combinations as investigators did with some success in the BROCADE3 trial of the PARP inhibitor veliparib plus carboplatin and paclitaxel in metastatic gBRCAmut HER2-negative breast cancer – particularly if concerns about worsening myelosuppression when combining a PARP inhibitor and chemotherapy are attenuated with newer PARP inhibitors, he said.

“But for now, using [olaparib] after completion of conventional chemotherapy is the approach that makes the most sense,” he added.

Dr. Robson also noted that some smaller studies show “fairly dramatic pathologic complete response rates” with preoperative PARP inhibitor therapy. He said that “the idea of giving therapy even before surgery, perhaps as a de-escalation approach, is something that would be worth studying in the future.”

For now, it will be important to keep a close eye on whether there is any worsening of rates of second malignancies, especially leukemia, over time in the OlympiA trial participants.

“That was not seen in either the OlympiAD or EMBRACA study [another phase 3 study looking at PARP inhibition in advanced gBRCAmut HER2-negative breast cancer] in the metastatic setting, but obviously [the early breast cancer] population will be at risk for a longer period of time and we will need to see what the data are,” he said. “So far the results are all very encouraging, and this could lead to a new paradigm where we’re basically testing all women with breast cancer at the time of diagnosis to figure out whether or not this is an appropriate adjuvant treatment for them.”

The OlympiA trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca. Dr. Tutt has reported multiple relationships with companies including Inbiomotion, Medscape, Prime Oncology, Artios, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Merck KGaA, Roche/Genentech, Breast Cancer Now Charity, and Cancer Research UK. Dr. Robson has reported being an investigator for clinical trials of PARP inhibitors and receiving research grants (to his institution) from AstraZeneca, Merck, and Pfizer.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New clinical data show that the PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca/Merck) also has a place in the treatment of early stage breast cancer with BRCA mutations, in addition to its already established role in the treatment of metastatic disease.

It’s a notable outcome given that at least 5% of all breast cancers are associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, said first author Andrew Tutt, MBChB, PhD, head of the division of breast cancer research at the Institute of Cancer Research and Guy’s Hospital, King’s College London.

The new results come from the phase 3 OlympiA trial, which involved nearly 2,000 women and showed that 1 year of adjuvant treatment with olaparib improved invasive and distant disease-free survival when used following adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm) high-risk HER2-negative early breast cancer.

The study was highlighted at a press briefing ahead of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, where the data will be presented during a plenary session. The study will also be published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The “exciting findings” highlight the importance of genetic testing in appropriate patients to identify those who might benefit from this treatment, and could open the door to additional trials of adjuvant PARP inhibitor in other BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated cancers, ASCO President Lori J. Pierce, MD, said during the press briefing.

“I think the implications are ... one, it’s an early stage disease, and two, it’s a reminder that when you see a patient in clinic and you’re taking a history that you query them for family history,” Dr. Pierce said in an interview. “You try to find out which of these patients could have a mutation so we [can] refer them for testing, and if they have a mutation this will be a therapy that they would be able to get and will likely benefit from.”
 

Improved IDFS and DDFS

The double-blind OlympiA trial enrolled 1,836 patients with gBRCAm and HER2-negative stage II-III breast cancer, including triple-negative or hormone receptor–positive disease with high risk of recurrence after completion of primary local treatment and adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 1 year of continuous oral olaparib at a dose of 300 mg twice daily or placebo.

“Compared with placebo, patients receiving olaparib had a 42% reduction in the risk of the following events: local recurrence of breast cancer, metastatic recurrence of breast cancer, other new cancers, or death due to any cause,” Dr. Tutt said, describing the factors comprising the study’s primary endpoint of invasive disease-free survival (IDSF).

The hazard ratio for IDSF with olaparib versus placebo at a median follow-up of 2.5 years was 0.58, prompting the independent data monitoring committee to recommend unblinding the study at the time of the interim analysis.

At 3 years, 85.9% of patients in the olaparib group and 77.1% in the placebo group were alive and free from invasive disease, for a difference of 8.8%, Dr. Tutt said.

For the secondary endpoint of distant disease-free survival (DDFS), defined as the absence of metastatic breast cancer, new cancer, and death due to any cause, a highly statistically significant 43% reduction was observed with olaparib versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57). The survival curves separated early and remained separated, with 3-year DDFS of 87.5% and 80.4%, for a 7.1% difference between the treatment and placebo group, he said.

“The secondary endpoint of overall survival is inevitably immature,” he added, noting that fewer deaths were nonetheless reported with olaparib at 3 years (3-year overall survival 92.0% vs. 88.3%; HR, 0.68), although the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Adverse events observed in the trial were limited and manageable, and were consistent with known effects and product labeling, he said.

Grade 3 adverse events that occurred in more than 10% of patients receiving olaparib were anemia (8.7%), neutropenia (4.8%), leukopenia (3.0%), and fatigue (1.8%). Serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest, including myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia, new primary malignancy, and pneumonitis, were not increased with olaparib; they occurred in 8.7% vs. 8.4% and 2.6% vs. 4.6% of patients in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively. 
 

Future implications

The findings have important implications for the future of breast cancer treatment, Dr. Tutt said.

Olaparib was already approved for use in the metastatic setting for gBRCAm HER2-negative breast cancer in 2018 on the basis of data from the pivotal OlympiAD trial, led by Mark E. Robson, MD, and colleagues.

In the high-risk early breast cancer setting, however, recurrence rates can be high even after chemotherapy, and novel adjuvant treatments have been lacking, Dr. Tutt said.

The latest findings from OlympiA appear to represent “a major advance for the subset of patients who have inherited BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations,” Dr. Robson said in an interview.

“The absolute differences – even with relatively short follow-up – in invasive disease-free survival are impressive, and even though overall survival is not yet statistically significant, one surely would be hopeful that with further follow-up a difference would emerge,” he said.

There was some suggestion, even in the OlympiAD trial, that the earlier patients with metastatic disease were treated with PARP inhibition, the more benefit they received, so it’s not surprising that research has moved into the early stage disease setting, he noted.

Future directions may include looking at different drug combinations as investigators did with some success in the BROCADE3 trial of the PARP inhibitor veliparib plus carboplatin and paclitaxel in metastatic gBRCAmut HER2-negative breast cancer – particularly if concerns about worsening myelosuppression when combining a PARP inhibitor and chemotherapy are attenuated with newer PARP inhibitors, he said.

“But for now, using [olaparib] after completion of conventional chemotherapy is the approach that makes the most sense,” he added.

Dr. Robson also noted that some smaller studies show “fairly dramatic pathologic complete response rates” with preoperative PARP inhibitor therapy. He said that “the idea of giving therapy even before surgery, perhaps as a de-escalation approach, is something that would be worth studying in the future.”

For now, it will be important to keep a close eye on whether there is any worsening of rates of second malignancies, especially leukemia, over time in the OlympiA trial participants.

“That was not seen in either the OlympiAD or EMBRACA study [another phase 3 study looking at PARP inhibition in advanced gBRCAmut HER2-negative breast cancer] in the metastatic setting, but obviously [the early breast cancer] population will be at risk for a longer period of time and we will need to see what the data are,” he said. “So far the results are all very encouraging, and this could lead to a new paradigm where we’re basically testing all women with breast cancer at the time of diagnosis to figure out whether or not this is an appropriate adjuvant treatment for them.”

The OlympiA trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca. Dr. Tutt has reported multiple relationships with companies including Inbiomotion, Medscape, Prime Oncology, Artios, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Merck KGaA, Roche/Genentech, Breast Cancer Now Charity, and Cancer Research UK. Dr. Robson has reported being an investigator for clinical trials of PARP inhibitors and receiving research grants (to his institution) from AstraZeneca, Merck, and Pfizer.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New clinical data show that the PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca/Merck) also has a place in the treatment of early stage breast cancer with BRCA mutations, in addition to its already established role in the treatment of metastatic disease.

It’s a notable outcome given that at least 5% of all breast cancers are associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, said first author Andrew Tutt, MBChB, PhD, head of the division of breast cancer research at the Institute of Cancer Research and Guy’s Hospital, King’s College London.

The new results come from the phase 3 OlympiA trial, which involved nearly 2,000 women and showed that 1 year of adjuvant treatment with olaparib improved invasive and distant disease-free survival when used following adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm) high-risk HER2-negative early breast cancer.

The study was highlighted at a press briefing ahead of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, where the data will be presented during a plenary session. The study will also be published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The “exciting findings” highlight the importance of genetic testing in appropriate patients to identify those who might benefit from this treatment, and could open the door to additional trials of adjuvant PARP inhibitor in other BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated cancers, ASCO President Lori J. Pierce, MD, said during the press briefing.

“I think the implications are ... one, it’s an early stage disease, and two, it’s a reminder that when you see a patient in clinic and you’re taking a history that you query them for family history,” Dr. Pierce said in an interview. “You try to find out which of these patients could have a mutation so we [can] refer them for testing, and if they have a mutation this will be a therapy that they would be able to get and will likely benefit from.”
 

Improved IDFS and DDFS

The double-blind OlympiA trial enrolled 1,836 patients with gBRCAm and HER2-negative stage II-III breast cancer, including triple-negative or hormone receptor–positive disease with high risk of recurrence after completion of primary local treatment and adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 1 year of continuous oral olaparib at a dose of 300 mg twice daily or placebo.

“Compared with placebo, patients receiving olaparib had a 42% reduction in the risk of the following events: local recurrence of breast cancer, metastatic recurrence of breast cancer, other new cancers, or death due to any cause,” Dr. Tutt said, describing the factors comprising the study’s primary endpoint of invasive disease-free survival (IDSF).

The hazard ratio for IDSF with olaparib versus placebo at a median follow-up of 2.5 years was 0.58, prompting the independent data monitoring committee to recommend unblinding the study at the time of the interim analysis.

At 3 years, 85.9% of patients in the olaparib group and 77.1% in the placebo group were alive and free from invasive disease, for a difference of 8.8%, Dr. Tutt said.

For the secondary endpoint of distant disease-free survival (DDFS), defined as the absence of metastatic breast cancer, new cancer, and death due to any cause, a highly statistically significant 43% reduction was observed with olaparib versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57). The survival curves separated early and remained separated, with 3-year DDFS of 87.5% and 80.4%, for a 7.1% difference between the treatment and placebo group, he said.

“The secondary endpoint of overall survival is inevitably immature,” he added, noting that fewer deaths were nonetheless reported with olaparib at 3 years (3-year overall survival 92.0% vs. 88.3%; HR, 0.68), although the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Adverse events observed in the trial were limited and manageable, and were consistent with known effects and product labeling, he said.

Grade 3 adverse events that occurred in more than 10% of patients receiving olaparib were anemia (8.7%), neutropenia (4.8%), leukopenia (3.0%), and fatigue (1.8%). Serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest, including myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia, new primary malignancy, and pneumonitis, were not increased with olaparib; they occurred in 8.7% vs. 8.4% and 2.6% vs. 4.6% of patients in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively. 
 

Future implications

The findings have important implications for the future of breast cancer treatment, Dr. Tutt said.

Olaparib was already approved for use in the metastatic setting for gBRCAm HER2-negative breast cancer in 2018 on the basis of data from the pivotal OlympiAD trial, led by Mark E. Robson, MD, and colleagues.

In the high-risk early breast cancer setting, however, recurrence rates can be high even after chemotherapy, and novel adjuvant treatments have been lacking, Dr. Tutt said.

The latest findings from OlympiA appear to represent “a major advance for the subset of patients who have inherited BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations,” Dr. Robson said in an interview.

“The absolute differences – even with relatively short follow-up – in invasive disease-free survival are impressive, and even though overall survival is not yet statistically significant, one surely would be hopeful that with further follow-up a difference would emerge,” he said.

There was some suggestion, even in the OlympiAD trial, that the earlier patients with metastatic disease were treated with PARP inhibition, the more benefit they received, so it’s not surprising that research has moved into the early stage disease setting, he noted.

Future directions may include looking at different drug combinations as investigators did with some success in the BROCADE3 trial of the PARP inhibitor veliparib plus carboplatin and paclitaxel in metastatic gBRCAmut HER2-negative breast cancer – particularly if concerns about worsening myelosuppression when combining a PARP inhibitor and chemotherapy are attenuated with newer PARP inhibitors, he said.

“But for now, using [olaparib] after completion of conventional chemotherapy is the approach that makes the most sense,” he added.

Dr. Robson also noted that some smaller studies show “fairly dramatic pathologic complete response rates” with preoperative PARP inhibitor therapy. He said that “the idea of giving therapy even before surgery, perhaps as a de-escalation approach, is something that would be worth studying in the future.”

For now, it will be important to keep a close eye on whether there is any worsening of rates of second malignancies, especially leukemia, over time in the OlympiA trial participants.

“That was not seen in either the OlympiAD or EMBRACA study [another phase 3 study looking at PARP inhibition in advanced gBRCAmut HER2-negative breast cancer] in the metastatic setting, but obviously [the early breast cancer] population will be at risk for a longer period of time and we will need to see what the data are,” he said. “So far the results are all very encouraging, and this could lead to a new paradigm where we’re basically testing all women with breast cancer at the time of diagnosis to figure out whether or not this is an appropriate adjuvant treatment for them.”

The OlympiA trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca. Dr. Tutt has reported multiple relationships with companies including Inbiomotion, Medscape, Prime Oncology, Artios, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Merck KGaA, Roche/Genentech, Breast Cancer Now Charity, and Cancer Research UK. Dr. Robson has reported being an investigator for clinical trials of PARP inhibitors and receiving research grants (to his institution) from AstraZeneca, Merck, and Pfizer.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The inflammatory cytokine interleukin 6 may be a biomarker for distant recurrence of breast cancer among patients treated for stage II-III HER2-negative disease, investigators have found.

In a case-control study of 498 women with breast cancer treated with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as endocrine therapy for women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, those with higher serum levels of IL-6 at diagnosis had a significantly greater risk for disease recurrence than women with lower levels of the cytokine, Joseph A. Sparano, MD, from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and colleagues reported.

“This analysis provides level 1B evidence indicating that higher levels of the cytokine IL-6 at diagnosis are associated with a significantly higher distant recurrence risk in high-risk stage II-III breast cancer despite optimal adjuvant systemic therapy,” they wrote in a study presented in a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.(Abstract 520)

In an interview, Dr. Sparano said that their findings first need to be validated in a larger study.

“When validated, I think the other key issue is to try to understand what the best cut point for identifying high risk is, “ he said.

If further studies confirm that higher IL-6 levels are prognostic for worse outcomes, it might be possible to use levels of the cytokine as a biomarker to predict for therapies targeting the IL-6/Janus kinase/STAT3 pathway.

“There are trials ongoing testing IL-6 antibodies in combination chemotherapy, and this could be a rational biomarker to identify which patients would be more likely to benefit from that approach,” he said.
 

Systemic inflammation

Systemic inflammation is suspected as a contributing factor to cancer progression and disease recurrence, Dr. Sparano and colleagues noted.

To test their hypothesis that inflammatory cytokines and/or chemokines could be associated with distant recurrence, they conducted a case-control study with 249 matched pairs of patients enrolled in a phase 3 trial of adjuvant chemotherapy for lymph-node positive and high-risk lymph-node negative breast cancer (NCT00433511).

The patients all had surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab, and endocrine therapy for patients whose tumors were ER positive.

They used propensity score matching to pair each patient with distant recurrence to one without, with covariates including post versus premenopausal or perimenopausal status, estrogen and/or progesterone receptor positivity, tumor size (less than 2 cm, greater than 2-5 cm, or greater than 5 cm) nodal status, and grade.

The only biomarker that met the prespecified boundary for statistical significance (P < .0014) was IL-6, with a hazard ratio for distant recurrence of 1.37 (P = .0006).

The median and mean values for IL-6 were 0.95 and 7.5 pg/mL, respectively

Other substances associated with distant recurrence (with a two-sided P value < .05) were macrophage-derived chemokine/CCL22 (HR, 1.90; P = .0098), IL-17A, a T-helper cell inflammatory cytokine (HR, 1.36; P = .0052), and the cytokine vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A, HR, 1.13; P = 0.037).

There was no statistical interaction between VEGF-A levels and the benefit of bevacizumab.
 

Prognostic value, not clinical utility

“This is a nice abstract. It looks at inflammatory cytokines and provides evidence that inflammatory cytokines, particularly IL-6, could have a prognostic role in predicting risk of recurrence in HER2-negative disease, and the team did a very nice job in multivariate analysis looking at different factors,” said Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, from the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, the invited discussant for the study.*

In an interview, Dr. Bardia said that the finding “provides prognostic value, but does not provide clinical utility. It’s unclear if we used this assay and it identified that a patient was at high risk of recurrence whether we could change that. Is there any intervention that could be done to potentially alter the course of disease, alter the natural history? That’s unknown.”

He agreed with Dr. Sparano and colleagues that validation of the finding was still needed, ideally in a prospective or retrospective cohort study.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, Komen Foundation, and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Sparano disclosed relationships with multiple companies. Dr. Bardia disclosed a consulting or advisory role and research funding to his institution from multiple companies.

*Correction, 6/4/21: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Bardia's name.

The inflammatory cytokine interleukin 6 may be a biomarker for distant recurrence of breast cancer among patients treated for stage II-III HER2-negative disease, investigators have found.

In a case-control study of 498 women with breast cancer treated with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as endocrine therapy for women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, those with higher serum levels of IL-6 at diagnosis had a significantly greater risk for disease recurrence than women with lower levels of the cytokine, Joseph A. Sparano, MD, from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and colleagues reported.

“This analysis provides level 1B evidence indicating that higher levels of the cytokine IL-6 at diagnosis are associated with a significantly higher distant recurrence risk in high-risk stage II-III breast cancer despite optimal adjuvant systemic therapy,” they wrote in a study presented in a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.(Abstract 520)

In an interview, Dr. Sparano said that their findings first need to be validated in a larger study.

“When validated, I think the other key issue is to try to understand what the best cut point for identifying high risk is, “ he said.

If further studies confirm that higher IL-6 levels are prognostic for worse outcomes, it might be possible to use levels of the cytokine as a biomarker to predict for therapies targeting the IL-6/Janus kinase/STAT3 pathway.

“There are trials ongoing testing IL-6 antibodies in combination chemotherapy, and this could be a rational biomarker to identify which patients would be more likely to benefit from that approach,” he said.
 

Systemic inflammation

Systemic inflammation is suspected as a contributing factor to cancer progression and disease recurrence, Dr. Sparano and colleagues noted.

To test their hypothesis that inflammatory cytokines and/or chemokines could be associated with distant recurrence, they conducted a case-control study with 249 matched pairs of patients enrolled in a phase 3 trial of adjuvant chemotherapy for lymph-node positive and high-risk lymph-node negative breast cancer (NCT00433511).

The patients all had surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab, and endocrine therapy for patients whose tumors were ER positive.

They used propensity score matching to pair each patient with distant recurrence to one without, with covariates including post versus premenopausal or perimenopausal status, estrogen and/or progesterone receptor positivity, tumor size (less than 2 cm, greater than 2-5 cm, or greater than 5 cm) nodal status, and grade.

The only biomarker that met the prespecified boundary for statistical significance (P < .0014) was IL-6, with a hazard ratio for distant recurrence of 1.37 (P = .0006).

The median and mean values for IL-6 were 0.95 and 7.5 pg/mL, respectively

Other substances associated with distant recurrence (with a two-sided P value < .05) were macrophage-derived chemokine/CCL22 (HR, 1.90; P = .0098), IL-17A, a T-helper cell inflammatory cytokine (HR, 1.36; P = .0052), and the cytokine vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A, HR, 1.13; P = 0.037).

There was no statistical interaction between VEGF-A levels and the benefit of bevacizumab.
 

Prognostic value, not clinical utility

“This is a nice abstract. It looks at inflammatory cytokines and provides evidence that inflammatory cytokines, particularly IL-6, could have a prognostic role in predicting risk of recurrence in HER2-negative disease, and the team did a very nice job in multivariate analysis looking at different factors,” said Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, from the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, the invited discussant for the study.*

In an interview, Dr. Bardia said that the finding “provides prognostic value, but does not provide clinical utility. It’s unclear if we used this assay and it identified that a patient was at high risk of recurrence whether we could change that. Is there any intervention that could be done to potentially alter the course of disease, alter the natural history? That’s unknown.”

He agreed with Dr. Sparano and colleagues that validation of the finding was still needed, ideally in a prospective or retrospective cohort study.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, Komen Foundation, and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Sparano disclosed relationships with multiple companies. Dr. Bardia disclosed a consulting or advisory role and research funding to his institution from multiple companies.

*Correction, 6/4/21: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Bardia's name.

The inflammatory cytokine interleukin 6 may be a biomarker for distant recurrence of breast cancer among patients treated for stage II-III HER2-negative disease, investigators have found.

In a case-control study of 498 women with breast cancer treated with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as endocrine therapy for women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, those with higher serum levels of IL-6 at diagnosis had a significantly greater risk for disease recurrence than women with lower levels of the cytokine, Joseph A. Sparano, MD, from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and colleagues reported.

“This analysis provides level 1B evidence indicating that higher levels of the cytokine IL-6 at diagnosis are associated with a significantly higher distant recurrence risk in high-risk stage II-III breast cancer despite optimal adjuvant systemic therapy,” they wrote in a study presented in a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.(Abstract 520)

In an interview, Dr. Sparano said that their findings first need to be validated in a larger study.

“When validated, I think the other key issue is to try to understand what the best cut point for identifying high risk is, “ he said.

If further studies confirm that higher IL-6 levels are prognostic for worse outcomes, it might be possible to use levels of the cytokine as a biomarker to predict for therapies targeting the IL-6/Janus kinase/STAT3 pathway.

“There are trials ongoing testing IL-6 antibodies in combination chemotherapy, and this could be a rational biomarker to identify which patients would be more likely to benefit from that approach,” he said.
 

Systemic inflammation

Systemic inflammation is suspected as a contributing factor to cancer progression and disease recurrence, Dr. Sparano and colleagues noted.

To test their hypothesis that inflammatory cytokines and/or chemokines could be associated with distant recurrence, they conducted a case-control study with 249 matched pairs of patients enrolled in a phase 3 trial of adjuvant chemotherapy for lymph-node positive and high-risk lymph-node negative breast cancer (NCT00433511).

The patients all had surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab, and endocrine therapy for patients whose tumors were ER positive.

They used propensity score matching to pair each patient with distant recurrence to one without, with covariates including post versus premenopausal or perimenopausal status, estrogen and/or progesterone receptor positivity, tumor size (less than 2 cm, greater than 2-5 cm, or greater than 5 cm) nodal status, and grade.

The only biomarker that met the prespecified boundary for statistical significance (P < .0014) was IL-6, with a hazard ratio for distant recurrence of 1.37 (P = .0006).

The median and mean values for IL-6 were 0.95 and 7.5 pg/mL, respectively

Other substances associated with distant recurrence (with a two-sided P value < .05) were macrophage-derived chemokine/CCL22 (HR, 1.90; P = .0098), IL-17A, a T-helper cell inflammatory cytokine (HR, 1.36; P = .0052), and the cytokine vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A, HR, 1.13; P = 0.037).

There was no statistical interaction between VEGF-A levels and the benefit of bevacizumab.
 

Prognostic value, not clinical utility

“This is a nice abstract. It looks at inflammatory cytokines and provides evidence that inflammatory cytokines, particularly IL-6, could have a prognostic role in predicting risk of recurrence in HER2-negative disease, and the team did a very nice job in multivariate analysis looking at different factors,” said Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, from the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, the invited discussant for the study.*

In an interview, Dr. Bardia said that the finding “provides prognostic value, but does not provide clinical utility. It’s unclear if we used this assay and it identified that a patient was at high risk of recurrence whether we could change that. Is there any intervention that could be done to potentially alter the course of disease, alter the natural history? That’s unknown.”

He agreed with Dr. Sparano and colleagues that validation of the finding was still needed, ideally in a prospective or retrospective cohort study.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, Komen Foundation, and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Sparano disclosed relationships with multiple companies. Dr. Bardia disclosed a consulting or advisory role and research funding to his institution from multiple companies.

*Correction, 6/4/21: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Bardia's name.

Key findings in metastatic breast cancer, presented at the ASCO 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting, ranged across all tumor subtypes.

Arguably, the top news in breast cancer was a plenary presentation addressing the role of locoregional therapy in advanced disease. Dr. Harold Burstein, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comments that this study indicates systemic therapy as the mainstay treatment for woman with newly diagnosed advanced disease and a tumor in the breast.

In triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Burstein highlights two studies. The KEYNOTE-355 study validates the addition of a checkpoint inhibitor in first-line therapy in women whose tumors are PD-L1 positive. The intriguing results of the SWOG S1416 trial, Dr. Burstein comments, suggest the use of PARP inhibition may extend beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancers.

In HER2-positive breast cancer, an update of the HER2CLIMB study indicates that the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine continues to benefit women with HER2-positive disease. Dr. Burstein expects this combination will be a new standard of care, particularly in women with brain metastases.

As for ER-positive breast cancer, Dr. Burstein reviews the BYLieve trial. Results of this study suggest alpelisib has activity in women with a PIK3CA mutation who have already received a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Harold J. Burstein, Md, PhD

Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Key findings in metastatic breast cancer, presented at the ASCO 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting, ranged across all tumor subtypes.

Arguably, the top news in breast cancer was a plenary presentation addressing the role of locoregional therapy in advanced disease. Dr. Harold Burstein, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comments that this study indicates systemic therapy as the mainstay treatment for woman with newly diagnosed advanced disease and a tumor in the breast.

In triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Burstein highlights two studies. The KEYNOTE-355 study validates the addition of a checkpoint inhibitor in first-line therapy in women whose tumors are PD-L1 positive. The intriguing results of the SWOG S1416 trial, Dr. Burstein comments, suggest the use of PARP inhibition may extend beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancers.

In HER2-positive breast cancer, an update of the HER2CLIMB study indicates that the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine continues to benefit women with HER2-positive disease. Dr. Burstein expects this combination will be a new standard of care, particularly in women with brain metastases.

As for ER-positive breast cancer, Dr. Burstein reviews the BYLieve trial. Results of this study suggest alpelisib has activity in women with a PIK3CA mutation who have already received a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Harold J. Burstein, Md, PhD

Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Key findings in metastatic breast cancer, presented at the ASCO 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting, ranged across all tumor subtypes.

Arguably, the top news in breast cancer was a plenary presentation addressing the role of locoregional therapy in advanced disease. Dr. Harold Burstein, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comments that this study indicates systemic therapy as the mainstay treatment for woman with newly diagnosed advanced disease and a tumor in the breast.

In triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Burstein highlights two studies. The KEYNOTE-355 study validates the addition of a checkpoint inhibitor in first-line therapy in women whose tumors are PD-L1 positive. The intriguing results of the SWOG S1416 trial, Dr. Burstein comments, suggest the use of PARP inhibition may extend beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancers.

In HER2-positive breast cancer, an update of the HER2CLIMB study indicates that the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine continues to benefit women with HER2-positive disease. Dr. Burstein expects this combination will be a new standard of care, particularly in women with brain metastases.

As for ER-positive breast cancer, Dr. Burstein reviews the BYLieve trial. Results of this study suggest alpelisib has activity in women with a PIK3CA mutation who have already received a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Harold J. Burstein, Md, PhD

Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

From 7% to nearly 9% of patients with advanced cancer were found to harbor a germline variant with targeted therapeutic actionability in the first study of its kind.

The study involved 11,974 patients with various tumor types. All the patients underwent germline genetic testing from 2015 to 2019 at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, using the next-generation sequencing panel MSK-IMPACT.

This testing showed that 17.1% of patients had variants in cancer predisposition genes, and 7.1%-8.6% had variants that could potentially be targeted.

“Of course, these numbers are not static,” commented lead author Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at MSKCC. “And with the emergence of novel targeted treatments with new FDA indications, the therapeutic actionability of germline variants is likely to increase over time.

“Our study demonstrates the first comprehensive assessment of the clinical utility of germline alterations for therapeutic actionability in a population of patients with advanced cancer,” she added.

Dr. Stadler presented the study results during a virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020.

Testing for somatic mutations is evolving as the standard of care in many cancer types, and somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of the regimen for patients with advanced disease. Some studies suggest that 9%-11% of patients harbor actionable genetic alterations, as determined on the basis of tumor profiling.

“The take-home message from this is that now, more than ever before, germline testing is indicated for the selection of cancer treatment,” said Erin Wysong Hofstatter, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a Highlights of the Day session.

An emerging indication for germline testing is the selection of treatment in the advanced setting, she noted. “And it is important to know your test. Remember that tumor sequencing is not a substitute for comprehensive germline testing.”
 

Implications in cancer treatment

For their study, Dr. Stadler and colleagues reviewed the medical records of patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline (LP/P) alterations in genes that had known therapeutic targets so as to identify germline-targeted treatment either in a clinical or research setting.

“Since 2015, patients undergoing MSK-IMPACT may also choose to provide additional consent for secondary germline genetic analysis, wherein up to 88 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition are analyzed,” she said. “Likely pathogenic and pathogenic germline alterations identified are disclosed to the patient and treating physician via the Clinical Genetic Service.”

A total of 2043 (17.1%) patients who harbored LP/P variants in a cancer predisposition gene were identified. Of these, 11% of patients harbored pathogenic alterations in high or moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes. When the analysis was limited to genes with targeted therapeutic actionability, or what the authors defined as tier 1 and tier 2 genes, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) harbored a targetable pathogenic germline alteration.

BRCA alterations accounted for half (52%) of the findings, and 20% were associated with Lynch syndrome.

The tier 2 genes, which included PALB2, ATM, RAD51C, and RAD51D, accounted for about a quarter of the findings. Dr. Hofstatter noted that, using strict criteria, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) were found to harbor a pathogenic alteration and a targetable gene. Using less stringent criteria, additional tier 3 genes and additional genes associated with DNA homologous recombination repair brought the number up to 8.6% (n = 1,003).

Therapeutic action

For determining therapeutic actionability, the strict criteria were used; 593 patients (4.95%) with recurrent or metastatic disease were identified. For these patients, consideration of a targeted therapy, either as part of standard care or as part of an investigation or research protocol, was important.

Of this group, 44% received therapy targeting the germline alteration. Regarding specific genes, 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers and 58% of Lynch syndrome patients received targeted treatment. With respect to tier 2 genes, 40% of patients with PALB2, 19% with ATM, and 37% with RAD51C or 51D received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who received a PARP inhibitor, 55.1% had breast or ovarian cancer, and 44.8% had other tumor types, including pancreas, prostate, bile duct, gastric cancers. These patients received the drug in a research setting.

For patients with PALB2 alterations who received PARP inhibitors, 53.3% had breast or pancreas cancer, and 46.7% had cancer of the prostate, ovary, or an unknown primary.

Looking ahead

The discussant for the paper, Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, pointed out that most of the BRCA-positive patients had cancers traditionally associated with the mutation. “There were no patients with PTEN mutations treated, and interestingly, no patients with NF1 were treated,” she said. “But actionability is evolving, as the MEK inhibitor selumitinib was recently approved for NF1.”

Some questions remain unanswered, she noted, such as: “What percentage of patients undergoing tumor-normal testing signed a germline protocol?” and “Does the population introduce a bias – such as younger patients, family history, and so on?”

It is also unknown what percentage of germline alterations were known in comparison with those identified through tumor/normal testing. Also of importance is the fact that in this study, the results of germline testing were delivered in an academic setting, she emphasized. “What if they were delivered elsewhere? What would be the impact of identifying these alterations in an environment with less access to trials?

“But to be fair, it is not easy to seek the germline mutations,” Dr. Meric-Bernstam continued. “These studies were done under institutional review board protocols, and it is important to note that most profiling is done as standard of care without consenting and soliciting patient preference on the return of germline results.”

An infrastructure is needed to return/counsel/offer cascade testing, and “analyses need to be facilitated to ensure that findings can be acted upon in a timely fashion,” she added.

The study was supported by MSKCC internal funding. Dr. Stadler reported relationships (institutional) with Adverum, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Biomarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Meric-Bernstram reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From 7% to nearly 9% of patients with advanced cancer were found to harbor a germline variant with targeted therapeutic actionability in the first study of its kind.

The study involved 11,974 patients with various tumor types. All the patients underwent germline genetic testing from 2015 to 2019 at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, using the next-generation sequencing panel MSK-IMPACT.

This testing showed that 17.1% of patients had variants in cancer predisposition genes, and 7.1%-8.6% had variants that could potentially be targeted.

“Of course, these numbers are not static,” commented lead author Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at MSKCC. “And with the emergence of novel targeted treatments with new FDA indications, the therapeutic actionability of germline variants is likely to increase over time.

“Our study demonstrates the first comprehensive assessment of the clinical utility of germline alterations for therapeutic actionability in a population of patients with advanced cancer,” she added.

Dr. Stadler presented the study results during a virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020.

Testing for somatic mutations is evolving as the standard of care in many cancer types, and somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of the regimen for patients with advanced disease. Some studies suggest that 9%-11% of patients harbor actionable genetic alterations, as determined on the basis of tumor profiling.

“The take-home message from this is that now, more than ever before, germline testing is indicated for the selection of cancer treatment,” said Erin Wysong Hofstatter, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a Highlights of the Day session.

An emerging indication for germline testing is the selection of treatment in the advanced setting, she noted. “And it is important to know your test. Remember that tumor sequencing is not a substitute for comprehensive germline testing.”
 

Implications in cancer treatment

For their study, Dr. Stadler and colleagues reviewed the medical records of patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline (LP/P) alterations in genes that had known therapeutic targets so as to identify germline-targeted treatment either in a clinical or research setting.

“Since 2015, patients undergoing MSK-IMPACT may also choose to provide additional consent for secondary germline genetic analysis, wherein up to 88 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition are analyzed,” she said. “Likely pathogenic and pathogenic germline alterations identified are disclosed to the patient and treating physician via the Clinical Genetic Service.”

A total of 2043 (17.1%) patients who harbored LP/P variants in a cancer predisposition gene were identified. Of these, 11% of patients harbored pathogenic alterations in high or moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes. When the analysis was limited to genes with targeted therapeutic actionability, or what the authors defined as tier 1 and tier 2 genes, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) harbored a targetable pathogenic germline alteration.

BRCA alterations accounted for half (52%) of the findings, and 20% were associated with Lynch syndrome.

The tier 2 genes, which included PALB2, ATM, RAD51C, and RAD51D, accounted for about a quarter of the findings. Dr. Hofstatter noted that, using strict criteria, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) were found to harbor a pathogenic alteration and a targetable gene. Using less stringent criteria, additional tier 3 genes and additional genes associated with DNA homologous recombination repair brought the number up to 8.6% (n = 1,003).

Therapeutic action

For determining therapeutic actionability, the strict criteria were used; 593 patients (4.95%) with recurrent or metastatic disease were identified. For these patients, consideration of a targeted therapy, either as part of standard care or as part of an investigation or research protocol, was important.

Of this group, 44% received therapy targeting the germline alteration. Regarding specific genes, 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers and 58% of Lynch syndrome patients received targeted treatment. With respect to tier 2 genes, 40% of patients with PALB2, 19% with ATM, and 37% with RAD51C or 51D received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who received a PARP inhibitor, 55.1% had breast or ovarian cancer, and 44.8% had other tumor types, including pancreas, prostate, bile duct, gastric cancers. These patients received the drug in a research setting.

For patients with PALB2 alterations who received PARP inhibitors, 53.3% had breast or pancreas cancer, and 46.7% had cancer of the prostate, ovary, or an unknown primary.

Looking ahead

The discussant for the paper, Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, pointed out that most of the BRCA-positive patients had cancers traditionally associated with the mutation. “There were no patients with PTEN mutations treated, and interestingly, no patients with NF1 were treated,” she said. “But actionability is evolving, as the MEK inhibitor selumitinib was recently approved for NF1.”

Some questions remain unanswered, she noted, such as: “What percentage of patients undergoing tumor-normal testing signed a germline protocol?” and “Does the population introduce a bias – such as younger patients, family history, and so on?”

It is also unknown what percentage of germline alterations were known in comparison with those identified through tumor/normal testing. Also of importance is the fact that in this study, the results of germline testing were delivered in an academic setting, she emphasized. “What if they were delivered elsewhere? What would be the impact of identifying these alterations in an environment with less access to trials?

“But to be fair, it is not easy to seek the germline mutations,” Dr. Meric-Bernstam continued. “These studies were done under institutional review board protocols, and it is important to note that most profiling is done as standard of care without consenting and soliciting patient preference on the return of germline results.”

An infrastructure is needed to return/counsel/offer cascade testing, and “analyses need to be facilitated to ensure that findings can be acted upon in a timely fashion,” she added.

The study was supported by MSKCC internal funding. Dr. Stadler reported relationships (institutional) with Adverum, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Biomarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Meric-Bernstram reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From 7% to nearly 9% of patients with advanced cancer were found to harbor a germline variant with targeted therapeutic actionability in the first study of its kind.

The study involved 11,974 patients with various tumor types. All the patients underwent germline genetic testing from 2015 to 2019 at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York, using the next-generation sequencing panel MSK-IMPACT.

This testing showed that 17.1% of patients had variants in cancer predisposition genes, and 7.1%-8.6% had variants that could potentially be targeted.

“Of course, these numbers are not static,” commented lead author Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, a medical oncologist at MSKCC. “And with the emergence of novel targeted treatments with new FDA indications, the therapeutic actionability of germline variants is likely to increase over time.

“Our study demonstrates the first comprehensive assessment of the clinical utility of germline alterations for therapeutic actionability in a population of patients with advanced cancer,” she added.

Dr. Stadler presented the study results during a virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020.

Testing for somatic mutations is evolving as the standard of care in many cancer types, and somatic genomic testing is rapidly becoming an integral part of the regimen for patients with advanced disease. Some studies suggest that 9%-11% of patients harbor actionable genetic alterations, as determined on the basis of tumor profiling.

“The take-home message from this is that now, more than ever before, germline testing is indicated for the selection of cancer treatment,” said Erin Wysong Hofstatter, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a Highlights of the Day session.

An emerging indication for germline testing is the selection of treatment in the advanced setting, she noted. “And it is important to know your test. Remember that tumor sequencing is not a substitute for comprehensive germline testing.”
 

Implications in cancer treatment

For their study, Dr. Stadler and colleagues reviewed the medical records of patients with likely pathogenic/pathogenic germline (LP/P) alterations in genes that had known therapeutic targets so as to identify germline-targeted treatment either in a clinical or research setting.

“Since 2015, patients undergoing MSK-IMPACT may also choose to provide additional consent for secondary germline genetic analysis, wherein up to 88 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition are analyzed,” she said. “Likely pathogenic and pathogenic germline alterations identified are disclosed to the patient and treating physician via the Clinical Genetic Service.”

A total of 2043 (17.1%) patients who harbored LP/P variants in a cancer predisposition gene were identified. Of these, 11% of patients harbored pathogenic alterations in high or moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes. When the analysis was limited to genes with targeted therapeutic actionability, or what the authors defined as tier 1 and tier 2 genes, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) harbored a targetable pathogenic germline alteration.

BRCA alterations accounted for half (52%) of the findings, and 20% were associated with Lynch syndrome.

The tier 2 genes, which included PALB2, ATM, RAD51C, and RAD51D, accounted for about a quarter of the findings. Dr. Hofstatter noted that, using strict criteria, 7.1% of patients (n = 849) were found to harbor a pathogenic alteration and a targetable gene. Using less stringent criteria, additional tier 3 genes and additional genes associated with DNA homologous recombination repair brought the number up to 8.6% (n = 1,003).

Therapeutic action

For determining therapeutic actionability, the strict criteria were used; 593 patients (4.95%) with recurrent or metastatic disease were identified. For these patients, consideration of a targeted therapy, either as part of standard care or as part of an investigation or research protocol, was important.

Of this group, 44% received therapy targeting the germline alteration. Regarding specific genes, 50% of BRCA1/2 carriers and 58% of Lynch syndrome patients received targeted treatment. With respect to tier 2 genes, 40% of patients with PALB2, 19% with ATM, and 37% with RAD51C or 51D received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Among patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who received a PARP inhibitor, 55.1% had breast or ovarian cancer, and 44.8% had other tumor types, including pancreas, prostate, bile duct, gastric cancers. These patients received the drug in a research setting.

For patients with PALB2 alterations who received PARP inhibitors, 53.3% had breast or pancreas cancer, and 46.7% had cancer of the prostate, ovary, or an unknown primary.

Looking ahead

The discussant for the paper, Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, pointed out that most of the BRCA-positive patients had cancers traditionally associated with the mutation. “There were no patients with PTEN mutations treated, and interestingly, no patients with NF1 were treated,” she said. “But actionability is evolving, as the MEK inhibitor selumitinib was recently approved for NF1.”

Some questions remain unanswered, she noted, such as: “What percentage of patients undergoing tumor-normal testing signed a germline protocol?” and “Does the population introduce a bias – such as younger patients, family history, and so on?”

It is also unknown what percentage of germline alterations were known in comparison with those identified through tumor/normal testing. Also of importance is the fact that in this study, the results of germline testing were delivered in an academic setting, she emphasized. “What if they were delivered elsewhere? What would be the impact of identifying these alterations in an environment with less access to trials?

“But to be fair, it is not easy to seek the germline mutations,” Dr. Meric-Bernstam continued. “These studies were done under institutional review board protocols, and it is important to note that most profiling is done as standard of care without consenting and soliciting patient preference on the return of germline results.”

An infrastructure is needed to return/counsel/offer cascade testing, and “analyses need to be facilitated to ensure that findings can be acted upon in a timely fashion,” she added.

The study was supported by MSKCC internal funding. Dr. Stadler reported relationships (institutional) with Adverum, Alimera Sciences, Allergan, Biomarin, Fortress Biotech, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Optos, Regeneron, Regenxbio, and Spark Therapeutics. Dr. Meric-Bernstram reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.