Search

Purpose: Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6is) are an important component of treatment for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC), but it is not known if patients might derive benefit from continuation of CDK4/6i with endocrine therapy beyond initial tumor progression or if the addition of checkpoint inhibitor therapy has value in this setting., Methods: The randomized multicenter phase II PACE trial enrolled patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2- MBC whose disease had progressed on previous CDK4/6i and aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:2:1 to receive fulvestrant (F), fulvestrant plus palbociclib (F + P), or fulvestrant plus palbociclib and avelumab (F + P + A). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in patients treated with F versus F + P., Results: Overall, 220 patients were randomly assigned between September 2017 and February 2022. The median age was 57 years (range, 25-83 years). Most patients were postmenopausal (80.9%), and 40% were originally diagnosed with de novo MBC. Palbociclib was the most common previous CDK4/6i (90.9%). The median PFS was 4.8 months on F and 4.6 months on F + P (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11 [90% CI, 0.79 to 1.55]; P = .62). The median PFS on F + P + A was 8.1 months (HR v F, 0.75 [90% CI, 0.50 to 1.12]; P = .23). The difference in PFS with F + P and F + P + A versus F was greater among patients with baseline ESR1 and PIK3CA alterations., Conclusion: The addition of palbociclib to fulvestrant did not improve PFS versus fulvestrant alone among patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2- MBC whose disease had progressed on a previous CDK4/6i plus AI. The increased PFS seen with the addition of avelumab warrants further investigation in this patient population.

Purpose: BMI affects breast cancer risk and prognosis. In contrast to cytotoxic chemotherapy, CDK4/6 inhibitors are given at a fixed dose, irrespective of BMI or weight. This preplanned analysis of the global randomized PALLAS trial investigates the impact of BMI on the side-effect profile, treatment adherence, and efficacy of palbociclib., Methods: Patients were categorized at baseline according to WHO BMI categories. Neutropenia rates were assessed with univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Time to early discontinuation of palbociclib was analyzed with Fine and Gray competing risk models. Unstratified Cox models were used to investigate the association between BMI category and time to invasive disease-free survival (iDFS). 95% CIs were derived., Results: Of 5,698 patients included in this analysis, 68 (1.2%) were underweight, 2,082 (36.5%) normal weight, 1,818 (31.9%) overweight, and 1,730 (30.4%) obese at baseline. In the palbociclib arm, higher BMI was associated with a significant decrease in neutropenia (unadjusted odds ratio for 1-unit change, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.94; adjusted for age, race ethnicity, region, chemotherapy use, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group at baseline, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.95). This translated into a significant decrease in treatment discontinuation rate with higher BMI (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for 10-unit change, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.83). There was no significant improvement in iDFS with the addition of palbociclib to ET in any weight category (normal weight HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.12; overweight HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.49; and obese HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.30) in this analysis early in follow-up (31 months)., Conclusion: This preplanned analysis of the PALLAS trial demonstrates a significant impact of BMI on side effects, dose reductions, early treatment discontinuation, and relative dose intensity. Additional long-term follow-up will further evaluate whether BMI ultimately affects outcome.

Purpose: To update recommendations on appropriate use of breast cancer biomarker assay results to guide adjuvant endocrine and chemotherapy decisions in early-stage breast cancer., Methods: An updated literature search identified randomized clinical trials and prospective-retrospective studies published from January 2016 to October 2021. Outcomes of interest included overall survival and disease-free or recurrence-free survival. Expert Panel members used informal consensus to develop evidence-based recommendations., Results: The search identified 24 studies informing the evidence base., Recommendations: Clinicians may use Onco type DX, MammaPrint, Breast Cancer Index (BCI), and EndoPredict to guide adjuvant endocrine and chemotherapy in patients who are postmenopausal or age > 50 years with early-stage estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (ER+ and HER2-) breast cancer that is node-negative or with 1-3 positive nodes. Prosigna and BCI may be used in postmenopausal patients with node-negative ER+ and HER2- breast cancer. In premenopausal patients, clinicians may use Onco type in patients with node-negative ER+ and HER2- breast cancer. Current data suggest that premenopausal patients with 1-3 positive nodes benefit from chemotherapy regardless of genomic assay result. There are no data on use of genomic tests to guide adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with ≥ 4 positive nodes. Ki67 combined with other parameters or immunohistochemistry 4 score may be used in postmenopausal patients without access to genomic tests to guide adjuvant therapy decisions. BCI may be offered to patients with 0-3 positive nodes who received 5 years of endocrine therapy without evidence of recurrence to guide decisions about extended endocrine therapy. None of the assays are recommended for treatment guidance in individuals with HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer. Treatment decisions should also consider disease stage, comorbidities, and patient preferences.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines., Competing Interests: Fabrice AndreStock and Other Ownership Interests: PegacsyResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Roche (Inst), Daiichi (Inst).Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca Nofisat IsmailaEmployment: GlaxoSmithKline (I)Stock and Other Ownership Interests: GlaxoSmithKline (I) Kimberly H. AllisonConsulting or Advisory Role: MammotomeExpert Testimony: Kaiser Permanente William E. BarlowResearch Funding: Merck (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst). Deborah E. CollyarHonoraria: PfizerConsulting or Advisory Role: Parexel, MaxisIT, Kinnate BiopharmaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Parexel Senthil DamodaranResearch Funding: EMD Serono (Inst), Guardant Health (Inst), Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Sermonix Pharmaceuticals (Inst) N. Lynn HenryResearch Funding: Blue Note Therapeutics (Inst)Open Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/27894/summary Komal JhaveriConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Jounce Therapeutics, Synthon, Intellisphere, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, AbbVie, Lilly, BluePrint Medicines, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Biotheranostics, SunPharma Pvt Ltd, Taiho Oncology, SanofiResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Debiopharm Group (Inst), ADC Therapeutics (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novita Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Zymeworks (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), VelosBio/Merck (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Taiho Pharmaceutical, Jounce Therapeutics, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Intellisphere Kevin KalinskyStock and Other Ownership Interests: Array BioPharma, Pfizer, GRAILConsulting or Advisory Role: bioTheranostics, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Immunomedics, Ipsen, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Cyclacel, Oncosec, 4D Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Puma BiotechnologySpeakers' Bureau: LillyResearch Funding: Incyte (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Calithera Biosciences (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Acetylon Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Zeno Pharmaceuticals (Inst), CytomX Therapeutics (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Lilly, AstraZeneca, PfizerOther Relationship: Immunomedics, Genentech Nicole M. KudererEmployment: Self-employedConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Invitae, Bristol Myers Squibb, Samsung Bioepis, G1 Therapeutics, Sandoz-Novartis, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Teva, MerckResearch Funding: AmgenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen, Mylan, Agendia, Bayer, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals Anna LitvakConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, bioTheranostics Erica L. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Lajos PusztaiHonoraria: bioTheranostics, Natera, OncoCyte, AthenexConsulting or Advisory Role: H3 Biomedicine, Merck, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Syndax, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Immunomedics, Eisai, Almac Diagnostics, PfizerResearch Funding: Merck (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Pfizer (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZenecaUncompensated Relationships: NanoString Technologies, Foundation MedicineOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/110878 Antonio C. WolffThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: Ionis PharmaceuticalsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Antonio Wolff has been named as inventor on one or more issued patents or pending patent applications relating to methylation in breast cancer, and has assigned his rights to JHU, and participates in a royalty sharing agreement with JHUOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/357301/summary Vered StearnsConsulting or Advisory Role: NovartisResearch Funding: AbbVie (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Biocept (Inst)Other Relationship: Immunomedics, AstraZenecaNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported. Fabrice AndreStock and Other Ownership Interests: PegacsyResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Roche (Inst), Daiichi (Inst).Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca Nofisat IsmailaEmployment: GlaxoSmithKline (I)Stock and Other Ownership Interests: GlaxoSmithKline (I) Kimberly H. AllisonConsulting or Advisory Role: MammotomeExpert Testimony: Kaiser Permanente William E. BarlowResearch Funding: Merck (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst). Deborah E. CollyarHonoraria: PfizerConsulting or Advisory Role: Parexel, MaxisIT, Kinnate BiopharmaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Parexel Senthil DamodaranResearch Funding: EMD Serono (Inst), Guardant Health (Inst), Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Sermonix Pharmaceuticals (Inst) N. Lynn HenryResearch Funding: Blue Note Therapeutics (Inst)Open Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/27894/summary Komal JhaveriConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Jounce Therapeutics, Synthon, Intellisphere, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, AbbVie, Lilly, BluePrint Medicines, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Biotheranostics, SunPharma Pvt Ltd, Taiho Oncology, SanofiResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Debiopharm Group (Inst), ADC Therapeutics (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novita Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Zymeworks (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), VelosBio/Merck (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Taiho Pharmaceutical, Jounce Therapeutics, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Intellisphere Kevin KalinskyStock and Other Ownership Interests: Array BioPharma, Pfizer, GRAILConsulting or Advisory Role: bioTheranostics, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Immunomedics, Ipsen, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Cyclacel, Oncosec, 4D Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Puma BiotechnologySpeakers' Bureau: LillyResearch Funding: Incyte (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Calithera Biosciences (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Acetylon Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Zeno Pharmaceuticals (Inst), CytomX Therapeutics (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Lilly, AstraZeneca, PfizerOther Relationship: Immunomedics, Genentech Nicole M. KudererEmployment: Self-employedConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Invitae, Bristol Myers Squibb, Samsung Bioepis, G1 Therapeutics, Sandoz-Novartis, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Teva, MerckResearch Funding: AmgenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen, Mylan, Agendia, Bayer, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals Anna LitvakConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, bioTheranostics Erica L. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Lajos PusztaiHonoraria: bioTheranostics, Natera, OncoCyte, AthenexConsulting or Advisory Role: H3 Biomedicine, Merck, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Syndax, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Immunomedics, Eisai, Almac Diagnostics, PfizerResearch Funding: Merck (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Pfizer (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZenecaUncompensated Relationships: NanoString Technologies, Foundation MedicineOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/110878 Antonio C. WolffThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: Ionis PharmaceuticalsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Antonio Wolff has been named as inventor on one or more issued patents or pending patent applications relating to methylation in breast cancer, and has assigned his rights to JHU, and participates in a royalty sharing agreement with JHUOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/357301/summary Vered StearnsConsulting or Advisory Role: NovartisResearch Funding: AbbVie (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Biocept (Inst)Other Relationship: Immunomedics, AstraZenecaNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: The PALLAS study investigated whether the addition of palbociclib, an oral CDK4/6 inhibitor, to adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) improves invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in early hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer. In this analysis, we evaluated palbociclib exposure and discontinuation in PALLAS., Methods: Patients with stage II-III HR+, HER2- disease were randomly assigned to 2 years of palbociclib with adjuvant ET versus ET alone. The primary objective was to compare iDFS between arms. Continuous monitoring of toxicity, dose modifications, and early discontinuation was performed. Association of baseline covariates with time to palbociclib reduction and discontinuation was analyzed with multivariable competing risk models. Landmark and inverse probability weighted per-protocol analyses were performed to assess the impact of drug persistence and exposure on iDFS., Results: Of the 5,743 patient analysis population (2,840 initiating palbociclib), 1,199 (42.2%) stopped palbociclib before 2 years, the majority (772, 27.2%) for adverse effects, most commonly neutropenia and fatigue. Discontinuation of ET did not differ between arms. Discontinuations for non-protocol-defined reasons were greater in the first 3 months of palbociclib, and in the first calendar year of accrual, and declined over time. No significant relationship was seen between longer palbociclib duration or ≥ 70% exposure intensity and improved iDFS. In the weighted per-protocol analysis, no improvement in iDFS was observed in patients receiving palbociclib versus not (hazard ratio 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.11)., Conclusion: Despite observed rates of discontinuation in PALLAS, analyses suggest that the lack of significant iDFS difference between arms was not directly related to inadequate palbociclib exposure. However, the discontinuation rate illustrates the challenge of introducing novel adjuvant treatments, and the need for interventions to improve persistence with oral cancer therapies., Competing Interests: Erica L. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Christian FeslResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Dominik HlauschekResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Laura Garcia-EstevezConsulting or Advisory Role: Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Palex, Seattle GeneticsResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech (Inst) Nicholas ZdenkowskiHonoraria: Roche, Pfizer, EisaiConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, AstraZeneca, EisaiResearch Funding: Roche (Inst), Pfizer (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Amgen, Novartis Kathy D. MillerThis author is the Senior Deputy Editor of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Genentech/Roche, Athenex, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/CelgeneResearch Funding: Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Astex Pharmaceuticals (Inst), British Biotech (Inst), CytomX Therapeutics (Inst), Alphamab (Inst) Marija BalicConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, SamsungSpeakers' Bureau: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle GeneticsResearch Funding: Lilly (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: MSD Ingrid A. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, Macrogenics, Pfizer, AbbVie, Seattle Genetics, Puma Biotechnology, Cyclacel, Blueprint Medicines, SanofiResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Genentech (Inst) David CameronConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Research Triangle Institute RTI Health Solutions (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Prima BioMed (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Zymeworks (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Oncolytics (Inst), Roche (Inst), Roche (Inst), Samsung Bioepis (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Synthon (Inst), Clarity Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Bexon/Zymeworks (Inst), Sanofi (Inst)Research Funding: Roche (Inst), Novartis (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst) Eric P. WinerHonoraria: Genentech/Roche, Genomic HealthConsulting or Advisory Role: Leap Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Jounce Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Carrick Therapeutics, Lilly, G1 Therapeutics, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Zymeworks, AthenexResearch Funding: Genentech (Inst)Other Relationship: InfiniteMD José Juan Ponce LorenzoHonoraria: Seattle Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics, Novartis, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Roche Tufia C. HaddadResearch Funding: Takeda (Inst) Hiroji IwataHonoraria: Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly Japan, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Taiho PharmaceuticalConsulting or Advisory Role: Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lilly Japan, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, NovartisResearch Funding: MSD (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Kyowa Hakko Kirin (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Chugai Pharma (Inst), Nihonkayaku (Inst), Lilly Japan (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Sanofi (Inst) Matthew GoetzConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, bioTheranostics, Genomic Health, Novartis, Eisai, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Context Therapeutics, Pfizer, BiovicaResearch Funding: Lilly (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Sermonix Pharmaceuticals (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Methods and Materials for Assessing Chemotherapy Responsiveness and Treating Cancer, Methods and Materials for Using Butyrylcholinesterases to Treat Cancer, Development of Human Tumor Xenografts from Women with Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Lilly Fatima CardosoConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Teva, Astellas Pharma, Merus, Celgene, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Macrogenics, Amgen, GE Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Seattle Genetics, Samsung Bioepis, Medscape, Prime OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca Tiffany A. TrainaConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Merck, Puma Biotechnology, Athenex, Daiichi Sankyo, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Foundation Medicine, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Blueprint Medicines, Ellipses Pharma, Fuji Pharma, ITeos Therapeutics, AgendiaResearch Funding: Eisai (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Innocrin Pharma (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Carrick Pharm (Inst), Ayala Pharmaceuticals (Inst) Urs BreitensteinConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca (Inst), Elie Lilly (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pierre Fabre (Inst), Roche (Inst) Kerstin AckerlResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Otto Metzger FilhoHonoraria: Grupo Oncoclinicas, RocheResearch Funding: Susan G. Komen for the Cure (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Cascadian Therapeutics (Inst), AbbVie (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Grupo Oncoclinicas Karin ZehetnerResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Kadine SolomonEmployment: Alliance Foundation TrialsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer, Merck, Moderna Therapeutics Sarra El-AbedEmployment: Astellas Pharma (I), argenx (I)Research Funding: Novartis (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Pfizer (Inst) Kathy Puyana TheallEmployment: Pfizer (I)Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer (I)Honoraria: PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer Dongrui Ray LuEmployment: PfizerStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer Amylou DueckPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalties from licensing fees for a patient symptom questionnaire (MPN-SAF) Michael GnantEmployment: Sandoz (I)Honoraria: Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: Daiichi-Sankyo, Veracyte, Tolmar, LifeBrain, Lilly Angela DeMicheleResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Calithera Biosciences (Inst), Novartis (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Palbociclib is a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor approved for advanced breast cancer. In the adjuvant setting, the potential value of adding palbociclib to endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer has not been confirmed., Patients and Methods: In the prospective, randomized, phase III PALLAS trial, patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive 2 years of palbociclib (125 mg orally once daily, days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) with adjuvant endocrine therapy or adjuvant endocrine therapy alone (for at least 5 years). The primary end point of the study was invasive disease-free survival (iDFS); secondary end points were invasive breast cancer-free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, locoregional cancer-free survival, and overall survival., Results: Among 5,796 patients enrolled at 406 centers in 21 countries worldwide over 3 years, 5,761 were included in the intention-to-treat population. At the final protocol-defined analysis, at a median follow-up of 31 months, iDFS events occurred in 253 of 2,884 (8.8%) patients who received palbociclib plus endocrine therapy and in 263 of 2,877 (9.1%) patients who received endocrine therapy alone, with similar results between the two treatment groups (iDFS at 4 years: 84.2% v 84.5%; hazard ratio, 0.96; CI, 0.81 to 1.14; P = .65). No significant differences were observed for secondary time-to-event end points, and subgroup analyses did not show any differences by subgroup. There were no new safety signals for palbociclib in this trial., Conclusion: At this final analysis of the PALLAS trial, the addition of adjuvant palbociclib to standard endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes over endocrine therapy alone in patients with early hormone receptor-positive breast cancer., Competing Interests: Michael GnantEmployment: Sandoz (I)Honoraria: Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: Daiichi Sankyo, Veracyte, Tolmar¸ LifeBrain, Lilly Amylou C. DueckPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalties from licensing fees for a patient symptom questionnaire (MPN-SAF) Miguel MartinHonoraria: Roche/Genentech, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre FabreConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Taiho Pharmaceutical, PharmaMarSpeakers' Bureau: Lilly/ImClone, Roche/Genentech, Pierre FabreResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Roche (Inst)¸ Puma Biotechnology (Inst)Other Relationship: Roche, Novartis Hal J. BursteinThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript. Richard GreilHonoraria: Celgene, Roche, Merck, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD¸ Sandoz, AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Daiichi SankyoConsulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Novartis, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, MSD, Merck, Gilead Sciences, Daiichi SankyoResearch Funding: Celgene (Inst), Merck (Inst), Takeda (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), MSD (Inst), Sandoz (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), Roche (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo Antonio C. WolffThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: Ionis PharmaceuticalsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: A.C.W. has been named as an inventor on one or more issued patents or pending patent applications related to methylation in breast cancer, has assigned his rights to JHU, and participates in a royalty sharing agreement with JHUOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/357301/summary Arlene ChanHonoraria: Novartis, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: LillyResearch Funding: Eisai Eric P. WinerHonoraria: Genomic Health, Genentech/RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Leap Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Jounce Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Carrick Therapeutics, Lilly, G1 Therapeutics, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Zymeworks, AthenexResearch Funding: Genentech (Inst)Other Relationship: InfiniteMD Georg PfeilerHonoraria: Amgen, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer¸ Lilly, AstraZeneca/Merck, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, UCB, Accord HealthcareConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer¸ Amgen¸ Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca/Merck, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, UCB, Roche/GenentechSpeakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, AstraZeneca/Merck, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Accord Healthcare, Amgen, Accord HealthcareResearch Funding: Pfizer, Roche/GenentechTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Lilly, Roche/Genentech, Lilly, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo Kathy MillerThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Genentech/Roche, Athenex, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/CelgeneResearch Funding: Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Astex Pharmaceuticals (Inst), British Biotech (Inst), CytomX Therapeutics (Inst), Alphamab (Inst) Marco ColleoniResearch Funding: Roche (Inst) Gabor RubovskyConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Gilead SciencesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen Judith M. BlissResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline/Novartis (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Janssen-Cilag (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer Ingrid A. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, MacroGenics, Pfizer, AbbVie, Seattle Genetics, Puma Biotechnology, Cyclacel, Blueprint Medicines, SanofiResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Genentech (Inst) Christian SingerHonoraria: Novartis, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbHConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Sanofi/Aventis, NovartisSpeakers' Bureau: Novartis, AstraZeneca/MedImmuneResearch Funding: Novartis, Sanofi, Myriad Genetics, Roche, AstraZeneca/MedImmuneTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Novartis Zbigniew NoweckiTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech Olwen HahnLeadership: Via OncologyStock and Other Ownership Interests: Teleflex MedicalHonoraria: Cardinal Health (I)Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, hmpglobal.comTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Cardinal Health (I) Jacqui ThomsonHonoraria: MSD Oncology, Roche/Genentech Norman WolmarkOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/159597 Hope S. RugoHonoraria: Puma Biotechnology, MylanConsulting or Advisory Role: SamsungResearch Funding: MacroGenics (Inst), OBI Pharma (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Merck (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Odonate Therapeutics (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Sermonix Pharmaceuticals (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Novartis, Mylan, AstraZeneca Spain, MerckOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/summary Guenther G. StegerHonoraria: Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Teva, Pfizer, Lilly, NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Teva Blanca Hernando Fernández de AránguizHonoraria: GlaxoSmithKline, PharmaMar, Clovis OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, MSD Oncology, Roche Tufia C. HaddadResearch Funding: Takeda (Inst) Meritxell Bellet EzquerraConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Lilly, NovartisSpeakers' Bureau: Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis Hannes FohlerEmployment: Takeda (I)Research Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Otto MetzgerHonoraria: Grupo Oncoclinicas, RocheResearch Funding: Susan G. Komen for the Cure (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Cascadian Therapeutics (Inst), AbbVie (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Grupo Oncoclinicas Anita Jallitsch-HalperResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Kadine SolomonEmployment: Alliance Foundation TrialsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer, Merck, Moderna Therapeutics Céline SchurmansResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Servier (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Sanofi (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: My organization receives royalties from Agendia Kathy P. TheallEmployment: PfizerStock and Other Ownership Interests: PfizerHonoraria: PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer Dongrui R. LuEmployment: PfizerStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer Kathleen TennerStock and Other Ownership Interests: Merck Christian FeslResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Angela DeMicheleResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Calithera Biosciences (Inst), Novartis (Inst) Erica L. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and residual invasive disease (RD) after completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) have a high-risk for recurrence, which is reduced by adjuvant capecitabine. Preclinical models support the use of platinum agents in the TNBC basal subtype. The EA1131 trial hypothesized that invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) would not be inferior but improved in patients with basal subtype TNBC treated with adjuvant platinum compared with capecitabine., Patients and Methods: Patients with clinical stage II or III TNBC with ≥ 1 cm RD in the breast post-NAC were randomly assigned to receive platinum (carboplatin or cisplatin) once every 3 weeks for four cycles or capecitabine 14 out of 21 days every 3 weeks for six cycles. TNBC subtype (basal v nonbasal) was determined by PAM50 in the residual disease. A noninferiority design with superiority alternative was chosen, assuming a 4-year iDFS of 67% with capecitabine., Results: Four hundred ten of planned 775 participants were randomly assigned to platinum or capecitabine between 2015 and 2021. After median follow-up of 20 months and 120 iDFS events (61% of full information) in the 308 (78%) patients with basal subtype TNBC, the 3-year iDFS for platinum was 42% (95% CI, 30 to 53) versus 49% (95% CI, 39 to 59) for capecitabine. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were more common with platinum agents. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended stopping the trial as it was unlikely that further follow-up would show noninferiority or superiority of platinum., Conclusion: Platinum agents do not improve outcomes in patients with basal subtype TNBC RD post-NAC and are associated with more severe toxicity when compared with capecitabine. Participants had a lower than expected 3-year iDFS regardless of study treatment, highlighting the need for better therapies in this high-risk population., Competing Interests: Ingrid A. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, Macrogenics, Pfizer, AbbVie, Seattle Genetics, Puma Biotechnology, Cyclacel, Blueprint MedicinesResearch Funding: Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech Carlos L. ArteagaLeadership: American Association for Cancer ResearchStock and Other Ownership Interests: Provista Diagnostics, Y-Trap IncConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Lilly, Sanofi, Radius Health, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Puma Biotechnology, Merck, H3 Biomedicine, Symphogen, Origimed, Petra Pharma, Third Rock Ventures, Immunomedics, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, G1 Therapeutics, Clovis OncologyResearch Funding: Puma Biotechnology, Pfizer, Lilly, Radius Health, Takeda, BayerOther Relationship: Susan G. Komen for the Cure William F. SymmansStock and Other Ownership Interests: ISIS Pharmaceuticals, Nuvera Biosciences, Delphi Diagnostics, Eiger BioPharmaceuticalsConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Almac DiagnosticsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property (expired)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Luminex, MerckUncompensated Relationships: Delphi Diagnostics Ben H. ParkLeadership: LoxoStock and Other Ownership Interests: Loxo, CelcuityHonoraria: AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: Horizon Discovery, Foundation Medicine, Loxo, Casdin Capital, H3 Biomedicine, Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Lilly, Celcuity, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, PathovaxResearch Funding: AbbVie, Pfizer, GE Healthcare, LillyPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalties paid through inventions at Johns Hopkins University by Horizon Discovery LtdTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Lilly, LoxoUncompensated Relationships: Tempus Amye J. TevaarwerkOther Relationship: Epic Systems Karen L. SmithStock and Other Ownership Interests: AbbVie, Abbott LaboratoriesHonoraria: ASiM CMEResearch Funding: Pfizer Margaret BlockConsulting or Advisory Role: Theranostics Health Bernard TawfikOther Relationship: Ipsen Lisa E. FlaumConsulting or Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics, NovartisSpeakers' Bureau: Seattle Genetics, Novartis, AstraZeneca Erica L. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, Eisai, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Pfizer William M. SikovHonoraria: UpToDateSpeakers' Bureau: Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Seagen Lynne I. WagnerStock and Other Ownership Interests: Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Gilead SciencesConsulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, AthenexTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Celgene Angela M. DeMicheleResearch Funding: Pfizer, Genentech, Calithera Biosciences, Novartis Joseph A. SparanoStock and Other Ownership Interests: MetastatConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Lilly, Celldex, Pfizer, Prescient Therapeutics, Juno Therapeutics, Merrimack, Adgero Biopharmaceuticals, Cardinal Health, GlaxoSmithKline, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Epic Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, BMSiSpeakers' Bureau: Eisai, CertaraResearch Funding: Prescient Therapeutics, Deciphera, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Novartis, Merrimack, Radius Health, Olema PharmaceuticalsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Roche/Genentech, Adgero Biopharmaceuticals, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Rhenium Medical Antonio C. WolffConsulting or Advisory Role: Ionis PharmaceuticalsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Antonio Wolff has been named as inventor on one or more issued patents or pending patent applications relating to methylation in breast cancer, and has assigned his rights to JHU, and participates in a royalty sharing agreement with JHUOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/357301/summary Kathy D. MillerConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Genentech/Roche, Athenex, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/CelgeneResearch Funding: Taiho Pharmaceutical, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, Astex Pharmaceuticals, British Biotech, CytomX TherapeuticsNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Platinum compounds have activity in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in germline BRCA mutation carriers ( BRCA carriers). Limited data exist for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (+) breast cancer among BRCA carriers. INFORM is a randomized, multicenter, phase II trial comparing pathologic complete response (pCR) rates (ypT0/is, N0) after neoadjuvant single-agent cisplatin (CDDP) versus doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC) in BRCA carriers with stage I-III human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. Secondary objectives included residual cancer burden scores (RCB) of 0 or 1 (combined) and toxicity. The goal was to determine whether pCR was ≥ 20% higher with CDDP than AC., Patients and Methods: BRCA carriers with cT1-3 (≥ 1.5 cm), cN0-3 HER2-negative breast cancer were randomly assigned to preoperative CDDP (75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks × 4 doses) or AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m 2 ; cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m 2 every 2-3 weeks × 4 doses) followed by surgery. Pathologic responses were confirmed by central review., Results: A total of 118 patients were randomly assigned; 117 were included in outcome analyses. Mean age was 42 years (range, 24-73 years); 69% were BRCA1 +, 30% were BRCA2 +, and 2% had both mutations. Clinical stage was I for 19%, II for 63%, and III for 18%; 45% had nodal involvement at baseline. Seventy percent had TNBC. Clinical and tumor characteristics were well matched between treatment arms. The pCR rate was 18% with CDDP and 26% with AC, yielding a risk ratio (RR) of 0.70 (90% CI, 0.39 to 1.2). The risk of RCB 0 or 1 (RCB 0/1) was 33% with CDDP and 46% with AC (RR, 0.73; 90% CI, 0.50 to 1.1). Both regimens were generally well tolerated without unexpected toxicities., Conclusion: pCR or RCB 0/1 is not significantly higher with CDDP than with AC in BRCA carriers with stage I-III HER2-negative breast cancer for both TNBC and ER+/HER2-negative disease.

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice. A 68-year-old postmenopausal woman was diagnosed with breast cancer 6 years ago when she presented with a stage II (T2N1), right-sided, invasive ductal carcinoma considered grade 2 of 3 on core biopsy, with a positive fine-needle aspiration of a palpable, ipsilateral axillary lymph node. Immunohistochemical analysis was positive for estrogen and progesterone receptor expression and negative for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) overexpression. She received neoadjuvant dose-dense doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel chemotherapy, followed by breast-conserving surgery and axillary lymph node dissection, which revealed residual disease in three of 11 nodes. She received adjuvant radiation therapy and initiated letrozole, with excellent compliance during the interval 6-year period. While receiving adjuvant letrozole therapy, she reported 3 months of worsening back pain. Skeletal scintigraphy and cross-sectional imaging confirmed widespread osseous metastatic disease and right supraclavicular lymph node enlargement ( Fig 1 ). Core biopsy of the involved lymph node confirmed estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (90%), progesterone receptor-negative, HER2-negative recurrent metastatic breast cancer. The patient reported mild pain that was adequately controlled with over-the-counter anti-inflammatory medications. She has remained active with an excellent performance status.

Purpose Cardiac dysfunction is a serious adverse effect of certain cancer-directed therapies that can interfere with the efficacy of treatment, decrease quality of life, or impact the actual survival of the patient with cancer. The purpose of this effort was to develop recommendations for prevention and monitoring of cardiac dysfunction in survivors of adult-onset cancers. Methods Recommendations were developed by an expert panel with multidisciplinary representation using a systematic review (1996 to 2016) of meta-analyses, randomized clinical trials, observational studies, and clinical experience. Study quality was assessed using established methods, per study design. The guideline recommendations were crafted in part using the Guidelines Into Decision Support methodology. Results A total of 104 studies met eligibility criteria and compose the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. The strength of the recommendations in these guidelines is based on the quality, amount, and consistency of the evidence and the balance between benefits and harms. Recommendations It is important for health care providers to initiate the discussion regarding the potential for cardiac dysfunction in individuals in whom the risk is sufficiently high before beginning therapy. Certain higher risk populations of survivors of cancer may benefit from prevention and screening strategies implemented during cancer-directed therapies. Clinical suspicion for cardiac disease should be high and threshold for cardiac evaluation should be low in any survivor who has received potentially cardiotoxic therapy. For certain higher risk survivors of cancer, routine surveillance with cardiac imaging may be warranted after completion of cancer-directed therapy, so that appropriate interventions can be initiated to halt or even reverse the progression of cardiac dysfunction.

Purpose: We compared nab-paclitaxel or ixabepilone once per week to paclitaxel with bevacizumab as first-line therapy for patients with advanced breast cancer (BC) to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) for nab-paclitaxel or ixabepilone versus paclitaxel., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were age ≥ 18 years with chemotherapy-naive advanced BC. Patients were randomly assigned to bevacizumab with paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) (arm A), nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) (arm B), or ixabepilone 16 mg/m(2) (arm C), once per week for 3 of 4 weeks. Planned enrollment was 900 patients, which would give 88% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.73., Results: In all, 799 patients were enrolled, and 783 received treatment (97% received bevacizumab). Arm C was closed for futility at the first interim analysis (n = 241), and arm A (n = 267) and arm B (n = 275) were closed for futility at the second interim analysis. Median PFS for paclitaxel was 11 months, ixabepilone was inferior to paclitaxel (PFS, 7.4 months; hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.93; P < .001), and nab-paclitaxel was not superior to paclitaxel (PFS, 9.3 months; hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.45; P = .054). Results were concordant with overall survival; time to treatment failure was significantly shorter in both experimental arms v paclitaxel. Hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity, including peripheral neuropathy, was increased with nab-paclitaxel, with more frequent and earlier dose reductions., Conclusion: In patients with chemotherapy-naive advanced BC, ixabepilone once per week was inferior to paclitaxel, and nab-paclitaxel was not superior with a trend toward inferiority. Toxicity was increased in the experimental arms, particularly for nab-paclitaxel. Paclitaxel once per week remains the preferred palliative chemotherapy in this setting., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: The identification of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) who are expected to benefit from platinum-based chemotherapy is of interest. We conducted a single-arm phase II clinical trial of single-agent platinum for mTNBC with biomarker correlates., Patients and Methods: Patients with mTNBC received first- or second-line cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) or carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve 6) by physician's choice once every 3 weeks. Coprimary end points were objective response rate (RR) and response prediction by p63/p73 gene expression. Secondary and exploratory end points included toxicity assessment, RR in cisplatin versus carboplatin, and RR in molecularly defined subgroups, including BRCA1/2 mutation carriers., Results: Patients (N = 86; 69 as first-line therapy) received cisplatin (n = 43) or carboplatin (n = 43). RR was 25.6% (95% CI, 16.8% to 36%) and was numerically higher with cisplatin (32.6%) than with carboplatin (18.7%). RR was 54.5% in patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations (n = 11). In patients without BRCA1/2 mutations (n = 66), exploratory analyses showed that a BRCA-like genomic instability signature (n = 32) discriminated responding and nonresponding tumors (mean homologous recombination deficiency-loss of heterozygosity/homologous recombination deficiency-large-scale state transitions [HRD-LOH/HRD-LST] scores were 12.68 and 5.11, respectively), whereas predefined analysis by p63/p73 expression status (n = 61), p53 and PIK3CA mutation status (n = 53), or PAM50 gene expression subtype (n = 55) did not. Five of the six long-term responders alive at a median of 4.5 years lacked germline BRCA1/2 mutations, and two of them had increased tumor HRD-LOH/HRD-LST scores., Conclusion: Platinum agents are active in mTNBC, especially in patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations. A measure of tumor DNA repair function may identify patients without mutations who could benefit from platinum therapy agents. Prospective controlled confirmatory trials are warranted., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a targetable receptor frequently overexpressed in basal-like breast cancer, which comprises most triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs), the only subtype without established targeted therapy., Patients and Methods: In this randomized phase II trial, patients with metastatic TNBC received anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) load then 250 mg/m(2) per week intravenously [IV]) alone, with carboplatin (area under the curve of 2, once per week IV) added after progression or as concomitant therapy from the beginning. Response rate (RR) was the primary end point; others included time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Embedded correlative studies included molecular subtyping on archival tissue. Fresh tumor tissue before and after 7 to 14 days of therapy was used for microarray analyses exploring EGFR pathway activity and inhibition., Results: In 102 patients with TNBC, RRs were 6% (two of 31) to cetuximab and 16% (four of 25) to cetuximab plus carboplatin after progression. RR to those treated from the beginning with cetuximab plus carboplatin was 17% (12 of 71); 31% of patients responded or had prolonged disease stabilization. The cetuximab plus carboplatin regimen was well tolerated, but both TTP and OS were short at 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.8 to 5.5 months) and 10.4 months (95% CI, 7.7 to 13.1 months), respectively. Of 73 patients with archival tissue for analysis, 74% had basal-like molecular subtype. Sixteen patients had tumor biopsies before and 1 week after therapy; genomic patterns of the EGFR pathway showed activation in 13 and inhibition by therapy in five., Conclusion: Despite strong preclinical data, combination cetuximab plus carboplatin in metastatic TNBC produced responses in fewer than 20% of patients. EGFR pathway analysis showed that most TNBCs involved activation. However, cetuximab blocked expression of the EGFR pathway in only a minority, suggesting that most had alternate mechanisms for pathway activation.

Purpose: As the number of breast cancer survivors increases, a durable model of comprehensive survivor care is needed, incorporating providers and/or visit types both within and outside of oncology. The objective of this study was to explore survivors' comfort with different clinician types or with a telephone/Internet-based virtual visit as components of survivorship care., Methods: Breast cancer survivors participating in a general survivorship survey completed an additional breast cancer-specific questionnaire evaluating the self-perceived impact of follow-up visits to various clinician types, or follow-up by a virtual visit, on survival, worrying, and stress related to cancer., Results: A total of 218 breast cancer survivors completed the questionnaire. Most favored medical oncologist follow-up visits over those with primary care physicians (PCPs) or nurse practitioners (NPs) in terms of reduced worrying about cancer (odds ratio [OR], 2.21; P < .001), reduced stress around the visit (OR, 1.40; P = .002), and improved effect on cancer survival (OR, 2.38; P < .001). However, the majority also displayed substantial comfort with both PCPs and NPs in the same domains. Patients rated a virtual visit as having a less favorable impact on cancer survival and cancer-related worrying compared with in-person visits with clinicians., Conclusion: Breast cancer survivors are comfortable with both PCPs and NPs providing follow-up care, although they indicate a preference for medical oncologists. Given patients' negative impressions of a virtual visit, increased familiarity with and research investigating this emerging concept are needed. The NP-led survivorship clinic model, with increased guidance for PCPs, offers a promising route for improving quality of and satisfaction with survivor care.

Purpose: Bevacizumab is a treatment option in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Congestive heart failure (CHF) has been reported, although the overall incidence and relative risk (RR) of this complication remains unclear. We performed an up-to-date, comprehensive meta-analysis to determine the risk of serious CHF in patients with breast cancer receiving bevacizumab., Methods: The databases of Medline were searched for articles from 1966 to March 2010. Abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium meetings were also searched for relevant clinical trials. Eligible studies include randomized trials with bevacizumab in patients with breast cancer. Adequate reporting of safety profile data was required for inclusion. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the summary incidence, RR, and 95% CIs by using random-effects models., Results: A total of 3,784 patients were included. Overall incidence results for high-grade CHF in bevacizumab- and placebo-treated patients were 1.6% (95% CI, 1.0% to 2.6%) and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2% to 1.0%), respectively. The RR of CHF in bevacizumab-treated patients was 4.74 (95% CI, 1.66 to 11.18; P = .001) compared with placebo-treated ones. In subgroup analyses, there were no significant differences in CHF incidence or risk between patients treated with low-dose (2.5 mg/kg) versus high-dose (5 mg/kg) bevacizumab or among patients treated with different chemotherapy regimens. No evidence of publication bias was observed., Conclusion: This is the first comprehensive report to show that bevacizumab is associated with an increased risk of significant heart failure in patients with breast cancer.