Search

Simple Summary: In two cohorts of vaccinated cancer patients and healthcare workers, 5% had COVID-19 infection after vaccination. These infections occurred more frequently in younger cancer patients with gastrointestinal cancer, gynecological or breast cancer, or a localized cancer and in patients receiving chemotherapy or targeted therapy when vaccinated. In both cohorts, these breakthrough infections occurred early after initiation of vaccination (Alpha SARS-CoV-2 variant) or several months after the end of vaccination (Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant). In both cohorts these COVID-19 cases in vaccinated individuals were not severe, with only four cancer patients requiring oxygen therapy. In a multicenter prospective cohort of cancer patients (CP; n = 840) and healthcare workers (HCWs; n = 935) vaccinated against COVID-19, we noticed the following: i/after vaccination, 4.4% of HCWs and 5.8% of CP were infected; ii/no characteristic was associated with post-vaccine COVID-19 infections among HCWs; iii/CP who developed infections were younger, more frequently women (NS), more frequently had gastrointestinal, gynecological, or breast cancer and a localized cancer stage; iv/CP vaccinated while receiving chemotherapy or targeted therapy had (NS) more breakthrough infections after vaccination than those vaccinated after these treatments; the opposite was noted with radiotherapy, immunotherapy, or hormonotherapy; v/most COVID-19 infections occurred either during the Alpha wave (11/41 HCW, 20/49 CP), early after the first vaccination campaign started, or during the Omicron wave (21/41 HCW, 20/49 CP), more than 3 months after the second dose; vi/risk of infection was not associated with values of antibody titers; vii/the outcome of these COVID-19 infections after vaccination was not severe in all cases. To conclude, around 5% of our CPs or HCWs developed a COVID-19 infection despite previous vaccination. The outcome of these infections was not severe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Treatment of patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer is an unmet clinical need. We hypothesised that tumour subclones showing expansion in residual disease after chemotherapy would contain mutations conferring drug resistance.Methods: We studied oestrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor-positive, HER2-negative tumours from 42 patients in the EORTC 10994/BIG 00-01 trial who failed to achieve a pathological complete response. Genes commonly mutated in breast cancer were sequenced in pre and post-treatment samples.Results: Oncogenic driver mutations were commonest in PIK3CA (38% of tumours), GATA3 (29%), CDH1 (17%), TP53 (17%) and CBFB (12%); and amplification was commonest for CCND1 (26% of tumours) and FGFR1 (26%). The variant allele fraction frequently changed after treatment, indicating that subclones had expanded and contracted, but there were changes in both directions for all of the commonly mutated genes.Conclusions: We found no evidence that expansion of clones containing recurrent oncogenic driver mutations is responsible for resistance to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The persistence of classic oncogenic mutations in pathways for which targeted therapies are now available highlights their importance as drug targets in patients who have failed chemotherapy but provides no support for a direct role of driver oncogenes in resistance to chemotherapy. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: EORTC 10994/BIG 1-00 Trial registration number NCT00017095. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: CirCe01 trial aimed to assess the clinical utility of circulating tumour cell (CTC)-based monitoring in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients beyond the third line of chemotherapy (LC).Methods: CirCe01 was a prospective, multicentre, randomised trial (NCT01349842) that included patients with MBC after two systemic LC. Patients with ≥5 CTC/7.5 mL (CellSearch®) were randomised between the CTC-driven and the standard arm. In the CTC arm, changes in CTC count were assessed at the first cycle of each LC; patients in whom CTC levels predicted early tumour progression had to switch to a subsequent LC.Results: Greater than or equal to 5 CTC/7.5 mL were observed in N = 101/204 patients. In the CTC arm (N = 51), 43 (83%) and 18 (44%) patients completed CTC monitoring in the third and fourth lines, respectively, and 18 (42%) and 11 (61%) of these patients, respectively, had no CTC response. Thirteen (72%) and 5 (46%) of these patients underwent early switch to the next LC. Overall survival was not different between the two arms (hazard ratio = 0.95, 95% confidence interval = [0.6;1.4], p = 0.8). In subgroup analyses, patients with no CTC response who switched chemotherapy experienced longer survival than patients who did not.Conclusions: Due to the limited accrual and compliance, this trial failed to demonstrate the clinical utility of CTC monitoring.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT, NCT01349842, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01349842 , registered 9 May 2011. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Overexpression of fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1), found in ≤8% of hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer cases, is correlated with decreased overall survival and resistance to endocrine therapy (ET). Dovitinib, a potent FGFR inhibitor, has demonstrated antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with FGFR pathway-amplified breast cancer.Methods: In this randomized, placebo-controlled phase II trial, we evaluated whether the addition of dovitinib to fulvestrant would improve outcomes in postmenopausal patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer that had progressed during or after prior ET. Patients were stratified by FGF pathway amplification and presence of visceral disease, and they were randomized 1:1 to receive fulvestrant plus dovitinib or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).Results: From 15 May 2012 to 26 November 2014, 97 patients from 36 centers were enrolled. The frequency of FGF pathway amplification was lower than anticipated, and the study was terminated early owing to slow accrual of patients with FGF pathway amplification. The median PFS (95% CI) was 5.5 (3.8-14.0) months vs 5.5 (3.5-10.7) months in the dovitinib vs placebo arms, respectively (HR, 0.68; did not meet predefined efficacy criteria). For the FGF pathway-amplified subgroup (n = 31), the median PFS (95% CI) was 10.9 (3.5-16.5) months vs 5.5 (3.5-16.4) months in the dovitinib vs placebo arms, respectively (HR, 0.64; met the predefined superiority criteria). Frequently reported adverse events in the dovitinib (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, asthenia, and headache) and placebo (diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and asthenia) arms were mostly low grade.Conclusions: The safety profile of dovitinib plus fulvestrant was consistent with the known safety profile of single-agent dovitinib. Dovitinib in combination with fulvestrant showed promising clinical activity in the FGF pathway-amplified subgroup. However, the data reported herein should be interpreted with caution, given that fewer PFS events occurred in the FGF pathway-amplified patients than was expected and that an effect of dovitinib regardless of FGR pathway amplification status cannot be excluded, because the population was smaller than expected.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01528345 . Registered 31 January 2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cabazitaxel is approved in patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen. This study evaluated a weekly cabazitaxel dosing regimen. Primary objectives were to report dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics were secondary objectives.Methods: Cabazitaxel was administered weekly (1-hour intravenous infusion at 1.5-12 mg/m² doses) for the first 4 weeks of a 5-week cycle in patients with solid tumours. Monitoring of DLTs was used to determine the MTD and the recommended weekly dose.Results: Thirty-one patients were enrolled. Two of six patients experienced DLTs at 12 mg/m², which was declared the MTD. Gastrointestinal disorders were the most common adverse event. Eight patients developed neutropenia (three ≥ Grade 3); one occurrence of febrile neutropenia was reported. There were two partial responses (in breast cancer) and 13 patients had stable disease (median duration of 3.3 months). Increases in C(max) and AUC(0-t) were dose proportional for the 6-12 mg/m² doses.Conclusion: The MTD of weekly cabazitaxel was 12 mg/m² and the recommended weekly dose was 10 mg/m². The observed safety profile and antitumour activity of cabazitaxel were consistent with those observed with other taxanes in similar dosing regimens.Trial Registration: The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01755390. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. This randomized phase II trial was designed to compare the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) induced by neoadjuvant cyclophosphamide plus doxorubicin (AC) followed by ixabepilone or paclitaxel in women with early stage breast cancer (BC). Expression of βIII-tubulin as a predictive marker was also evaluated. Patients and Methods. Women with untreated, histologically confirmed primary invasive breast adenocarcinoma received four cycles of AC followed by 1:1 randomization to either ixabepilone 40 mg/m2 (3-hour infusion) every 3 weeks for four cycles (n = 148) or weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (1-hour infusion) for 12 weeks (n = 147). All patients underwent a core needle biopsy of the primary cancer for molecular marker analysis prior to chemotherapy. βIII-Tubulin expression was assessed using immunohistochemistry. Results. There was no significant difference in the rate of pCR in the ixabepilone treatment arm (24.3%; 90% confidence interval [CI],18.6-30.8)and the paclitaxel treatment arm (25.2%;90%CI, 19.4-31.7). βIII-Tubulin-positive patients obtained higher pCR Rates compared with βIII-tubulin-negative patients in both treatment arms; however, βIII-tubulin expression was not significantly associated with a differential response to ixabepilone or paclitaxel. The safety profiles of both regimens were generally similar, although neutropenia occurred more frequently in the ixabepilone arm (grade 3/4: 41.3% vs. 8.4%). The most common nonhematologic toxicity was peripheral neuropathy. Conclusions. Neoadjuvant treatment of early stage BC with AC followed by ixabepilone every 3 weeks or weekly paclitaxel was well tolerated with no significant difference in efficacy. Higher response rates were observed among βIII-tubulin-positive patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients and Methods. Between June 1997 and March 2000, a total of 1,999 patients (age <65) with localized, resectable, non-pretreated, unilateral breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive either standard FEC100 for 6 cycles or 3 cycles of FEC100 followed by 3 cycles of 100 mg/m2 docetaxel (FEC-D), both given every 21 days. Radiotherapy was mandatory after conservative surgery and tamoxifen was given for 5 years to hormone receptor (HR)- positive patients. Five-year DFS was the trial's main endpoint. Updated 8-year survival data are presented. Results. With a median follow-up of 92.8 months, 639 patients experienced at least one event. A total number of 383 deaths were registered. Eight-year DFS rates were 65.8% with FEC alone and 70.2% with FEC-D. OS rates at 8 years were 78% with FEC alone and 83.2% with FEC-D. Cox regression analysis adjusted for age and number of positive nodes showed a 15% reduction in the relative risk of relapse and a 25% reduction in the relative risk of death in favor of FEC-D. Significant relative risk reductions were observed in the HR-positive, HER2-positive, and Ki67≥20% subpopulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. The Hermine study observed the use of trastuzumab for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in routine practice, including patients who received trastuzumab treatment beyond progression (TBP). Patients and Methods. The study observed 623 patients for ≥2 years. Treatment was given according to oncologists' normal clinical practices. Endpoints included duration of treatment, efficacy, and cardiac safety. The TBP subanalysis compared overall survival (OS) in 177 patients who received first-line trastuzumab and either continued trastuzumab for ≥30 days following progression or stopped at or before progression. Results. The median treatment duration was 13.3 months. In the first-, second-, and third-line or beyond treatment groups, the median time to progression (TTP) were 10.3 months, 9.0 months, and 6.3 months, and the median OS times were 30.3 months, 27.1 months, and 23.2 months, respectively. Heart failure was observed in 2.6% of patients, although no cardiac-associated deaths occurred. In the TBP subanalysis, the median OS duration from treatment initiation and time of disease progression were longer in patients who continued receiving trastuzumab TBP (>27.8 months and 21.3 months, respectively) than in those who stopped (16.8 months and 4.6 months, respectively). However, the groups were not completely comparable, because patients who continued trastuzumab TBP had better prognoses at treatment initiation. The median TTP was longer in patients who continued trastuzumab TBP (10.2 months) than in those who stopped (7.1 months). Conclusion. The Hermine findings confirm that the pivotal trials of first-line trastuzumab treatment in MBC patients are applicable in clinical practice. The subanalysis suggests that trastuzumab TBP offers a survival benefit to MBC patients treated with first-line trastuzumab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: COVID-19 has some clinical manifestations that are similar to the side effects of cancer treatments such that cancer patients may fail to distinguish COVID-19 symptoms from those of their treatments. The PAPESCO-19 study investigated 13 COVID-19 symptoms and confirmed that in combination with anorexia, fever, headache, and rhinorrhea, anosmia has a strong association with COVID-19 for cancer patients while dysgeusia/ageusia does not. Background: Cancer patients may fail to distinguish COVID-19 symptoms such as anosmia, dysgeusia/ageusia, anorexia, headache, and fatigue, which are frequent after cancer treatments. We aimed to identify symptoms associated with COVID-19 and to assess the strength of their association in cancer and cancer-free populations. Methods: The multicenter cohort study PAPESCO-19 included 878 cancer patients and 940 healthcare workers (HCWs). At baseline and quarterly thereafter, they reported the presence or absence of 13 COVID-19 symptoms observed over 3 months and the results of routine screening RT-PCR, and they were systematically tested for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. We identified the symptom combinations significantly associated with COVID-19. Results: Eight percent of cancer patients were COVID-19 positive, and 32% were symptomatic. Among the HCWs, these proportions were 9.5 and 52%, respectively. Anosmia, anorexia, fever, headache, and rhinorrhea together accurately discriminated (c-statistic = 0.7027) COVID-19 cases from cancer patients. Anosmia, dysgeusia/ageusia, muscle pain, intense fatigue, headache, and chest pain better discriminated (c-statistic = 0.8830) COVID-19 cases among the HCWs. Anosmia had the strongest association in both the cancer patients (OR = 7.48, 95% CI: 2.96–18.89) and HCWs (OR = 5.71, 95% CI: 2.21–14.75). Conclusions: COVID-19 symptoms and their diagnostic performance differ in the cancer patients and HCWs. Anosmia is associated with COVID-19 in cancer patients, while dysgeusia/ageusia is not. Cancer patients deserve tailored preventive measures due to their particular COVID-19 symptom pattern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer patients (CPs) are considered more vulnerable and as a high mortality group regarding COVID-19. In this analysis, we aimed to describe asymptomatic COVID (+) CPs and associated factors. Methods: We conducted a prospective study in CPs and health care workers (HCWs) in 4 French cancer centers (PAPESCO [ PAtients et PErsonnels de Santé des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer pendant l'épidémie de COvid-19 ] study). This analysis used data recorded between June 17, 2020 and November 30, 2020 in CPs (first 2 waves, no variants). At inclusion and quarterly, CPs reported the presence of predefined COVID-19 symptoms and had a blood rapid diagnostic test; a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was done in case of suspected infection. Results: A total 878 CPs were included; COVID-19 prevalence was similar in both CPs (8%) and HCWs (9.5%); of the 70 CPs (8%) who were COVID (+), 29 (41.4%) were and remained asymptomatic; 241/808 of the COVID (−) (29.8%) were symptomatic. 18 COVID (+) were hospitalized (2% of CPs), 1 in intensive care unit (ICU) and 1 died (0.1% of CPs and 2.4% of symptomatic COVID [+] CPs). Only the inclusion center was associated with clinical presentation (in Nancy, Angers, Nantes, and Clermont-Ferrand: 65.4%, 35%, 28.6%, and 10% CPs were asymptomatic, respectively). Conclusions: Seroprevalence of COVID-19 in CPs was similar to that observed in HCWs; mortality related to COVID-19 among CPs was 0.1%. More than 40% of COVID (+) CPs were asymptomatic and one third of COVID (−) CPs had symptoms. Only geographic origin was associated with the presence or absence of symptoms. Social distancing and protective measures must be applied in CPs at home and when hospitalized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]