Search

Liquid biopsies developed into a range of sensitive technologies aiming to analyze for example, circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in peripheral blood, which significantly deepens understanding of the metastatic process. Nevertheless, examination of CTCs is mostly limited to their enumeration and usually only 2-3 markers-based phenotyping, not offering yet sufficient insight into their biology. In contrast, quantitative analysis of their morphological details might extend our knowledge about dissemination and even improve CTC isolation or label-free identification methods dependent on their physical features such as size, and deformability. Current study was conducted to describe CTCs' and their size, shape, presence of protrusions, and micronuclei across various types of cancers (lung, n = 29; ovarian, n = 24, breast, n = 54; and prostate, n = 33). Epithelial (pan-keratins), mesenchymal (vimentin), and two exclusion markers were used to identify CTCs and classify them into four epithelial and epithelial-mesenchymal transition-related phenotypes using standardized and throughput method, imaging flow cytometry. The morphological characteristics of CTCs, including their nuclei, such as circularity, the maximum, and minimum diagonal values were determined using an open-source software QuPath. On average, detected CTCs (n = 1156) were larger, and more irregular in shape compared to leukocytes/endothelial cells (n = 400). Epithelial and mesenchymal CTCs had the largest (median = 18.2 μm) and the smallest diameter (median = 10.4 μm), respectively. In terms of cancer-specific variations, the largest CTCs were identified in lung cancer, whereas the smallest-in prostate and breast cancers. Epithelial CTCs and those negative for both epithelial and mesenchymal markers exhibited the highest degree of elongation, whereas mesenchymal CTCs were the most irregular in shape. Protrusions and micronuclei were observed extremely rarely within CTCs of breast and prostate cancer (0.6%-0.8% of CTCs). Micronuclei were observed only in epithelial and epithelial-mesenchymal CTCs. This study underscores the significant variability in the morphological features of CTCs in relation to their phenotypic classification or even the particular organ of origin, potentially influencing for example, size-dependent CTC isolation methods. It demonstrates for the first time the morphological measurements of CTCs undergoing epithelial-mesenchymal transition, and some specific morphological details (i.e., protrusions, micronuclei) within CTCs in general., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cytometry Part A published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Advancement of Cytometry.)

Physical exercise both during and after curative cancer treatment has been shown to reduce side effects. Evidence in the metastatic cancer setting is scarce, and interventions that improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL) are much needed for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The multinational randomized controlled PREFERABLE-EFFECT trial assessed the effects of exercise on fatigue and HRQOL in patients with MBC. In total, 357 patients with MBC and a life expectancy of ≥6 months but without unstable bone metastases were recruited at eight study centers across five European countries and Australia. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to usual care (control group, n = 179) or a 9-month supervised exercise program (exercise group, n = 178). Intervention effects on physical fatigue (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-FA12 scale) and HRQOL (EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score) were determined by comparing the change from baseline to 3, 6 (primary timepoint) and 9 months between groups using mixed models for repeated measures, adjusted for baseline values of the outcome, line of treatment (first or second versus third or higher) and study center. Exercise resulted in significant positive effects on both primary outcomes. Physical fatigue was significantly lower (-5.3 (95% confidence interval (CI), -10.0 to -0.6), Bonferroni-Holm-adjusted P = 0.027; Cohen's effect size, 0.22) and HRQOL significantly higher (4.8 (95% CI, 2.2-7.4), Bonferroni-Holm-adjusted P = 0.0003; effect size, 0.33) in the exercise group than in the control group at 6 months. Two serious adverse events occurred (that is, fractures), but both were not related to bone metastases. These results demonstrate that supervised exercise has positive effects on physical fatigue and HRQOL in patients with MBC and should be recommended as part of supportive care.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04120298 ., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Objective: The PRESIDE (NCT02288247) randomized trial demonstrated prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with continuing enzalutamide beyond progression in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients starting docetaxel. This study aims to test the associations of PFS and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) prior to and after one cycle (cycle 2 day 1 [C2D1]) of docetaxel and with a liquid biopsy resistance biomarker (LBRB; plasma androgen receptor [AR] gain and/or circulating tumor cells [CTCs] expressing AR splice variant 7 [CTC-AR-V7]) prior to continuation of enzalutamide/placebo., Methods: Patients consenting to the biomarker substudy and donating blood before starting docetaxel with enzalutamide/placebo (N = 157) were included. Sequential plasma DNA samples were characterized with a prostate-cancer bespoke next-generation-sequencing capture panel (PCF_SELECT), and CTCs were assessed for AR-V7 (Epic Sciences, San Diego, CA, USA). Cox models, Kaplan-Meier, and restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 18 mo were calculated., Key Findings and Limitations: There was a significant association of worse PFS with pre-docetaxel ctDNA detection (N = 86 (55%), 8.1 vs 10.8 mo hazard ratio [HR] = 1.78, p = 0.004) or persistence/rise of ctDNA at C2D1 (N = 35/134, 5.5 vs 10.9 mo, HR = 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.15-3.30, p = 0.019). LBRB-positive patients (N = 62) had no benefit from continuing enzalutamide with docetaxel (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.41-1.48, p = 0.44; RMST: 7.9 vs 7.1 mo, p = 0.50). Conversely, resistance biomarker-negative patients (N = 87) had significantly prolonged PFS (HR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.29-0.82, p = 0.006; RMST: 11.5 vs 8.9 mo, p = 0.005). Eight patients were unevaluable. An exploratory analysis identified increased copy-number gains (CDK6/CDK4) at progression on docetaxel. Limitations included relatively low detection of CTC-AR-V7. Validation of impact on overall survival is required., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: Liquid biopsy gives an early indication of docetaxel futility, could guide patient selection for continuing enzalutamide, and identifies cell cycle gene alterations as a potential cause of docetaxel resistance in mCRPC., Patient Summary: In the PRESIDE biomarker study, we found that detecting circulating tumor DNA in plasma after starting treatment with docetaxel (chemotherapy) for metastatic prostate cancer resistant to androgen deprivation therapy can predict early how long patients will take to respond to treatment. Patients negative for a liquid biopsy resistance biomarker (based on the status of androgen receptor (AR) gene and AR splice variant 7 in circulating tumor cells) benefit from continuing enzalutamide in combination with docetaxel, while patients positive for the resistance biomarker did not. Additionally, we identified alterations in the cell cycle genes CDK6 and CDK4 as a potential genetic cause of resistance to docetaxel, which may support testing of specific drugs targeting these alterations., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This manuscript describes the Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) international consensus guidelines updated at the last two ABC international consensus conferences (ABC 6 in 2021, virtual, and ABC 7 in 2023, in Lisbon, Portugal), organized by the ABC Global Alliance. It provides the main recommendations on how to best manage patients with advanced breast cancer (inoperable locally advanced or metastatic), of all breast cancer subtypes, as well as palliative and supportive care. These guidelines are based on available evidence or on expert opinion when a higher level of evidence is lacking. Each guideline is accompanied by the level of evidence (LoE), grade of recommendation (GoR) and percentage of consensus reached at the consensus conferences. Updated diagnostic and treatment algorithms are also provided. The guidelines represent the best management options for patients living with ABC globally, assuming accessibility to all available therapies. Their adaptation (i.e. resource-stratified guidelines) is often needed in settings where access to care is limited., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Matti S. Aapro: Consultant for Accord Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Clinigen Group, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai Co.Ltd, Eli Lilly, Genomic Health (Exact Sciences), G1 Therapeutics, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Helsinn Healthcare SA, Hospira (Pfizer), Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono (Merck KGaA), Mundipharma International Limited, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sandoz, Tesaro (GSK), Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vifor Pharma. Received honoraria for lectures at symposia of Accord Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Astellas, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (Schering), Biocon, Boeringer Ingelheim, Cephalon, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai Co., Ltd., Dr Reddy's Laboratories, Genomic Health (Exact Sciences), Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, GSK, Helsinn Healthcare SA, Hospira (Pfizer), Ipsen, Janssen Biotech, Kyowa Kirin Group, Merck, Merck Serono (Merck KGaA), Mundipharma International Limited, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Tesaro (GSK), Taiho Pharmaceutical, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Vifor Pharma. Grant/Research supports: Amgen, Eisai, Genomic Health (Exact Sciences), Helsinn, Hospira, Novartis, Merck, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Tesaro, Teva, Vifor. Jyoti Bajpai: Institutional financial interests for conducting research: Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Paxman Coolers Ltd, Samsung Bioepis co. Ltd, Sun Pharma. Carlos H. Barrios: Receipt of grants/research supports: (to the institution) Nektar, Pfizer, Polyphor, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, Exelixis, Regeneron, Novartis, GSK, Janssen, OBI Pharma, Lilly, Seagen, Roche, BMS, MSD, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca, Novocure, Aveo Oncology, Takeda, TRIO, PharmaMar, Celgene, PPD, Syneos Health, Labcorp, ICON, IQVIA, Parexel, Nuvisan, PSI, Worldwide, Gilead Sciences, Bayer, Servier. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Advisory Boards and Consulting: Boehringer-Ingelheim, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Zodiac, Lilly, Sanofi, Daiichi. Stock shareholder: Ownership or stocks: Tummi, MEDSir. Jonas Bergh: Receipt of grants/research supports: Research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Merck, Pfizer, Roche & Sanofi-Aventis to Karolinska Institutet and/or University Hospital. No personal payments. Other support: Payment for a chapter in UpToDate on breast cancer prediction to Asklepios Medicin HB. Laura Biganzoli: Personal financial interests (Honoraria, consultancy or advisory role): Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, SeaGen. Institutional financial interests: Celgene, Genomic Health, Novartis. Travel grants: AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo. Fatima Cardoso: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Iqvia, Macrogenics, Medscape, Merck-Sharp, Merus BV, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, prIME Oncology, Roche, Sanofi, Samsung Bioepis, Seagen, Teva, Touchime. Maria-Joao Cardoso: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: AstraZeneca, Merck-Sharp, Novartis and Roche. Lisa A. Carey: Other support: Research funding (institution): NanoString Technologies, Seagen, Veracyte, AstraZeneca. Uncompensated relationships: Lilly, Seagen, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline. Mariana Chavez-MacGregor: Receipt of grants/research supports: BCRF, Susan G Komen. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, Roche, Merck. Javier Cortés: Receipt of grants/research supports: Roche, Celgene, Cellestia, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Erytech, Athenex, Polyphor, Lilly, Merck Sharp&Dohme, GSK, Leuko, Bioasis, Clovis Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses, Hibercell, BioInvent, Gemoab, Gilead, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal Genomics, Expres2ion Biotechnologies. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Eisai, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Lilly, Merck Sharp&Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo, Astrazeneca. Stock shareholder: MedSIR, Nektar Pharmaceuticals, Leuko (relative). Other support: Research funding to the Institution: Roche, Ariad pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Baxalta GMBH/Servier Affaires, Bayer healthcare, Eisai, F.Hoffman-La Roche, Guardanth health, Merck Sharp&Dohme, Pfizer, Piqur Therapeutics, Puma C, Queen Mary University of London. Travel, accommodation, expenses: Roche, Novartis, Eisai, pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Astrazeneca, Gilead. Patents: Pharmaceutical Combinations of a Pi3k Inhibitor and A Microtubule Destabilizing Agent. Javier Cortés Castán, Alejandro Piris Giménez, Violeta Serra Elizalde. WO 2014/199294 A. ISSUED. Her2 as a predictor of response to dual HER2 blockade in the absence of cytotoxic therapy. Aleix Prat, Antonio Llombart, Javier Cortés.US 2019/0338368 A1. LICENSED. Giuseppe Curigliano: Receipt of grants/research supports: Merck. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Merck, Lilly, Pfizer, Daichi Sankyo, Seagen, Novartis, Roche, Astra Zeneca, Ellipsis. Participation in a sponsored speakers' bureau: Seagen, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Daichii Sankyo. Rebecca A. Dent: Receipt of grants/research supports: AstraZeneca, Roche. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: AstraZeneca, DKSH, Eisai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. Nagi S. El Saghir: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Roche, Novartis, Lilly. Alexandru Eniu: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, SeaGen. Receipt of grants/research supports: AstraZeneca. Full or part-time employment: European School of Oncology (ESO). Lesley Fallowfield: Receipt of grants/research supports: Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Voluntis, Genomic Health, NanoString Technologies, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Abbvie, Clovis Oncology, Puma Biotechnology, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Lilly, Seagen, Roche. Sandra X. Franco Millan: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly. Participation in a sponsored speakers' bureau: Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly. Karen Gelmon: Receipt of grants/research supports: Pfizer, AstraZeneca. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck, Gilead, Seagen. Jenny Gilchrist: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Eli-Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Gilead, Juniper Biologics. Joseph Gligorov: Receipt of grants/research supports: Eisai, Exact Science, Guardant, Roche Genentech. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Astra Zeneca, Daiichi, Eisai, Evapharma, Exact Science, Gilead, Guardant Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Onxeo, Pfizer, Roche Genentech, Seattle Genetics. Participation in a sponsored speakers' bureau: Eisai, Eva Pharm, Novartis, Roche Genentech, Seattle Genetics. Other support (please specify): Institutional: Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie AP-HP Sorbonne Université; French breast cancer guidelines St Paul. Nadia Harbeck: Receipt of grants/research supports: all to institution. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, PierreFabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Seagen, Viatris, Zuelligpharma. Participation on a sponsored speakers' bureau: EPG Communication, MEDSCAPE, Springer. Stock shareholder: WSG minority ownership. Spouse/Partner: Consulting for WSG. Ranjit Kaur: Receipt of grants/research supports: Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Astrazeneca. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Astrazeneca. Participation in a sponsored speakers' bureau: Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Astrazeneca. Belinda Kiely: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Speakers fees: Novartis, Eisai. Advisory boards: Roche, Gilead, Novartis. Other support (please specify): meeting registrations fees: Novartis, Pfizer, MSD. Sung-Bae Kim: Receipt of grants/research supports: Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, and DongKook Pharm Co. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Dae Hwa Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, ISU Abxis, OBI pharma, Beigene and Daiichi-Sankyo. Stock shareholder: Genopeaks. Smruti Koppikar: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Eli Lilly, Novartis, Cipla, Roche. Participation in a sponsored speakers' bureau: Eli Lilly, Novartis, Cipla, Roche. Marion Kuper-Hommel: Receipt of honoraria or consulting fees: Astra Zeneca. Ginny Mason: Participation in a sponsored speakers' bureau: Novartis. Volkmar Mueller: Receipt of grants/research supports: Institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech, Astra Zeneca. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Speaker honoraria: Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead, Pierre Fabre. Consultancy honoraria from Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, DaiichiSankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Sanofi, Seagen, Gilead, Stemline, ClinSol. Other support (please specify): Travel grants: Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead. Claire Myerson: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Novartis Pharma. Silvia Neciosup: Receipt of grants/research supports: Roche, Pfizer. Participation in a sponsored speakers' bureau: Tecnofarma, AZ, Roche, Pfizer. Larry Norton: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Blackrock QLS Advisors, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, UNC Breast Spore EAB Meeting, Codagenix Scientific Advisory Board Meeting, Martell Diagnostic Laboratories, Inc., Celgene, Agenus, Immix Biopharma, Inc. Shinji Ohno: Participation in a sponsored speakers' bureau: Chugai, Lilly, MSD, Nippon Kayaku. Shani Paluch-Shimon: Receipt of grants/research supports: Pfizer. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Pfizer, Lily, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Roche, MSD, Gilead, Rhenium/Exact Sciences, Stemline, Daichi Sankyo. Participation in a sponsored speakers' bureau: Pfizer, Lily, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Roche, MSD, Gilead. Ann H. Partridge: Uptodate Royalties. Aleix Prat: Receipt of grants/research supports: Boehringer, Novartis, Roche, Nanostring, Sysmex Europa GmbH, Medica Scientia inno. Research, SL, Celgene, Astellas and Pzifer. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Amgen, BMS, Puma, Oncolytics Biotech, MSD, Guardan Health, Peptomyc and Lilly, Nanostring Technologies and Daiichi Sankyo. Other support: Clinical trials: Boehringer, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Amgen and Daiichi Sankyo. Hope S. Rugo: Receipt of grants/research supports: Astellas Pharma Inc.; AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG/Genentech, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; GlaxoSmithKline; Lilly; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Pfizer; Pionyr Immunotherapeutics; Sermonix Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Taiho Oncology, Inc. and Veru Inc. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Puma, NAPO, Blueprint, and Scorpion Therapeutics Daichi Sankyo. Elzbieta Senkus: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: AstraZeneca, Curio Science, Egis, Eli Lilly, Gilead, high5md, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Swixx. Other support: travel support: AstraZeneca, Egis, Gilead, Novartis, Roche. Contracted research: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Novartis, OBI Pharma, Roche, Samsung, Seagen. Medical writing: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly. Royalties: Springer. Sandra M. Swain: Receipt of grants/research supports: Kailos Genetics, Genentech/Roche. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Athenex, AstraZeneca, Biotheranostics, Natera, Exact Sciences, Lilly, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo, Molecular Templates, Napo Pharmaceuticals. Stock shareholder: SEAGEN. Other support: CO- PI of INAVO 122 Genentech/Roche with in-kind travel to investigator meetings, Travel related expenses in kind Sanofi and Daiichi Sankyo. Peter Vuylsteke: Receipt of grants/research supports: UICC grant. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Roche, Novartis and MSD. Theresa Wiseman: Receipt of grants/research supports: Receiver of SPCC Pfizer grant. Binghe Xu: Receipt of grants/research supports: sponsored research to my institution from Roche, AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: advisory or consultancy fees from Novartis and Roche. Participation in a sponsored speakers' bureau: speakers’ bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Eisai. Elizabeth Bergsten-Nordström, Alberto Costa, Runcie C. W. Chidebe, Prudence A. Francis, Xichun Hu, Renate Haidinger, Leonor Matos, Shirley A. Mertz, Birgitte V. Offersen, Olivia Pagani, Eva Schumacher-Wulf, Daniel A. Vorobiof, Frédéric E. Lecouvet, and Eric P. Winer reported no significant relationships. William J. Gradishar, George W. Sledge and Christoph Thomssen have not submitted a disclosure of interests’ form., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This narrative work highlights a selection of published work from 2023 with potential implications for breast cancer practice. We feature publications that have provided new knowledge immediately relevant to patient care or for future research. We also highlight guidelines that have reported evidence-based or consensus recommendations to support practice and evaluation in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. The scope of selected highlights represents various domains and disciplines in cancer control, from prevention to treatment of early and advanced breast cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest N. Houssami receives funding via a NBCF Chair in Breast Cancer Prevention grant (EC-21-001) and a NHMRC Investigator (Leader) grant (1194410); MJ Cardoso and O Gentilini receive institutional funding as Leading Investigator and Principal Investigator of the Project: 101057389 — CINDERELLA — HORIZON-HLTH-2021-DISEASE-04. Maria-Joao Cardoso honoraria: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis. Oreste Gentilini honoraria: MSD, Astra-Zeneca, BD, Bayer, Eli-Lilly. Elżbieta Senkus honoraria: AstraZeneca, Cancérodigest, Curio Science, Egis, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead, high5md, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche; travel support: AstraZeneca, Egis, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche; contracted research: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung; grants: Pfizer (Stowarzyszenie Różowy Motyl); medical writing: Astellas, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly; royalties: Springer; leadership or fiduciary role: Stowarzyszenie Różowy Motyl; stock: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer. Philip Poortmans no conflicts no disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are pivotal in the immune response against breast cancer (BC), with their prognostic and predictive significance varying across BC subtypes. In triple-negative BC (TNBC), higher TIL levels correlate with improved prognosis and treatment response, guiding therapeutic strategies and potentially offering avenues for treatment de-escalation. In metastatic TNBC, TILs identify patients with enhanced immunotherapy response. HER2+ BC, similar to TNBC, exhibits positive correlations between TILs and treatment response, especially in neoadjuvant settings. Luminal BC generally has low TILs, with limited prognostic impact. Single hormone receptor-positive BCs show distinct TIL associations, emphasizing subtype-specific considerations. TILs in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) display ambiguous prognostic significance, necessitating further investigation. Standardizing TIL assessment methods is crucial for unlocking their full potential as biomarkers, guiding treatment decisions, and enhancing patient care in BC.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. Two years of adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy (ET) resulted in a significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) that persisted beyond the 2-year treatment period in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer (EBC). Here, we report 5-year efficacy results from a prespecified overall survival (OS) interim analysis. In the intent-to-treat population, with a median follow-up of 54 months, the benefit of abemaciclib was sustained with hazard ratios of 0.680 (95% CI, 0.599 to 0.772) for IDFS and 0.675 (95% CI, 0.588 to 0.774) for DRFS. This persistence of abemaciclib benefit translated to continuous separation of the curves with a deepening in 5-year absolute improvement in IDFS and DRFS rates of 7.6% and 6.7%, respectively, compared with rates of 6% and 5.3% at 4 years and 4.8% and 4.1% at 3 years. With fewer deaths in the abemaciclib plus ET arm compared with the ET-alone arm (208 v 234), statistical significance was not reached for OS. No new safety signals were observed. In conclusion, abemaciclib plus ET continued to reduce the risk of developing invasive and distant disease recurrence beyond the completion of treatment. The increasing absolute improvement at 5 years is consistent with a carryover effect and further supports the use of abemaciclib in patients with high-risk EBC.

Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) differs from invasive breast cancer of no special type in many ways. Evidence on treatment efficacy for ILC is, however, lacking. We studied the degree of documentation and representation of ILC in phase III/IV clinical trials for novel breast cancer treatments. Trials were identified on Pubmed and clinicaltrials.gov. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were reviewed for requirements on histological subtype and tumor measurability. Documentation of ILC was assessed and ILC inclusion rate, central pathology and subgroup analyses were evaluated. Inclusion restrictions concerning tumor measurability were found in 39/93 manuscripts. Inclusion rates for ILC were documented in 13/93 manuscripts and varied between 2.0 and 26.0%. No central pathology for ILC was reported and 3/13 manuscripts had ILC sub-analyses. ILC is largely disregarded in most trials with poor representation and documentation. The current inclusion criteria using RECIST v1.1, fall short in recognizing the unique non-measurable metastatic infiltration of ILC., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) on the expression of immune-related genes and prognosis in single hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Material and methods: Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes were analysed according to the guidelines of the International TILs Working Group in a cohort of 206 patients with single hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Of these, 44.7% were classified as ER+/PgR-/HER2-, 18.4% as ER+/PgR-/HER2+, 26.2% as ER-/PgR+/HER2-, and 10.7% as ER-/PgR+/HER2+. Moreover, in 52 samples the analysis of gene expression profiling was performed using nCounter technology., Results: Most cases (74.3%) showed at least 1% of stromal TILs, with a median of 4%, mean of 16.3%, and interquartile range of 0-20%. ER-/PgR+ tumours displayed significantly higher TILs density than ER+/PgR- cases (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon test), regardless of HER2 status. The abundance of TILs was positively associated with ER-/PgR+ phenotype, higher Ki-67, and higher grade, but not with age, tumour size, or regional and distant metastases at diagnosis. Additionally, in ER+/PgR- subgroup higher TILs were associated with HER2-positive status. Stromal TILs > 5% were associated with better survival in the whole group, but this effect was less prominent in ER-/PgR+ patients. We identified 50 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between single hormone receptor-positive breast tumours with high and low TILs, including 39 up-regulated and 11 down-regulated genes in the high TILs group., Conclusions: The up-regulated expression of immune-related genes was consistent also among separately analysed single hormone receptor-positive groups (ER+/PgR- and ER-/PgR+)., Competing Interests: None., (Copyright © 2024 Termedia.)

Opinion Statement: Approximately 15-20% of breast cancers (BC) demonstrate HER2 overexpression/gene amplification. Historically, before the era of HER2-directed therapies, this subtype was associated with poor prognosis. Anti-HER2 agents dramatically changed the natural course of disease and significantly prolonged patients' survival. In recent years, a number of new anti-HER2 therapies have been developed, and their approvals offer new therapeutic options for patients with advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. At present, HER2 pathway blocking drugs used in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer worldwide include trastuzumab and pertuzumab in the first-line treatment; trastuzumab deruxtecan and trastuzumab emtansine in the second line; and tucatinib, neratinib, lapatinib, and margetuximab in further lines of treatment of advanced HER2 positive breast cancer. Additionally, there are many clinical trials underway evaluating drugs blocking the HER2 pathway in advanced disease setting. This article presents new treatment options, discussing the most important findings from clinical trials and real-world reports, clinical benefits and risks of treatment, as well as efficacy of re-treatment with trastuzumab in metastatic breast cancer. New data challenge the current standards, and a number of questions arise regarding the optimal sequence of anti-HER2 targeted therapies, the optimal combination, including endocrine agents in luminal HER2 positive tumors and treatment of special patient population such as patients with brain metastases (BM)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and circulating cancer-associated fibroblasts (cCAFs) have been individually considered strong indicators of cancer progression. However, technical limitations have prevented their simultaneous analysis in the context of CTC phenotypes different from epithelial. This study aimed to analyze CTCs and cCAFs simultaneously in the peripheral blood of 210 breast cancer patients using DAPI/pan-keratin (K)/vimentin (V)/alpha-SMA/CD29/CD45/CD31 immunofluorescent staining and novel technology-imaging flow cytometry (imFC). Single and clustered CTCs of different sizes and phenotypes (i.e., epithelial phenotype K+/V- and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT)-related CTCs, such as K+/V+, K-/V+, and K-/V-) were detected in 27.6% of the samples and correlated with metastases. EMT-related CTCs interacted more frequently with normal cells and tended to occur in patients with tumors progressing during therapy, while cCAFs coincided with CTCs (mainly K+/V- and K-/V-) in seven (3.3%) patients and seemed to correlate with the presence of metastases, particularly visceral ones. This study emphasizes the advantages of imFC in the field of liquid biopsy and highlights the importance of multimarker-based analysis of different subpopulations and phenotypes of cancer progression-related cells, i.e., CTCs and cCAFs. The co-detection of CTCs and cCAFs might improve the identification of patients at higher risk of progression and their monitoring during therapy.

In the primary analysis of the phase III OlympiAD trial, olaparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) vs chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm), HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We report subgroup analyses for the final analysis at a median OS follow-up of 18.9 months (olaparib) and 15.5 months (TPC). Patients (N = 302) with gBRCAm, HER2-negative mBC and ≤2 previous lines of chemotherapy for mBC were randomized 2:1 to open-label olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or TPC. All subgroup analyses were prespecified except site of metastases. Investigator-assessed median PFS was 8.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.8-8.4; 176/205 events) for olaparib and 3.8 months (95% CI 2.8-4.2; 83/97 events) for TPC (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.39-0.66). In subgroup analyses, median PFS hazard ratios (95% CI) favored olaparib: hormone receptor status (triple-negative: 0.47, 0.32-0.69; hormone receptor-positive: 0.52, 0.36-0.75); gBRCAm (BRCA1: 0.49, 0.35-0.71; BRCA2: 0.49, 0.33-0.74); site of metastases (visceral/CNS: 0.53, 0.40-0.71; non-visceral: 0.45, 0.23-0.98); prior chemotherapy for mBC (yes: 0.51, 0.38-0.70; no: 0.49, 0.30-0.82); prior platinum-based chemotherapy for BC (yes: 0.49, 0.30-0.83; no: 0.50, 0.37-0.69); progressive disease at randomization (yes: 0.48, 0.35-0.65; no: 0.61, 0.36-1.07). Investigator-assessed objective response rates were higher across all subgroups with olaparib (35-68%) vs TPC (5-40%). Global health status/health-related quality of life increased in all subgroups with olaparib vs decreased/no change with TPC. These data confirm the consistency of olaparib benefit across patient subgroups in OlympiAD., (© 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Breast cancer remains the most common cause of cancer death among women. Despite its considerable histological and molecular heterogeneity, those characteristics are not distinguished in most definitions of oligometastatic disease and clinical trials of oligometastatic breast cancer. After an exhaustive review of the literature covering all aspects of oligometastatic breast cancer, 35 experts from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Imaging and Breast Cancer Groups elaborated a Delphi questionnaire aimed at offering consensus recommendations, including oligometastatic breast cancer definition, optimal diagnostic pathways, and clinical trials required to evaluate the effect of diagnostic imaging strategies and metastasis-directed therapies. The main recommendations are the introduction of modern imaging methods in metastatic screening for an earlier diagnosis of oligometastatic breast cancer and the development of prospective trials also considering the histological and molecular complexity of breast cancer. Strategies for the randomisation of imaging methods and therapeutic approaches in different subsets of patients are also addressed., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DEO-L reports honoraria from BMUC and unrestricted grants from Janssen for consensus nuclear medicine meetings in 2020 and 2022, outside the submitted work. LF reports grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Banque Publique d’Investissement; honoraria for lectures from GE Healthcare, Fujifilm, and Median Technologies; support for attending meetings from Guerbet; participation on a safety monitoring board with Pandas Prodige; and research collaborations with Philips, Ariana Pharma, Evolucare, and Dassault Systems, outside the submitted work. EL reports royalties or licences from Springer, outside the submitted work. DK reports grants from Merck and honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dohme and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. SK reports an advisory role and study material from Novartis, Amgen, Somatex, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, MSD, and Roche for the submitted work; consulting fees from Eli Lilly and MSD; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer; support for attending meetings from Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly; participation on boards with Novartis, Amgen, Somatex, pfm medical, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Gilead Science, Agendia, Exact Science, Roche, Sonoscape, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; and leadership in other boards with AGO, WSG, and ESMO, outside the submitted work. IM reports honoraria supported by Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, and Accuray, outside the submitted work. WMHO reports grants from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, travel grants from Daiitchi, and participation on an advisory board with GE, outside the submitted work. KH reports personal fees from Bayer, Sofie Biosciences, SIRTEX, Adacap, Curium, Endocyte, IPSEN, Siemens Healthineers, GE Healthcare, Amgen, Novartis, Y-mAbs, Aktis Oncology, Theragnostics, Pharma15, Debiopharm, AstraZeneca, and Janssen; non-financial support from ABX; and grants and personal fees from BTG, outside the submitted work. FC reports honoraria from Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Iqvia, Macrogenics, Medscape, Merck Sharp, Meus BV, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, priME Oncoloy, Roche, Sanofi, Samsung Bioepis, Seagen, Teva, and Touchime, and support for attending meetings from Pfizer and Roche, outside the submitted work. BL reports participation on boards for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Breast International Group Executive Committee, EORTC Breast Cancer Group, and Swedish Association of Breast Oncologists, outside the submitted work. WK reports consulting fees from Mint Medical and honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. CD reports consulting fees from Terumo, Sitex, and PSI CRO; honoraria from Ipsen; and a chairing role for EORTC Imaging Group, outside the submitted work. ES reports royalties from Springer; honoraria from Cancerodigest, Curio Science, Egis, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead, high5md, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer; support for attending meetings from Egis, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; participation on boards with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Novartis, Oncompass Medicine, and Stowarzyszenie Rozowy Motyl; stock options from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer; receipt of equipment from AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly; and interests with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, and Samsung, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The population of individuals affected by breast cancer is growing, and with advances in cancer treatment implemented into usual care, there is an urgent need to improve the recognition, monitoring and treatment of therapy-induced adverse effects. This study aims to explore the use of an in-app electronic questionnaire to assess and monitor chemotherapy-related symptoms in early breast cancer patients treated with perioperative chemotherapy., Method: Between December 2019 and June 2021, 72 female study participants used the mobile app Centrum Chorób Piersi UCK and completed an in-app questionnaire about the 14 most common chemotherapy-related symptoms. Replies including symptoms with a critical value triggered automatic email alerts to the nursing team., Results: Acceptance of the study was higher among younger women and patients originating from rural areas, while possible digital exclusion among patients >60 years was observed during the enrolment process. A total of 55 participants completed the electronic questionnaire at least once and generated 553 responses with 1808 specific problems reported. Fatigue (n = 428) was the most common problem, and fever (n = 5) the least reported problem. A total of 21 participants triggered alerts with responses containing symptoms with critical value assessment (n = 89). Significant negative correlation was observed between the number of responses and time from the first chemotherapy administration; however, the number of responses was not determined by any sociodemographic or medical factors. Significant positive correlations were identified between the number of communicated problems and participants' age. The usage of our electronic symptom assessment questionnaire decreased substantially after the period of active encouragement during the study enrolment., Conclusions: Not all societies are ready for innovative eHealth solutions. Patients' age should be carefully considered when app-based interventions are introduced to usual cancer care. Additional support is suggested for older patients to improve their awareness and participation in eHealth interventions. More research involving older participants is needed to explore and address their particular needs and perspectives on eHealth solutions.

Background: In the Phase III OlympiAD study, olaparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC). In the final pre-specified analysis (64% maturity), median overall survival (OS) was 19.3 months for olaparib and 17.1 months for TPC (P = 0.513). Post-hoc extended follow-up, 25.7 months longer than previously reported for OS, is reported., Patients and Methods: Patients with gBRCAm, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative mBC, who had received ≤2 lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease, were randomised 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg bid) or TPC. During extended follow-up, OS was analysed every 6 months using the stratified log-rank test (overall population) and Cox proportional hazards model (pre-specified subgroups)., Results: In the overall population (302 patients; 76.8% maturity), median OS was 19.3 months for olaparib and 17.1 months for TPC (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.67-1.18); median follow-up was 18.9 and 15.5 months, respectively. Three-year survival was 27.9% for olaparib versus 21.2% for TPC. With olaparib, 8.8% of patients received study treatment for ≥3 years versus none with TPC. In first-line mBC, median OS was longer for olaparib than TPC (22.6 versus 14.7 months; hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.95) and 3-year survival was 40.8% for olaparib versus 12.8% for TPC. No new serious adverse events related to olaparib were observed., Conclusions: OS was consistent with previous analyses from OlympiAD. These findings support the possibility of meaningful long-term survival benefit with olaparib, particularly in first-line mBC., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adjuvant abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy previously showed a significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2; also known as ERBB2)-negative, node-positive, high-risk, early breast cancer. Here, we report updated results from an interim analysis to assess overall survival as well as invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival with additional follow-up., Methods: In monarchE, an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at a high risk of recurrence with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were recruited from 603 sites including hospitals and academic and community centres in 38 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive web-based response system (block size of 4), stratified by previous chemotherapy, menopausal status, and region, to receive standard-of-care endocrine therapy of physician's choice for up to 10 years with or without abemaciclib 150 mg orally twice a day for 2 years (treatment period). All therapies were administered in an open-label manner without masking. High-risk disease was defined as either four or more positive axillary lymph nodes, or between one and three positive axillary lymph nodes and either grade 3 disease or tumour size of 5 cm or larger (cohort 1). A smaller group of patients were enrolled with between one and three positive axillary lymph nodes and Ki-67 of at least 20% as an additional risk feature (cohort 2). This was a prespecified overall survival interim analysis planned to occur 2 years after the primary outcome analysis for invasive disease-free survival. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all treated patients. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03155997, and is ongoing., Findings: Between July 17, 2017, and Aug 12, 2019, 5637 patients were randomly assigned (5601 [99·4%] were women and 36 [0·6%] were men). 2808 were assigned to receive abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy and 2829 were assigned to receive endocrine therapy alone. At a median follow-up of 42 months (IQR 37-47), median invasive disease-free survival was not reached in either group and the invasive disease-free survival benefit previously reported was sustained: HR 0·664 (95% CI 0·578-0·762, nominal p<0·0001). At 4 years, the absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival between the groups was 6·4% (85·8% [95% CI 84·2-87·3] in the abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy group vs 79·4% [77·5-81·1] in the endocrine therapy alone group). 157 (5·6%) of 2808 patients in the abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy group died compared with 173 (6·1%) of 2829 patients in the endocrine therapy alone group (HR 0·929, 95% CI 0·748-1·153; p=0·50). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (in 548 [19·6%] of 2791 patients receiving abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy vs 24 [0·9%] of 2800 patients in the endocrine therapy alone group), leukopenia (318 [11·4%] vs 11 [0·4%]), and diarrhoea (218 [7·8%] vs six [0·2%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 433 (15·5%) of 2791 patients receiving abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy versus 256 (9·1%) of 2800 receiving endocrine therapy. There were two treatment-related deaths in the abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy group (diarrhoea and pneumonitis) and none in the endocrine therapy alone group., Interpretation: Adjuvant abemaciclib reduces the risk of recurrence. The benefit is sustained beyond the completion of treatment with an absolute increase at 4 years, further supporting the use of abemaciclib in patients with high-risk hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. Further follow-up is needed to establish whether overall survival can be improved with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy in these patients., Funding: Eli Lilly., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SRDJ reports grants or contracts from Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche–Genentech for research funding to institute for laboratory studies and clinical trials; consulting fees from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Pfizer, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme for consulting or an advisory role; and payment or honoraria from Pfizer, Eisai, AstraZeneca, and Roche–Genentech for speaker's bureau. MT reports grants or contracts from Chugai, Takeda, Pfizer, Taiho, JBCRG, KBCRN, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Shimadzu, Yakult, Nippon Kayaku, AFI technology, Luxonus, Shionogi, GL Science, and Sanwa Shurui for research grants to their department; payment or honoraria from Chugai, Takeda, Pfizer, Kyowa-Kirin, Taiho, Eisai, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Exact Science, Novartis, Shimadzu, Yakult, Nippon Kayaku, Devicore Medical Japan, and Sysmex for lecture honoraria or honoraria for lecture chair; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Athenex Oncology, Bertis, Terumo, and Kansai Medical Net; and other financial or non-financial interest from British Journal of Cancer, Scientific Reports, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Cancer Science, Frontiers in Women's Cancer, Asian Journal of Surgery, and Asian Journal of Breast Surgery for his role as Associate Editor. JO'S reports consulting fees and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from from AbbVie, Agendia, Amgen Biotechnology, Aptitude Health, AstraZeneca, Athenex, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Carrick Therapeutics, Celgene Corporation, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Genzyme, Gilead Sciences, GRAIL, Halozyme Therapeutics, Heron Therapeutics, Immunomedics, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Merck, Myriad, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Ontada, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals, Puma Biotechnology, Prime Oncology, Roche, Samsung Bioepsis, Sandoz, Sanofi, Seagen, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Oncology, Takeda, Theralink, and Synthon. MC reports personal payment support from Eli Lilly for the present article, advisory board, and speaker's bureau; payment or honoraria to institution from Novartis; support for attending meetings from Eli Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; and payment to institution from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board. C-SH reports research grants to institution from Eli Lilly for the present article; research grants to institution or contracts from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, EirGenix, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp and Dohme, OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, and Novartis; payment or honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and Eli Lilly for speaker's bureau; support for attending meetings or travel from Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Roche, and Novartis; and participation on advisory boards from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and Roche. JH reports institutional grants or contracts from Celgene, Novartis, Hexal, and Eli Lilly; consulting fees paid to self from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Hexal, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Celgene, AbbVie, and Daiichi-Sankyo; honoraria or payments to self for lectures, presentation, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Celgene, Eisai, Abbvie, Seagen, and Gilead; and support for attending meetings or travel paid to self from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Gilead. SMT reports institutional funding for study, consulting work to personal (honorariums), and manuscript preparation from Eli Lilly; institutional grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Merck, Mektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech–Roche, Gilead, Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Nanostring, Cyclacel, Sanofi, and Seagen; and honoraria payments to self for participation in advisory boards or consulting from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech–Roche, Gilead, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Sanofi, Seagen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Athenex, OncoPep, Kyowa Kirin Pharma, CytomX, Certara, Mersana Therapeutics, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec, Infinity Therapeutics, BeyondSpring Pharma, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, ARC Therapeutics, Reveal Genomics, Blueprint Medicines, Myovant, Umoja Biopharma, and Menarini–Stemline. MPG reports institutional grants or contracts from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Sermonix; consulting fees to institution from Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Biovica, Novartis, Sermonix, Pfizer, and ARC Therapeutics; honoraria or payment to self for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Research to Practice, Clinical Education Alliance, Medscape, Total Health Conferencing, Curio Science, and MJH Life Sciences; and support to institution from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Biotheranostics, Blueprint Medicines, Sanofi Genzyme, and ARC Therapeutics for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board. HSR reports institutional research support from Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Genentech–Roche, OBI, Merck, Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Seattle Genetics, Sermonix, AstraZeneca, and Astellas; travel support to academic meetings from Merck, AstraZeneca, and Gilead; and consulting or advisory support from Puma, NAPO, and Blueprint. ES reports support from Eli Lilly for the present article including investigator fees and medical writing; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Cancérodigest, Curio, Science, Egis, Eli Lilly and Company, Exact Sciences, Gilead, high5md, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre; support for attending meetings or travel from Egis, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from AstraZeneca, Egis, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, and Pfizer; a leadership or fiduciary role from Stowarzyszenie Różowy Motyl as Chair (unpaid); stock or stock options from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer; receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services from Astellas, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly; and other financial or non-financial interests from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, and Samsung for contracted research. LT reports support from Eli Lilly as the trial sponsor for the study; grants or contracts from Novartis for clinical research; consulting fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Eli Lilly, and Novartis for advisory board; payment or honoraria from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and AstraZeneca for medical education; and support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer and AstraZeneca. LDM reports an institutional research grant from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seagen; consulting fees paid to self from Eli Lilly; honoraria or payment to self from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisa, Exact Sciences, and Ipsen for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events; support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, Pfizer, and Eisai; and fees paid to self for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory Board from Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, AstraZeneca, and Agendia. CS reports research grants from Eli Lilly, and honoraria for lectures from Pfizer and Eli Lilly. RW, AS, MMu, BSA, VA are employees and stock shareholders of Eli Lilly. NH reports support for the present article (medical writing) from Eli Lilly; consulting fees from Gilead, Sandoz, and Seagen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, AsraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Roche; and a leadership or fiduciary role with the West German Study Group and ESMO. MMa reports institutional grants from Roche, Novartis, and Puma; consulting fees paid to self from Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Novartis; payment or honoraria to self for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, Eli Lilly, Astrazeneca, and Pfizer; support paid to self for attending meetings or travel from Daiichi-Sankyo and Roche; and support paid to self for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Novartis. PR, PN, GGJ, and IC declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 oncogene (HER2-positive) overexpression/amplification occurs in less than 20% of breast cancers and has traditionally been associated with poor prognosis. Development of therapies that target HER2 has significantly improved outcomes for patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC). Currently available HER2-targeted agents include the monoclonal antibodies trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and margetuximab, the small-molecule inhibitors lapatinib, tucatinib, neratinib, and pyrotinib, as well as the antibody-drug conjugates trastuzumab emtansine and trastuzumab deruxtecan. Optimal sequencing of these agents in the continuum of the disease is critical to maximize treatment outcomes. The large body of clinical evidence generated over the past 2 decades aids clinicians in treatment decision-making. However, patients with HER2-positive ABC and specific disease characteristics and/or comorbidities, such as leptomeningeal disease, brain metastases, or cardiac dysfunction, are generally excluded from large randomized clinical trials, and elderly or frail patients are often underrepresented. In addition, there is great inequality in the accessibility of approved drugs across countries. This article addresses various challenging clinical situations when treating patients with HER2-positive ABC. The objective is to provide guidance to clinicians on how and when HER2-targeted therapies and additional treatments can be best implemented in routine clinical practice, on the basis of existing clinical evidence and expert opinion where needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of interest statements Matti Aapro: Advisor for Eisai, Helsinn, Merck, Mundipharma, Roche, and Tesaro; honoraria from Eisai, Helsinn, Merck, Mundipharma, Roche, and Tesaro; grants from Helsinn, Merck, Roche, and Tesaro. Fatima Cardoso: Consultancy fees for: Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVIA, MacroGenics, Medscape, Merck Sharp, Merus BV, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, prIME Oncology, Roche, Sanofi, Samsung Bioepis, Seagen, Teva, touchIME. Giuseppe Curigliano: Personal fees from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Foundation Medicine, Samsung, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, GSK, Seagen; non-financial support from Roche, Pfizer; grants from Merck; other from Ellipses, outside the submitted work. Alexandru Eniu: Grants/Research support from AstraZeneca, Roche Celltrion, Pfizer, and Novartis; honoraria or consultation fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Gilead, Seagen, Novartis, and Janssen. Joseph Gligorov: Grants, personal fees and non-financial support for clinical trials, travel support, advisory boards, and speakers' bureaus from Roche-Genentech, Eisai, Exact Sciences, and Pfizer; personal fees and nonfinancial support for clinical trials, travel support, advisory boards, and speakers' bureaus from Novartis and Lilly; personal fees and nonfinancial support for clinical trials and advisory boards from Daiichi Sankyo and MSD; grants and personal fees for travel support, advisory boards, and speakers' bureaus from Mylan; personal fees and nonfinancial support for travel support, advisory boards, and speakers' bureaus from Pierre Fabre; and personal fees for advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Nadia Harbeck: Honoraria for lectures and/or consulting: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, and Seagen. Andreas Mueller: Stock and other ownership interests from Vifor Pharma; honoraria from Eli Lilly and Novartis; consulting or advisory role for Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Genomic Health, AstraZeneca, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck Sharp & DohmeMerck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Exact Sciences, Myriad Genetics, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline; research funding from Eisai; travel, accommodations, expenses from Roche. Olivia Pagani: Participation in advisory boards for Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, Debiopharm, Ipsen. Educational activity for Takeda, Pfizer, and Ipsen. Shani Paluch-Shimon: Speaker's bureau, honoraria, advisory board and consultancy for Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Medison, Lilly. Elzbieta Senkus: Honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Cancérodigest, Clinigen, Curio Science, Egis, Eli Lilly, Genomic Health, Gilead, high5md, Novartis, Oncompass Medicine, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sandoz, TLC Biopharmaceuticals; fees for travel support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Egis, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Samsung; stock from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. Beat Thürlimann: Holds stock of Roche, Merck, and Novartis; advisory board member for Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly; honoraria Oncogenomics, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and InnoMedica. Khalil Zaman: Participation in advisory board or talk: AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Exact Sciences, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Gilead, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, and Viatris/Mylan., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The randomized, double-blind OlympiA trial compared 1 year of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, olaparib, to matching placebo as adjuvant therapy for patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (gBRCA1/2pv) and high-risk, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, early breast cancer (EBC). The first pre-specified interim analysis (IA) previously demonstrated statistically significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS). The olaparib group had fewer deaths than the placebo group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance for overall survival (OS). We now report the pre-specified second IA of OS with updates of IDFS, DDFS, and safety., Patients and Methods: One thousand eight hundred and thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo following (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy if indicated. Endocrine therapy was given concurrently with study medication for hormone receptor-positive cancers. Statistical significance for OS at this IA required P < 0.015., Results: With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the second IA of OS demonstrated significant improvement in the olaparib group relative to the placebo group [hazard ratio 0.68; 98.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.97; P = 0.009]. Four-year OS was 89.8% in the olaparib group and 86.4% in the placebo group (Δ 3.4%, 95% CI -0.1% to 6.8%). Four-year IDFS for the olaparib group versus placebo group was 82.7% versus 75.4% (Δ 7.3%, 95% CI 3.0% to 11.5%) and 4-year DDFS was 86.5% versus 79.1% (Δ 7.4%, 95% CI 3.6% to 11.3%), respectively. Subset analyses for OS, IDFS, and DDFS demonstrated benefit across major subgroups. No new safety signals were identified including no new cases of acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome., Conclusion: With 3.5 years of median follow-up, OlympiA demonstrates statistically significant improvement in OS with adjuvant olaparib compared with placebo for gBRCA1/2pv-associated EBC and maintained improvements in the previously reported, statistically significant endpoints of IDFS and DDFS with no new safety signals., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

We dedicate this manuscript in memory of a dear friend and colleague Bella Kaufman. The fifth International Consensus Symposium for Breast Cancer in Young Women (BCY5) took place virtually in October 2020, organized by the European School of Oncology (ESO) and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO). Consensus recommendations for the management of breast cancer in young women were updated from BCY4 with incorporation of new evidence to inform the guidelines. Areas of research priorities as well as specificities in different geographic and minority populations were identified. This manuscript summarizes the ESO-ESMO international consensus recommendations, which are also endorsed by the European Society of Breast Specialists (EUSOMA)., Competing Interests: Disclosure SPS: Advisory Board consultancy, speaker's bureau: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, MSD, Exact Sciences. Research Funding: Pfizer. HAA: Recipient of grants/research supports: Amgen. Recipient of honoraria or consultation fees: Novartis, Roche. Employment: Pierre Fabre. FC: Recipient of honoraria or consultation fees: Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Macrogenics, Medscape, Merck-Sharp, Merus BV, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, prIME Oncology, Roche, Samsung Bioepis. GC: Recipient of grants/research supports: Merck, Astra Zeneca. Recipient of honoraria or consultation fees: Daichii Sankyo. Participation in a sponsored speakers’ bureau: Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly. KAG: Recipient of grants/research supports: Pfizer, Astra Zeneca. Recipient of honoraria or consultation fees: Pfizer, Lilly, Astrazeneca, Novartis, Mylan, Benentech, Merck, Roche, Nanostring. NH: Honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Seagen (all outside the submitted work). SBK: Research funding from Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis and DongKook Pharm Co; consultant in advisory boards—Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Dae Hwa Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, ISU Abxis, Daiichi-Sankyo and Beigene; and stocks—Genopeaks, NeogeneTC (all outside the submitted work). FP: Recipient of honoraria or consultation fees: Roche Diagnostics, Ipsen, Merck (all outside the submitted work). ES: Recipient of grants/research supports: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung. Recipient of honoraria or consultation fees: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clinigen, Egis, Eli Lilly, Genomic Health, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sandoz, TLC Biopharmaceuticals. Travel support: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Egis, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although androgen deprivation therapy is typically given long-term for men with metastatic prostate cancer, second-generation hormone therapies are generally discontinued before the subsequent line of treatment. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of continuing enzalutamide after progression in controlling metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with docetaxel and prednisolone., Methods: PRESIDE was a two-period, multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3b study done at 123 sites in Europe (in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the UK). Patients were eligible for period 1 (P1) of the study if they had histologically confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma without neuroendocrine differentiation or small-cell features, serum testosterone concentrations of 1·73 nmol/L or less, and had progressed during androgen deprivation therapy with a luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonist or antagonist or after bilateral orchiectomy. In P1, patients received open-label enzalutamide 160 mg per day orally. At week 13, patients were assessed for either radiographic or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (25% or more increase and 2 ng/mL or more above nadir). Patients who showed any decline in PSA at week 13 and subsequently progressed (radiographic progression, PSA progression, or both) were screened and enrolled in period 2 (P2), during which eligible patients were treated with up to ten cycles of intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks and oral prednisolone 10 mg/day, and randomly assigned (1:1) to oral enzalutamide 160 mg/day or oral placebo. Patients were stratified by type of disease progression. The block size was four and the overall number of blocks was 400. Patients, investigators, and study organisers were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in all patients in P2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02288247, and is no longer recruiting., Findings: Between Dec 1, 2014, and Feb 15, 2016, 816 patients were screened for P1 of the study. 688 patients were enrolled in P1 and 687 received open-label enzalutamide. In P2, 271 patients were randomly assigned at 73 sites to receive enzalutamide (n=136) or placebo (n=135). The data cutoff for analysis was April 30, 2020. Median progression-free survival with enzalutamide was 9·5 months (95% CI 8·3-10·9) versus 8·3 months (6·3-8·7) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·53-0·96]; p=0·027). The most common grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (17 [13%] of 136 patients in the enzalutamide group vs 12 [9%] of 135 patients in the placebo group) and asthenia (ten [7%] vs six [4%]). The most common grade 4 treatment-emergent adverse event in P2 was neutropenia (23 [17%] of 136 patients in the enzalutamide group vs 28 [21%] of 135 patients in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 67 (49%) of 136 patients in the enzalutamide group and 52 (39%) of 135 patients in the placebo group. Two (15%) of 13 deaths in the enzalutamide group (caused by septic shock and haematuria) and one (14%) of seven deaths in the placebo group (caused by actue kidney injury) were associated with docetaxel., Interpretation: PRESIDE met its primary endpoint and showed that continuing enzalutamide with docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy delayed time to progression compared with docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy alone, supporting the hypothesis that enzalutamide maintenance could control persistent androgen-dependent clones in men with mCRPC who progress after treatment with enzalutamide alone., Funding: Astellas Pharma and Pfizer., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests ASM reports travel support from Janssen, Astellas Pharma, and Ipsen; honoraria from Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Ipsen, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Takeda, Pfizer, and Novartis; funding from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Clovis; and a consultant role with Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Ipsen, and Clovis, and as a speaker for Ipsen. GA reports travel support from Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Medivation, Ventana, Abbot, Bayer, ESSA Pharma, Pfizer, and Ferring; honoraria from Janssen and Astellas Pharma; funding from Janssen, Arno Therapeutics, and Innocrin; and a consultant role with Janssen, Veridex, Ventana, Astellas Pharma, Medivation, Novartis, Millennium, Abbott, ESSA Pharma, Bayer, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Ferring; as a speaker for Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Takeda, Sanofi, Ventan, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, and Ferring; being on the Institute of Cancer Research rewards to investors list for abiraterone; and being a member of the Institute of Cancer Research. LÅ reports honoraria from Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Pfizer, Merck, and Janssen; acting as a speaker for AstraZeneca; and participating in an advisory board for Merck Sharpe & Dohme. VBM reports honoraria from Astellas Pharma. SB reports uncompensated participation in Astellas Pharma advisory boards and steering committees; and being the President of the Italian Society for Uro-Oncology from Oct 7, 2022. ES reports travel support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Egis, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; grants from Egis, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; funding or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Cancerodigest, Curio Science, Egis, Eli Lilly, Genomic Health, Gilead, high5md, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; acting as a speaker for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Egis, Eli Lilly, Genomic Health, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; participating in an advisory board for AstraZeneca, Egis, Eli Lilly, Genomic Health, Gilead, Novartis, Oncompass, Pfizer, Sandoz, and TLC Biopharmaceuticals; participating in clinical research for Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Samsung; being the chair of Stowarzyszenie Różowy Motyl; and ownership of stocks or stock options in AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. GB was an employee of Astellas Pharma during the conduct of this study and reports ownership of stocks of Clovis, Gilead Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, Opko Health, and Teva Pharmaceuticals. GG and KM are current employees of Astellas Pharma. SC reports honoraria from Clovis and Novartis; funding from Sanofi; acting as speaker for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Janssen; and a consultant role with Clovis, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Pfizer, Janssen, BeiGene, Remedy Bio, Telix, and Novartis. All other authors declare no competing interests. No authors received any financial compensation related to the development of this manuscript., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) is the second most common type of breast cancer after invasive breast cancer of no special type (NST), representing up to 15% of all breast cancers., Design: Latest data on ILC are presented, focusing on diagnosis, molecular make-up according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT) guidelines, treatment in the early and metastatic setting and ILC-focused clinical trials., Results: At the imaging level, magnetic resonance imaging-based and novel positron emission tomography/computed tomography-based techniques can overcome the limitations of currently used imaging techniques for diagnosing ILC. At the pathology level, E-cadherin immunohistochemistry could help improving inter-pathologist agreement. The majority of patients with ILC do not seem to benefit as much from (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy as patients with NST, although chemotherapy might be required in a subset of high-risk patients. No differences in treatment efficacy are seen for anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapies in the adjuvant setting and cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors in the metastatic setting. The clinical utility of the commercially available prognostic gene expression-based tests is unclear for patients with ILC. Several ESCAT alterations differ in frequency between ILC and NST. Germline BRCA1 and PALB2 alterations are less frequent in patients with ILC, while germline CDH1 (gene coding for E-cadherin) alterations are more frequent in patients with ILC. Somatic HER2 mutations are more frequent in ILC, especially in metastases (15% ILC versus 5% NST). A high tumour mutational burden, relevant for immune checkpoint inhibition, is more frequent in ILC metastases (16%) than in NST metastases (5%). Tumours with somatic inactivating CDH1 mutations may be vulnerable for treatment with ROS1 inhibitors, a concept currently investigated in early and metastatic ILC., Conclusion: ILC is a unique malignancy based on its pathological and biological features leading to differences in diagnosis as well as in treatment response, resistance and targets as compared to NST., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many patients with metastatic breast cancer experience cancer- and treatment-related side effects that impair activities of daily living and negatively affect the quality of life. There is a need for interventions that improve quality of life by alleviating fatigue and other side effects during palliative cancer treatment. Beneficial effects of exercise have been observed in the curative setting, but, to date, comparable evidence in patients with metastatic breast cancer is lacking. The aim of this study is to assess the effects of a structured and individualized 9-month exercise intervention in patients with metastatic breast cancer on quality of life, fatigue, and other cancer- and treatment-related side effects., Methods: The EFFECT study is a multinational, randomized controlled trial including 350 patients with metastatic breast cancer. Participants are randomly allocated (1:1) to an exercise or control group. The exercise group participates in a 9-month multimodal exercise program, starting with a 6-month period where participants exercise twice a week under the supervision of an exercise professional. After completing this 6-month period, one supervised session is replaced by one unsupervised session for 3 months. In addition, participants are instructed to be physically active for ≥30 min/day on all remaining days of the week, while being supported by an activity tracker and exercise app. Participants allocated to the control group receive standard medical care, general written physical activity advice, and an activity tracker, but no structured exercise program. The primary outcomes are quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30, summary score) and fatigue (EORTC QLQ-FA12), assessed at baseline, 3, 6 (primary endpoint), and 9 months post-baseline. Secondary outcomes include physical fitness, physical performance, physical activity, anxiety, depression, pain, sleep problems, anthropometric data, body composition, and blood markers. Exploratory outcomes include quality of working life, muscle thickness, urinary incontinence, disease progression, and survival. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of the exercise program is assessed. Adherence and safety are monitored throughout the intervention period., Discussion: This large randomized controlled trial will provide evidence regarding the (cost-) effectiveness of exercise during treatment of metastatic breast cancer. If proven (cost-)effective, exercise should be offered to patients with metastatic breast cancer as part of standard care., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04120298 . Registered on October 9, 2019., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative (-) progesterone receptor (PgR)-positive (+) is the least common combination of steroid receptor expression observed in breast cancer. There are many controversies regarding the actual existence of ER-/PgR+ phenotype. In the current study, we aimed to perform comprehensive immunohistochemical re-evaluation of ER-/PgR+ breast cancers from multiple institutions. A total of 135 cases of ER-/PgR+ breast cancer were collected from 11 institutions from the period 2006-2020 and subsequently stained with three clinically validated anti-ER antibody clones: SP1 (Roche), 1D5 (Dako), and EP1 (Dako), and two anti-PgR antibody clones: 636 (Dako), and 1E2 (Roche). Clinicopathological characteristics of confirmed and re-categorised cases were analysed. Seventy-six cases retained the original ER-/PgR+ phenotype, including 21 HER2+ and 55 HER2- tumours. Forty-seven cases were ER+ with at least one anti-ER antibody, and 12 cases were re-categorised as double-negatives across all anti-ER and anti-PgR antibodies. No significant differences in survival were observed between groups in the HER2+ category. In the HER2- cohort, confirmed ER-/PgR+, ER+ tumours with discrepant ER staining, and triple negatives had inferior overall survival compared to concordant ER+ cases. Progesterone receptor expression in >20% of cells was identified as an adverse prognostic factor in ER-/PgR+/HER2- breast cancer in a multivariable model adjusted by stage (HR 5.0, 95% CI 1.3-19.2, p=0.019). We performed one of the largest validation studies so far on ER-/PgR+ breast cancer and confirmed the existence of this subgroup. Moreover, we identified high PgR expression as an adverse prognostic factor., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mobile applications are more and more often integrated into standard cancer care. Nevertheless, knowledge about the use of mobile applications for monitoring patients during treatment for early breast cancer is still limited., Methods: A scoping review of literature was performed based on Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines to identify articles providing information on development and use of mobile applications for adult patients undergoing chemotherapy for early breast cancer., Results: Five randomized controlled trials (RCT), nonrandomized controlled prospective cohort study, secondary data analysis of RCT, mixed method study and two protocol manuscripts were reviewed. Four out of six mobile applications recognized in this review were demonstrated to have interventional value for management of chemotherapy-related side effects. Clinical outcomes achieved among mobile apps users included improved quality of life, lower symptom prevalence and symptom burden., Conclusions: Mobile applications are feasible and have ability to improve symptom monitoring during cancer treatment. However, more research is needed to validate these resources, ensuring effectiveness and safety for their users., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Alpelisib is an α-selective phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor used for treating hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative (HER2-), PIK3CA -mutated locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer following disease progression on or after endocrine therapy. Hyperglycemia is an on-target effect of alpelisib affecting approximately 60% of treated patients, and sometimes necessitating dose reductions, treatment interruptions, or discontinuation of alpelisib. Early detection of hyperglycemia and timely intervention have a key role in achieving optimal glycemic control and maintaining alpelisib dose intensity to optimize the benefit of this drug. A glycemic support program implemented by an endocrinology-oncology collaborative team may be very useful in this regard. Lifestyle modifications, mainly comprising a reduced-carbohydrate diet, and a designated stepwise, personalized antihyperglycemic regimen, based on metformin, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, and pioglitazone, are the main tools required to address the insulin-resistant hyperglycemia induced by alpelisib. In this report, based on the consensus of 14 oncologists and seven endocrinologists, we provide guidance for hyperglycemia management strategies before, during, and after alpelisib therapy for HR+, HER2-, PIK3CA -mutated breast cancer, with a focus on a proactive, multidisciplinary approach.

High-quality randomised clinical trials testing moderately fractionated breast radiotherapy have clearly shown that local control and survival is at least as effective as with 2 Gy daily fractions with similar or reduced normal tissue toxicity. Fewer treatment visits are welcomed by patients and their families, and reduced fractions produce substantial savings for health-care systems. Implementation of hypofractionation, however, has moved at a slow pace. The oncology community have now reached an inflection point created by new evidence from the FAST-Forward five-fraction randomised trial and catalysed by the need for the global radiation oncology community to unite during the COVID-19 pandemic and rapidly rethink hypofractionation implementation. The aim of this paper is to support equity of access for all patients to receive evidence-based breast external beam radiotherapy and to facilitate the translation of new evidence into routine daily practice. The results from this European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology Advisory Committee in Radiation Oncology Practice consensus state that moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy can be offered to any patient for whole breast, chest wall (with or without reconstruction), and nodal volumes. Ultrafractionation (five fractions) can also be offered for non-nodal breast or chest wall (without reconstruction) radiotherapy either as standard of care or within a randomised trial or prospective cohort. The consensus is timely; not only is it a pragmatic framework for radiation oncologists, but it provides a measured proposal for the path forward to influence policy makers and empower patients to ensure equity of access to evidence-based radiotherapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests IM received a small fee for occasional attendance at the advisory board supported by Eli Lilly, Novartis, Istituto Gentili, Roche, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Pierre Fabre. MCA received a grant from the Cancer Research UK. ClB declares honoraria from C-RAD and Elekta. PP is a medical adviser of Sordina IORT Technologies. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Presence of a germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm) may sensitize tumors to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition via inactivation of the second allele, resulting in gene-specific loss of heterozygosity (gsLOH) and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). Here we explore whether tissue sample testing provides an additional route to germline testing to inform treatment selection for PARP inhibition., Patients and Methods: In this prespecified exploratory analysis, BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations in blood samples (gBRCAm) and tumor tissue (tBRCAm) were analyzed from patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer and known gBRCAm, enrolled in the phase III OlympiAD trial. The frequency and nature of tBRCAm, HRD score status [HRD-positive (score ≥42) versus HRD-negative (score <42) using the Myriad myChoice® CDx test] and rates of gsLOH were determined, and their impact on clinical efficacy (objective response rate and progression-free survival) was explored., Results: Tissue samples from 161/302 patients yielded tBRCAm, HRD and gsLOH data for 143 (47%), 129 (43%) and 125 (41%) patients, respectively. Concordance between gBRCAm and tBRCAm was 99%. gsLOH was observed in 118/125 (94%) patients [BRCA1m, 73/76 (96%); BRCA2m, 45/49 (92%)]. A second mutation event was recorded for two of the three BRCA1m patients without gsLOH. The incidence of HRD-negative was 16% (21/129) and was more common for BRCA2m (versus BRCA1m) and/or for hormone receptor-positive (versus triple-negative) disease. Olaparib antitumor activity was observed irrespective of HRD score., Conclusions: gBRCAm identified in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer by germline testing in blood was also identified by tumor tissue testing. gsLOH was common, indicating a high rate of biallelic inactivation in metastatic breast cancer. Olaparib activity was seen regardless of gsLOH status or HRD score. Thus, additional tumor testing to inform PARP inhibitor treatment selection may not be supported for these patients., (Copyright © 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy (ET) previously demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer at the second interim analysis, however follow-up was limited. Here, we present results of the prespecified primary outcome analysis and an additional follow-up analysis., Patients and Methods: This global, phase III, open-label trial randomized (1 : 1) 5637 patients to adjuvant ET for ≥5 years ± abemaciclib for 2 years. Cohort 1 enrolled patients with ≥4 positive axillary lymph nodes (ALNs), or 1-3 positive ALNs and either grade 3 disease or tumor ≥5 cm. Cohort 2 enrolled patients with 1-3 positive ALNs and centrally determined high Ki-67 index (≥20%). The primary endpoint was IDFS in the intent-to-treat population (cohorts 1 and 2). Secondary endpoints were IDFS in patients with high Ki-67, DRFS, overall survival, and safety., Results: At the primary outcome analysis, with 19 months median follow-up time, abemaciclib + ET resulted in a 29% reduction in the risk of developing an IDFS event [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-0.87; nominal P = 0.0009]. At the additional follow-up analysis, with 27 months median follow-up and 90% of patients off treatment, IDFS (HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.82; nominal P < 0.0001) and DRFS (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.83; nominal P < 0.0001) benefit was maintained. The absolute improvements in 3-year IDFS and DRFS rates were 5.4% and 4.2%, respectively. Whereas Ki-67 index was prognostic, abemaciclib benefit was consistent regardless of Ki-67 index. Safety data were consistent with the known abemaciclib risk profile., Conclusion: Abemaciclib + ET significantly improved IDFS in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer, with an acceptable safety profile. Ki-67 index was prognostic, but abemaciclib benefit was observed regardless of Ki-67 index. Overall, the robust treatment benefit of abemaciclib extended beyond the 2-year treatment period., Competing Interests: Disclosure NH reports research grants from Eli Lilly and Company to her institution; personal fees and other for lectures and consulting from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Sandoz, and SeaGen outside the submitted work. SJ reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, and Puma Biotechnology for consulting and advisory role; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, and Roche/Genentech for speaker’s bureau; personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, and Roche/Genentech for research funding, outside the submitted work. PR reports other compensation for travel/accommodations from Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, and Roche/Genentech; and other non-compensated fees for Ad Board participation, outside the submitted work. MM reports grants from Novartis and personal fees from Amgen, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer, outside of the submitted work. ZMS, MA, RH, and KT have nothing to disclose. SMT reports grants and personal fees from Eli Lilly and Company, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Immunomedics/Gilead, AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Eli Lilly and Company, Odonate, grants and personal fees from Merck, grants and personal fees from Nektar, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Genentech/Roche, grants and personal fees from Exelixis, grants and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, grants and personal fees from Eisai, Sanofi, and grants and personal fees from Nanostring; personal fees from Chugai Pharma, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, BeyondSpring Pharma, OncXerna, Infinity Therapeutics, OncoSec, Seattle Genetics, Celldex, Certara, Mersana Therapeutics, Silverback Therapeutics, Daiichi-Sankyo, G1 Therapeutics, CytomX, Samsung Bioepis Inc., Athenex, OncoPep, Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceuticals, and Puma; grants from Cyclacel, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Celldex, grants and personal fees from Odonate, personal fees from Seattle Genetics, personal fees from Silverback Therapeutics, personal fees from G1 Therapeutics, personal fees from Athenex, personal fees from OncoPep, personal fees from Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, personal fees from CytomX, personal fees from Samsung Bioepis Inc., personal fees from Certara, personal fees from Mersana Therapeutics, grants and personal fees from Immunomedics/Gilead, personal fees from OncoSec, personal fees from Chugai Pharma, personal fees from Ellipses Pharma, personal fees from 4D Pharma, personal fees from BeyondSpring Pharma, personal fees from OncXerna, personal fees from Infinity Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. PAH reports personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eisai, MSD, Eli Lilly and Company, Pierre Fabre, Seattle Genetics, Roche/Genentech, and Hexal; and grants from Biontech, and Cepheid, outside of the submitted work. CH reports grants and personal fees for advisory role from Eli Lilly and Company; personal fees and non-financial support for advisory role, speaker’s bureaus, and travel expense from Amgen; and grants, personal fees, and non-financial support for advisory role, speaker bureaus, and travel expenses from Pfizer and Roche/Genentech; grants and personal fees for speaker bureaus from Novartis; grants, personal fees, and non-financial support for travel expenses, and grants from EirGenix, OBI Pharma, MSD, and Daiichi-Sankyo, outside the submitted work. GGJ reports personal fees from Eli Lilly and Company, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clinigen, Egis, Eli Lilly and Company, Exact Sciences, Novartis, Oncompass Medicine, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Sandoz, Samsung, and TLC Biopharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. AT reports personal fees and non-financial support from Eli Lilly and Company, Bayer and Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Biocad, and Merck; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai Co., Ltd, and Amgen, outside the submitted work. MPG receives consulting fees to institution from Eagle pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly and Company, Biovica, Novartis, Sermonix, Context Pharm, Pfizer, and Biotheranostics; and grants from Pfizer, and Eli Lilly and Company; and grants to institution from Sermonix, outside the submitted work. HSR reports grants to institution from Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Company, Roche/Genentech, OBI, Odonate, Daiichi-Sankyo, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, MacroGenics, Sermonix, Immunomedics, and AstraZeneca; non-financial travel support for educational meeting from Daiichi-Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and MacroGenics; personal fees for honoraria from Puma and Mylan; other fees for limited consulting from Samsung, outside of the submitted work. ES reports personal fees for honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clinigen, Egis, Eli Lilly and Company, Exact Sciences, Novartis, Oncompas Medicine, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Sandoz, and TLC Biopharmaceuticals; personal fees for travel support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Egis, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech; personal fees for clinical research from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech, and Samsung, outside the submitted work. LT reports other fees for non-CME received directly from commercial interest or their agents from Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Libbs; and personal fees for travel from Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Libbs, and United Medical. LDM reports grant for research from Eli Lilly and Company; personal fees from Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Genomic Health, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, and Ipsen; and non-financial support from Roche, Pfizer, and Eisai, outside the submitted work. GGS reports personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Roche; non-financial support from Teva; personal fees from Astro Pharma; and grants from Roche, outside the submitted work. HK reports personal fees for lectures and presentations during professional and scientific meetings from AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche/Genentech, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. JS reports research grant funding to institution from MSD, Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. VG reports personal fees from Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Roche, and MSD an advisory board role and speaker’s bureau, outside the submitted work, and grant to institution from Roche, outside the submitted work. JC reports fees from Roche, Celgene, Cellestia, AstraZeneca, Biothera Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Erytech, Athenex, Polyphor, Eli Lilly and Company, Servier, MSD, GSK, Leuko, Bioasis, Clovis Oncology, and Boehringer Ingelheim for consulting and advisory role; honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Eisai, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Eli Lilly and Company, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo; research funding to institution from Roche, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Baxalta, GMBH/Servier Affaires, Bayer Healthcare, Eisai, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Guardant Health, MSD, Pfizer, Piqur Therapeutics, Puma C, and Queen Mary University of London; stock, patents, and intellectual property from MedSIR; and travel, accommodation, and expenses from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo, outside the submitted work. EH reports grants from Eli Lilly and Company, during the conduct of the study; grants and other from Pfizer, Silverback Therapeutics, Black Diamond, Daiichi, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Mersana, Cascadian Therapeutics, and Genentech/Roche; personal fees from Flatiron Health; grants and other from Cascadian Therapeutics, grants from Hutchinson MediPharma, grants from OncoMed, grants from MedImmune, grants from StemCentrx, grants from Abbvie, grants from Curis, grants from Verastem, grants from Zymeworks, grants from Syndax, grants from Lycera, grants from Rgenix, grants and other from Novartis, grants and other from Mersana, grants from TapImmune, grants from BerGenBio, grants from Tesaro, grants from Medivation, grants from Kadmon, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from Eisai, grants from H3 Biomedicine, grants from Radius Health, grants from Acerta, grants from Takeda, grants from MacroGenics, grants from Immunomedics, grants from FujiFilm, grants from Effector, grants from Syros, grants from Unum, grants and other from Daiichi, grants and other from AstraZeneca, grants from Sutro, grants from Aravive, grants from Deciphera, grants from Clovis, grants from Sermonix, grants from Zenith, grants from Arvinas, grants from ArQule, grants from Torque, grants from Harpoon, grants from Fochon, grants from Orinove, grants from Molecular Template, grants and other from Silverback Therapeutics, grants and other from Black Diamond, grants from Seattle Genetics, outside the submitted work. VA, RW, SB, SS, TF, SCN, BSA, MM, AS are full-time employees of Eli Lilly and Company and/or Eli Lilly and Company shareholders. MT reports grants and personal fees for research and honoraria from Chugai, Takeda, Pfizer, Kyowa-Kirin, Taiho, Eisai, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Shimadzu, Yakult, and Nippon Kayaku; other fees for advisory role for drug development from Kyowa-Kirin and Daiichi-Sankyo; research grants from JBCRG association, Astellas, AFI Technologies, Shionogi, and GL Science; personal and other fees from Eli Lilly and Company for advisory role; personal fees for honoraria from MSD, Exact Science, and Novartis; personal fees and other for honoraria and advisory role from Konica Minolta; other fees for honoraria and advisory role from Bristol Myers Squibb; other fees for advisory role from Athenex Oncology, Bertis, Terumo, and Kansai Medical Net; and serves as a board of director for JBCRG association, Organisation for Oncology and Translational Research, and Kyoto Breast Cancer Research Network, outside the submitted work. JO reports personal fees from Abbvie, Aptitude Health, AstraZeneca, Agendia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eisai, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Immunomedics, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Roche/Genentech, and Seattle Genentech, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction of sentinel lymph node biopsy, initially in clinically node-negative and subsequently in patients presenting with involved axilla and downstaged by primary systemic therapy, allowed for significant decrease in morbidity compared to axillary lymph node dissection. Concurrently, regional nodal irradiation was demonstrated to improve outcomes in most node-positive patients. Additionally, over the last decades, introduction of more effective systemic therapies has resulted in improvements not only at distant sites, but also in locoregional control, creating space for de-escalation of locoregional treatments. We discuss the data on de-escalation in axillary surgery and irradiation, both in patients undergoing upfront surgery and primary systemic therapy, with special emphasis on the feasibility of omission of nodal irradiation in patients undergoing primary systemic therapy. In view of the accumulating evidence, omission of axillary irradiation may be considered in clinically node-positive patients converting after primary systemic therapy to pathologically negative nodes on sentinel lymph node biopsy (preferably also with in-breast pCR), presenting with lower initial nodal stage, older age and were treated with breast-conserving surgery followed by whole breast irradiation. Omission of regional nodal irradiation in patients with aggressive tumor phenotypes achieving a pCR is under investigation. In patients undergoing preoperative endocrine therapy the adoption of axillary management strategies utilized in case of upfront surgery seems more suitable than those used in post chemotherapy-based primary systemic therapy setting., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Breast cancer, one of the most common malignancies, is associated with significant economic and health burden both at the patient and societal level. Although medication non-adherence to endocrine breast cancer therapies is common, so far only limited systematic evidence has been available on its quantitative consequences, as previous systematic reviews focused mainly on factors contributing to medication non-adherence. The objective of this review was to explore the implications of medication non-adherence to endocrine therapies on hard clinical outcomes in breast cancer based on real-world studies. A systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed; empirical evidence on hard clinical endpoints (i.e., survival, disease-free survival, metastasis and recurrence) were extracted from uni- or multivariate statistical analyses from retrospective or prospective cohort studies. Of the 2,360 identified records, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Two studies identified significant positive association between medication non-adherence and the risk of distant metastasis, three articles between medication non-adherence and the recurrence of breast cancer, two studies between medication non-adherence- and non-persistence and of worse disease-free survival and eight articles between medication non-adherence and mortality. There was only one study where the positive association between medication adherence and survival did not apply to all subgroups. The strong evidence on the negative health consequences of non-adherence to breast cancer treatments indicates the need for the regular monitoring of medication adherence. Furthermore, explicit inclusion of adherence enhancing interventions into health policy agenda would be warranted to improve medication adherence also at a system level., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Estrogen receptor α (ERα) and progesterone receptor (PgR) are crucial prognostic and predictive biomarkers that are usually co-expressed in breast cancer (BC). However, 12-24% of BCs present ERα(+)/PgR(-) phenotype at immunohistochemical evaluation. In fact, BC may either show primary PgR(-) status (in chemonaïve tumor sample), lose PgR expression during neoadjuvant treatment, or acquire PgR(-) phenotype in local relapse or metastasis. The loss of PgR expression in ERα(+) breast cancer may signify resistance to endocrine therapy and poorer outcomes. On the other hand, ERα(+)/PgR(-) BCs may have a better response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy than double-positive tumors. Loss of PgR expression may be a result of pre-transcriptional alterations (copy number loss, mutation, epigenetic modifications), decreased transcription of the PGR gene (e.g., by microRNAs), and post-translational modifications (e.g., phosphorylation, sumoylation). Various processes involved in the down-regulation of PgR have distinct consequences on the biology of cancer cells. Occasionally, negative PgR status detected by immunohistochemical analysis is paradoxically associated with enhanced transcriptional activity of PgR that might be inhibited by antiprogestin treatment. Identification of the mechanism of PgR loss in each patient seems challenging, yet it may provide important information on the biology of the tumor and predict its responsiveness to the therapy.

Background: Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors target cancers with defects in homologous recombination repair by synthetic lethality. New therapies are needed to reduce recurrence in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation-associated early breast cancer., Methods: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial involving patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and high-risk clinicopathological factors who had received local treatment and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to 1 year of oral olaparib or placebo. The primary end point was invasive disease-free survival., Results: A total of 1836 patients underwent randomization. At a prespecified event-driven interim analysis with a median follow-up of 2.5 years, the 3-year invasive disease-free survival was 85.9% in the olaparib group and 77.1% in the placebo group (difference, 8.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.5 to 13.0; hazard ratio for invasive disease or death, 0.58; 99.5% CI, 0.41 to 0.82; P<0.001). The 3-year distant disease-free survival was 87.5% in the olaparib group and 80.4% in the placebo group (difference, 7.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.0 to 11.1; hazard ratio for distant disease or death, 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.39 to 0.83; P<0.001). Olaparib was associated with fewer deaths than placebo (59 and 86, respectively) (hazard ratio, 0.68; 99% CI, 0.44 to 1.05; P = 0.02); however, the between-group difference was not significant at an interim-analysis boundary of a P value of less than 0.01. Safety data were consistent with known side effects of olaparib, with no excess serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest., Conclusions: Among patients with high-risk, HER2-negative early breast cancer and germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, adjuvant olaparib after completion of local treatment and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer survival free of invasive or distant disease than was placebo. Olaparib had limited effects on global patient-reported quality of life. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca; OlympiA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02032823.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Claudins are essential components of tight junctions, which are frequently deregulated in breast cancer. The aim of the current study was to assess claudin-3 and -4 expression in bilateral breast cancer (BBC) and unilateral breast cancer (UBC). Immunohistochemical expression of claudin-3 and claudin-4 was evaluated in tissue microarrays containing 174 cases of BBCs paired with 174 cases of solitary tumors. Each case was classified as claudin-high or claudin-low depending on the H-score value. The results were correlated with histopathological features and the expression of basic breast cancer biomarkers. Median H-scores for claudin-3 were significantly higher in the synchronous BBC (sBBC) than in UBC. Claudin-4-high cases were more prevalent than within the whole BBC group, and sBBC and metachronous BBC (mBBC) alone. In the BBC group negative ER, high Ki-67 and high claudin-3 were independent factors correlated with high claudin-4. In the UBC group, Ki-67 >14% and high claudin-3 were associated with high claudin-4. Our study demonstrates that the expression of claudin-4 is significantly higher in UBC compared to BBC tumors. We also demonstrated that high claudin-4 expression in BBC is associated with a more aggressive phenotype (lack of steroid receptors, HER2 overexpression, and high Ki-67). It is possible that claudins down- and upregulation may depend on different triggers and lead to various consequences in UBC and BBC.

Competing Interests: Disclosure MSA reports receipt of consultation fees from Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Clinigen, Eisai, Genomic Health, GSK, Helsinn, Hospira, JnJ, Novartis, Merck, Merck Serono, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sandoz, Tesaro, Tevam Vifor, G1 Therapeutics and Lilly; receipt of honoraria for symposia lectures from Amgen, Bayer, Schering, Cephalon, Chugai, Eisai, Genomic Health, GSK, Helsinn, Hospira, Ipsen, JnJ Ortho Biotech, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Merck, Merck Serono, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Tesaro, Taiho, Tevam Vifor, G1 Therapeutics and Lilly. CHB reports receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Eisai, MSD, AstraZeneca and Bayer; receipt of grants/research support to the institution from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Covance, Lilly, Medivation, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar and Roche/Genentech. JB reports receipt of grants/research support grants to Karolinska Institute and University Hospital from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis; no personal payments; payment from UpToDate to Asklepios Medicine HB for a chapter on breast cancer prediction. LB reports receipt of grants/research support from Celgene, Genomic Health and Novartis; receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Genomic Health, Ipsen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre and Roche. FC reports receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, GSK, MacroGenics, Medscape, MSD, Merus BV, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, prIME Oncology, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics and Teva. JC reports acting as a consultant/advisor for Roche, Celgene, Cellestia, AstraZeneca, Biothera Pharmaceutical, Merus, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Erytech, Athenex, Polyphor, Lilly, Servier, MSD, GSK, Leuko, Bioasis, Clovis Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim and Kyowa Kirin; received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Eisai, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Lilly, MSD and Daiichi Sankyo; received research funding to the institution from Roche, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Baxalta GMBH/Servier Affaires, Bayer Healthcare, Eisai, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Guardant Health, MSD, Pfizer, PIQUR Therapeutics, Puma C and Queen Mary University of London; holds stock, patents and intellectual property for MEDSIR; received travel, accommodation and expenses from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, Pfizer and Daiichi Sankyo. GC reports receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis and SeaGen; participation in a sponsored speakers' bureau for SeaGen, Pfizer, Lilly and Novartis. NSES reports receipt of grants/research support to institution from Novartis; receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly and AstraZeneca. ME reports acting in an advisory role for Novartis and Roche. AE reports receipt of grants/research support from AstraZeneca, Roche, Celltrion, Pfizer and Novartis. LF reports receipt of grants/research support from BMS, GSK, Myriad and Novartis; receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from BMS, AstraZeneca, Teva, Novartis, Eisai, Takeda, Pfizer, Lilly, Genomic Health and Myriad. PAF reports receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from AstraZeneca and Novartis; travel for lecture for Pfizer and Ipsen. KG reports receipt of grants/research support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer and BMS; receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Nanostring, Merck, Mylan, Genomic Health, Roche and BMS. JG reports receipt of grants/research support from Amgen, Eisai, Genomic Health, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech; receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from Daiichi, Eisai, Genomic Health, Ipsen, MacroGenics, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Onxeo, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech; participation in a sponsored speakers' bureau for Eisai, Genomic Health, Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech. NH reports receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sakyo, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Odonate, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal and Seattle Genetics. RK reports receipt of grants/research support from Pfizer Malaysia. BEK reports receipt of grants/research support to institution from Roche; receipt of honoraria for advisory boards and educational presentations as well as travel and meeting expenses from Roche; receipt of honoraria for advisory boards and educational presentations from Novartis. SBK reports receipt of grants/research support to institution from Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Kyowa Kirin Inc. and DongKook Pharm Co.; receipt of consultancy fees from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Enzychem, Daehwa Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, ISU ABXIS and Daiichi Sankyo. NUL reports receipt of grants/research support from Genentech and Seattle Genetics; receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo and Puma. SAM reports receipt of honoraria from Pfizer and Lilly; SN reports receipt of grants/research support from Roche, Pfizer, BMS and Novartis; participation in a sponsored speakers' bureau for Roche, Pfizer, BMS, Merck and Novartis. LN reports receipt of honoraria from Sermonix Oncology Ad Board, Prime Oncology, Sarah Lawrence Lecture, Context advisory board, Oncology Pioneers Science Lecture Series, BCRF programmatic review meeting and CSHL external advisory board meeting. SO reports receipt of grants/research support from Chugai, Eisai, Taiho, Daiichi Sankyo; participation in a sponsored speakers' bureau for Chugai, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Taiho, Pfizer and Lilly. OP reports participation in a sponsored speakers' bureau for Takeda, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis and Lilly. SPS has participated in a speakers' bureau and received honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Nanostring and Teva; reports consultancy for Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis and Pfizer. FPL reports receipt of grants/research support from Roche; receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from Roche, Puma, Pierre Fabre and AstraZeneca. AP reports personal financial interests and lecture fees for Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Amgen, BMS and Daiichi Sankyo; participation in an advisory role/consultancy for Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Amgen, BMS, Puma and Oncolytics Biotech; institutional financial interests include contracted research for Novartis, Nanostring, Roche and Boehringer; lecture fees from Nanostring technologies; clinical trials for Novartis, Roche, Boehringer, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Lilly and Amgen. HSR reports receipt of grants/research support from Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Lilly, Genentech, OBI, Odonate, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, MacroGenics and Immunomedics. ES reports receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clinigen, Egis, Eli Lilly, Genomic Health, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sandoz and TLC Biopharmaceuticals; travel support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Egis, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; contracted research for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Samsung; holds stock in Eli Lilly. EPW reports receipt of grants/research support from Merck and Genentech/Roche; receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from Carrick Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Genomic Health, GSK, Jounce, Leap, Lilly, Merck and Seattle Genetics; research fees to institute from Genentech/Roche and Merck; participation in a scientific advisory board for Leap. BX reports receipt of advisory fees from Novartis and Roche; fees for serving on a speakers' bureau from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche and Eisai. FA, FB, BK, FEL, GWS, CT and TW have not reported any potential conflict of interest. GSB, MJC, LAC, AC, RH, XH, BVO and DAV have declared no significant conflict of interest.

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) associated disease (COVID-19) outbreak seriously challenges globally all health care systems and professionals. Expert projections estimate that despite social distancing and lockdown being practiced, we have yet to feel the full impact of COVID-19. In this manuscript we provide guidance to prepare for the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer patients and advise on how to triage, prioritize and organize diagnostic procedures, surgical, radiation and medical treatments., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The 4th International Consensus Conference for Breast Cancer in Young Women (BCY4) took place in October 2018, in Lugano, Switzerland, organized by the European School of Oncology (ESO) and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO). Consensus recommendations for the management of breast cancer in young women were updated from BCY3 with incorporation of new evidence to inform the guidelines. Areas of research priorities were also identified. This article summarizes the ESO-ESMO international consensus recommendations, which are also endorsed by the European Society of Breast Specialists (EUSOMA)., Competing Interests: Disclosure For a full list of all members of the BCY4 consensus panel and their disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest, see supplementary Table S1, available at Annals of Oncology online., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The global preparedness and response to the rapid escalation to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2-related disease (COVID-19) to a pandemic proportion has demanded the formulation of a reliable, useful and evidence-based mechanism for health services prioritisation, to achieve the highest quality standards of care to all patients. The prioritisation of high value cancer interventions must be embedded in the agenda for the pandemic response, ensuring that no inconsistency or discrepancy emerge in the health planning processes.The aim of this work is to organise health interventions for breast cancer management and research in a tiered framework (high, medium, low value), formulating a scheme of prioritisation per clinical cogency and intrinsic value or magnitude of benefit. The public health tools and schemes for priority setting in oncology have been used as models, aspiring to capture clinical urgency, value in healthcare, community goals and fairness, while respecting the principles of benevolence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice.We discuss the priority health interventions across the cancer continuum, giving a perspective on the role and meaning to maintain some services (undeferrable) while temporarily abrogate some others (deferrable). Considerations for implementation and the essential link to pre-existing health services, especially primary healthcare, are addressed, outlining a framework for the development of effective and functional services, such as telemedicine.The discussion covers the theme of health systems strategising, and why oncology care, in particular breast cancer care, should be maintained in parallel to pandemic control measures, providing a pragmatic clinical model within the broader context of public healthcare schemes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GC has received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche; fees for expert testimony and medical education from Pfizer and has participated in advisory boards for Pfizer, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Celltrion. SD reports grants, institutional fees from Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Puma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, MSD, BMS, Daichi and non-financial support from Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, AstraZeneca. SDC has received fees for medical education from Novartis and Pierre-Fabre and is the recipient of the IG 20774 of Fondazione AIRC. MG reports personal fees/travel support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Invectys, Pfizer, Novartis, Puma, Nanostring, Roche, Medison, LifeBrain, all outside the submitted work; an immediate family member is employed by Sandoz. PP is medical advisor of Sordina IORT Technologies. ES has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clinigen, Egis, Eli Lilly, Genomic Health, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Sandoz, TLC Biopharmaceuticals and travel support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Egis, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. FC has consultancy role for Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Macrogenics, Medscape, Merck-Sharp, Merus BV, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, prIME Oncology, Roche, Sanofi, Samsung Bioepis, Seattle Genetics, Teva. EdA honoraria and/or advisory board from Roche/GNE, Novartis, SeaGen and Zodiac; travel grants from Roche/GNE and GSK/Novartis; research grant to the institution from Roche/GNE, AstraZeneca, GSK/Novartis and Servier. CC declares consultancy/advisory role/speaker's bureau: Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Roche, Novartis. SP-S discloses honoraria, consultancy and speaker’s bureau: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Nanostring., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background: The phase III OlympiAD study (NCT02000622) showed a statistically significant progression-free survival benefit with olaparib versus chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. From this study, we report the effect of olaparib on health-related quality of life (HRQoL)., Methods: Patients were randomised 2:1 to olaparib monotherapy (300 mg twice daily) or single-agent TPC. The primary HRQoL end-point was mean change from baseline in the two-item global health status/QoL score determined from patient-completed European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item module (EORTC QLQ-C30) questionnaires and assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures. Symptoms and functioning domains, best overall response and time to deterioration of QoL were also evaluated., Results: Overall questionnaire compliance rates were 93.2% for olaparib and 76.3% for TPC. Between-treatment global health status/QoL comparison showed a significant improvement in the olaparib arm versus the TPC arm, with mean change of 3.9 (standard deviation 1.2) versus -3.6 (2.2), a difference of 7.5 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.48, 12.44; P = 0.0035). A higher proportion of patients in the olaparib arm showed a best overall response of 'improvement' in global health status/QoL (33.7% vs 13.4%). Median time to global health status/QoL deterioration was not reached in olaparib patients and was 15.3 months for TPC patients (hazard ratio: 0.44 [95% CI: 0.25, 0.77]; P = 0.004). For EORTC QLQ-C30 symptoms and functioning subscales, only nausea/vomiting symptom score was worse in the olaparib arm than in the TPC arm (across all visits compared with baseline)., Conclusion: HRQoL was consistently improved for patients treated with olaparib, compared with chemotherapy TPC., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) rates after mastectomy are increasing. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) contouring guidelines for target volumes in the setting of IBR are lacking. Therefore, many patients who have had IBR receive PMRT to target volumes similar to conventional simulator-based whole breast irradiation. The aim of this paper is to describe delineation guidelines for PMRT after implant-based IBR based on a thorough understanding of the surgical procedures, disease stage, patterns of recurrence and radiation techniques. They are based on a consensus endorsed by a global multidisciplinary group of breast cancer experts., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the OlympiAD study, olaparib was shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with a germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation (BRCAm) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We now report the planned final overall survival (OS) results, and describe the most common adverse events (AEs) to better understand olaparib tolerability in this population., Patients and Methods: OlympiAD, a Phase III, randomized, controlled, open-label study (NCT02000622), enrolled patients with a germline BRCAm and HER2-negative mBC who had received ≤2 lines of chemotherapy for mBC. Patients were randomized to olaparib tablets (300 mg bid) or predeclared TPC (capecitabine, vinorelbine, or eribulin). OS and safety were secondary end points., Results: A total of 205 patients were randomized to olaparib and 97 to TPC. At 64% data maturity, median OS was 19.3 months with olaparib versus 17.1 months with TPC (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66-1.23; P = 0.513); median follow-up was 25.3 and 26.3 months, respectively. HR for OS with olaparib versus TPC in prespecified subgroups were: prior chemotherapy for mBC [no (first-line setting): 0.51, 95% CI 0.29-0.90; yes (second/third-line): 1.13, 0.79-1.64]; receptor status (triple negative: 0.93, 0.62-1.43; hormone receptor positive: 0.86, 0.55-1.36); prior platinum (yes: 0.83, 0.49-1.45; no: 0.91, 0.64-1.33). Adverse events during olaparib treatment were generally low grade and manageable by supportive treatment or dose modification. There was a low rate of treatment discontinuation (4.9%), and the risk of developing anemia did not increase with extended olaparib exposure., Conclusions: While there was no statistically significant improvement in OS with olaparib compared to TPC, there was the possibility of meaningful OS benefit among patients who had not received chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Olaparib was generally well-tolerated, with no evidence of cumulative toxicity during extended exposure. Please see the article online for additional video content., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Introduction: The biology and pathomechanisms of bilateral breast cancers is not fully understood. We compared the morphological and immunohistochemical characteristics of primary tumors in patients with synchronous (sBBC) and metachronous bilateral breast cancers (mBBC), with special focus on cell cycle regulation and its correlation with markers determining intrinsic phenotype., Methods: Immunohistochemical expression of p16Ink4A, p21(WAF1/CIP1), p27Kip1, p53, cyclin A, cyclin B, cyclin D1, cyclin D3 and cyclin E was assessed in tissue microarrays containing primary breast tumor cores from 113 mBBC and 61 sBBC. Expression of these markers was correlated with tumor grade and expression of estrogen receptor (ER), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and Ki-67., Results: In univariate analysis, mBBC demonstrated higher expression of p16Ink4A (both cytoplasmic: p=0.002 and nuclear: p=0.014), cyclin A (p=0.024) and B (cytoplasmic; p=0.015). In multivariate analysis mBBC were associated with lower expression of p21: p=0.038 and higher cytoplasmic expression of cyclin B: p=0.019. Lower ER expression for all BBCs and mBBC, respectively, was associated with stronger p16 expression (cytoplasmic: both p<0.000001 and nuclear: p<0.000001, p=0.00002), p53: p<0.000001, p=0.000001, cyclin A: p=0.00002, p=0.00045, cyclin B (cytoplasmic: p=0.00037, 0.00015 and nuclear: both p=0.0004) and cyclin E: p=000003, p<0.000001, and weaker expression of p27: p=0.00003, p=0.0001 and cyclin D1: both p<0.000001; for sBBC some of these correlations were absent. Higher p27 score correlated with lower HER2 expression in sBBC: p=0.018, whereas higher HER2 expression was associated with higher p53: 0.024 and cyclin E: p=0.048 expression in all BBC and higher nuclear expression of cyclin B in sBBC: p=0.027. Higher Ki-67 expression was correlated with higher expression of p16 (cytoplasmic: p=0.000015, p=0.086, p=0.0002 and nuclear: p=0.000009, p=0.016, p=0.00003) in all subsets [all BBC, sBBC (non-significant for cytoplasmic score), mBBC, respectively], p21 (all BBC: p=0.05) and sBBC: p=0.017), p53 (all BBC: p=0.0003 and mBBC: p=0.0002), cyclin A: all p<0.000001, cyclin B (cytoplasmic: p<0.000001, p=0.004, p<0.000001, respectively and nuclear: p=0.0002, p=0.047, p=0.0026, respectively), cyclin D3 (all BBC: p=0.005 and mBBC: p=0.02) and cyclin E (all BBC: p<0.000001 and mBBC: p=0.000002), and lower expression of cyclin D1 (all BBC: p=0.046 and mBBC: p=0.035) and p27 (sBBC: p=0.048)., Conclusion: Compared to sBBC, mBBC are characterized by lower expression of p21 and higher cytoplasmic expression of cyclin B, suggesting its more aggressive behavior. Correlations between cell-cycle regulation proteins and markers of breast cancer phenotype parallel those reported for unilateral breast cancer.

The 3rd International Consensus Conference for Breast Cancer in Young Women (BCY3) took place in November 2016, in Lugano, Switzerland organized by the European School of Oncology (ESO) and the European Society of Medical Oncologists (ESMO). Consensus recommendations for the management of breast cancer in young women were updated from BCY2 with incorporation of new evidence to inform the guidelines, and areas of research priorities were identified. This manuscript summarizes the ESO-ESMO international consensus recommendations, which are also endorsed by the European Society of Breast Specialists (EUSOMA)., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)