Search

Background: Classical hormone replacement therapy for hot flashes is contraindicated in breast cancer especially in endocrine responsive disease. Patients and methods: In a double-blind, randomized phase III study, breast cancer patients suffering from hot flashes at least twice a day, who were not taking any medication against hypertension and depression received either clonidine 0.075 mg twice a day or venlafaxine 37.5 mg twice a day for 4 weeks. The primary end point was defined as the frequency of hot flashes after 4 weeks of treatment. A self-reported 1-week hot flash and other symptom questionnaire were kept before the start of treatment until the end of treatment course. Results: From April 2002 to October 2004, 80 patients were recruited of whom 64 were assessable for efficacy analyses. Thirty-three received clonidine and 31 venlafaxine, nine patients stopped early because of side-effects and seven withdrew consent. At the end of treatment week 4, the median hot flash frequency dropped by 7.6 hot flashes per day for patients receiving venlafaxine and 4.85 hot flashes per day for those receiving clonidine (P = 0.025). Conclusion: Venlafaxine is significantly more effective in reducing the frequency of hot flashes in breast cancer patients than clonidine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of the study was to evaluate first-line platinum/paclitaxel (Taxol) under phase III trial conditions in ovarian cancer (OC) patients aged ≥70 years.Patients and methods: Phase III results of 779 patients with OC International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIB/IV treated with cisplatin/paclitaxel versus carboplatin/paclitaxel were retrospectively analyzed according to feasibility, toxicity (National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria) and quality of life (QoL) [European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30)] in patients aged <70 or ≥70 years.Results: One hundred and three (13%) patients were aged ≥70 years. Patient characteristics (<70 versus ≥70 years) showed significant differences with regard to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, residual disease and constitutional factors but not to FIGO stage, histology or grading. Elderly patients received 98%, 100% and 96% of the recommended paclitaxel, carboplatin and cisplatin dose, respectively, per cycle. Early discontinuation was more frequent in elderly, although QoL, nonhematological and hematological toxicity were comparable between elderly and younger patients, except for febrile neutropenia (5% versus <1%, P = 0.005). There were no significant differences with regard to cycle delays, dose reductions or the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and antibiotics.Conclusion: Platinum/paclitaxel appeared to be feasible and tolerable in elderly patients under clinical trial conditions, but there seems to be a different investigators' estimation of toxicity and less intention to maintain trial treatment in elderly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) is associated with high incidences of grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN). This analysis compared the efficacies of four regimens for primary prophylaxis of FN and related toxic effects in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant TAC. Patients and methods: Patients with stage T2–T4 primary breast cancer were scheduled to receive 6–8 cycles of TAC. Primary prophylaxis was: ciprofloxacin 500 mg orally twice daily on days 5–14 (n = 253 patients; 1478 cycles), daily granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (filgrastim 5 μg/kg/day or lenograstim 150 μg/m2/day) on days 5–10 (n = 377; 2400 cycles), pegfilgrastim 6 mg on day 2 (n = 305; 1930 cycles), or pegfilgrastim plus ciprofloxacin (n = 321; 1890 cycles). Results: Pegfilgrastim with/without ciprofloxacin was significantly more effective than daily G-CSF or ciprofloxacin in preventing FN (5% and 7% versus 18% and 22% of patients; all P P Conclusion: Ciprofloxacin alone, or daily G-CSF from day 5–10 (as in common practice), provided suboptimal protection against FN and related toxic effects in patients receiving TAC. Pegfilgrastim was significantly more effective in this setting, especially if given with ciprofloxacin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over the last decades, many changes have occurred in oncology with new chemotherapy combinations and more complex application schemes becoming available. Central venous catheters and implantable venous port systems have become widely used and have facilitated the problem of vascular access. However, important complications are associated with permanent central venous catheters. Material and methods: This review summarizes evidence on venous port system use published in Medline up to February 2007. Moreover, recent guidelines for the prevention and management of catheter-related infections issued by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American College of Critical Care Medicine, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and the Infectious Diseases Working Party of the German Society of Hematology and Oncology are included. Results: Sterile precautions are essential when implanting and accessing port systems. Infections must be treated with adequate antimicrobial therapy. Catheter-related thromboembolic complications were found at a rate of 12–64% in retrospective studies. Five current clinical trials investigated the effect of prophylactic anticoagulation with either low molecular weight heparin or warfarin in cancer patients with central venous devices. On the basis of these results, routine anticoagulation cannot be recommended. Conclusions: This article reviews the current literature on long-term complications of venous port systems, focusing on infection and thrombosis. In addition, it summarizes the evidence regarding routine maintenance of port systems in follow-up care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neoadjuvant (primary systemic) treatment has become a standard option for primary operable disease for patients who are candidates for adjuvant systemic chemotherapy, irrespective of the size of the tumor. Because of new treatments and new understandings of breast cancer, however, recommendations published in 2006 regarding neoadjuvant treatment for operable disease required updating. Therefore, a third international panel of representatives of a number of breast cancer clinical research groups was convened in September 2006 to update these recommendations. As part of this effort, data published to date were critically reviewed and indications for neoadjuvant treatment were newly defined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. The APHINITY trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01358877) previously demonstrated that pertuzumab added to adjuvant trastuzumab and chemotherapy improved invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) for patients with early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC). Here, we report the preplanned third interim analysis of overall survival (OS) and a descriptive updated iDFS analysis with 8.4 years of median follow-up of 4,804 patients in the intent-to-treat population. The 8-year OS was 92.7% in the pertuzumab versus 92.0% in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.02]; P = .078, above the 0.006 significance threshold). The HR was 0.80 [95% CI 0.63 to 1.00] in the node-positive cohort and 0.99 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.55] in the node-negative cohort. Updated results of 8-year iDFS in the node-positive cohort showed an absolute improvement of 4.9% favoring pertuzumab (86.1% v 81.2%; HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.87]). The node-negative cohort did well without adding pertuzumab (8-year iDFS and OS in the placebo group were 93.3% and 96.4%, respectively). The iDFS benefit was seen in the hormone receptor-negative (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.06]) and HR+ cohorts (HR of 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.92]). Despite improvement in overall iDFS, the addition of pertuzumab did not improve OS at this third interim analysis.

Background: Inavolisib is a highly potent and selective inhibitor of the alpha isoform of the p110 catalytic subunit of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase complex (encoded by PIK3CA ) that also promotes the degradation of mutated p110α. Inavolisib plus palbociclib-fulvestrant has shown synergistic activity in preclinical models and promising antitumor activity in early-phase trials., Methods: In a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared first-line inavolisib (at an oral dose of 9 mg once daily) plus palbociclib-fulvestrant (inavolisib group) with placebo plus palbociclib-fulvestrant (placebo group) in patients with PIK3CA -mutated, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had had relapse during or within 12 months after the completion of adjuvant endocrine therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by the investigator., Results: A total of 161 patients were assigned to the inavolisib group and 164 to the placebo group; the median follow-up was 21.3 months and 21.5 months, respectively. The median progression-free survival was 15.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.3 to 20.5) in the inavolisib group and 7.3 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 9.3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.59; P<0.001). An objective response occurred in 58.4% of the patients in the inavolisib group and in 25.0% of those in the placebo group. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was 80.2% in the inavolisib group and 78.4% in the placebo group; grade 3 or 4 hyperglycemia, 5.6% and 0%, respectively; grade 3 or 4 stomatitis or mucosal inflammation, 5.6% and 0%; and grade 3 or 4 diarrhea, 3.7% and 0%. No grade 3 or 4 rash was observed. Discontinuation of any trial agent because of adverse events occurred in 6.8% of the patients in the inavolisib group and in 0.6% of those in the placebo group., Conclusions: In patients with PIK3CA -mutated, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer, inavolisib plus palbociclib-fulvestrant led to significantly longer progression-free survival than placebo plus palbociclib-fulvestrant, with a greater incidence of toxic effects. The percentage of patients who discontinued any trial agent because of adverse events was low. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; INAVO120 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04191499.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

The incidence of breast cancer increases with age. Particularly in ageing societies, breast cancer has a significant impact on both the older patient and the healthcare system. In older patients with early breast cancer, there is a complex interplay between (i) tumor biology, (ii) risk of recurrence, (iii) comorbidities, (iv) frailty, (v) life expectancy and (vi) patient expectations and preferences. Our treatment guidelines are often based on large meta-analyses that have shown that (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy improves the survival rate in early breast cancer in general. This is particularly important in triple-negative and HER2-positive breast cancer, but hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative patients with a higher risk of recurrence also benefit from chemotherapy. However, most studies included younger and carefully selected patients. Since there is a positive correlation between age and estrogen receptor status, as well as between age and the number of concomitant diseases and the tolerability of chemotherapy, it is of great importance to evaluate the effects of additional (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, especially in older patients with early-stage breast cancer. There are only a few studies in which only older patients with early breast cancer were included. On the whole, they show that older patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative tumors hardly benefit from chemotherapy in addition to endocrine therapy. In these patients, additional chemotherapy should be considered critically when weighing up the potential benefits and harms. However, this critical evaluation should not be confused with abandoning standard chemotherapy when it is feasible and clinically indicated based on geriatric assessment, risk assessment, and patient preference. The aim of our narrative review is to provide a concise overview of the evidence on chemotherapy in older women with breast cancer and place it in the context of geriatric assessment and risk evaluation in older HR-positive, HER2-negative patients with early breast cancer. This in turn should help to critically weigh up the risks and benefits of chemotherapy for the individual older patient with early-stage breast cancer, which should ultimately lead to more individualized and at the same time more evidence-based treatment recommendations that take into account the complex interplay of different and sometimes contradictory patient- and tumor-specific factors., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest MS reports grants and personal fees from Pierre-Fabre, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Astra-Zeneca, grants and personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Amgen, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pantarhei Bioscience, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from BioNTech, grants from Genentech, personal fees from SeaGen, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from Menarini Stemline, outside the submitted work; In addition, Dr. Schmidt has a patent EP: 2951317 Method for predicting the benefit from inclusion a taxane in a chemotherapy regimen in patients with breast cancer issued, and a patent EP2390370 A method for predicting the response of a tumor in a patient suffering from or at risk of developing recurrent gynecologic cancer towards a chemotherapeutic agent issued. SL reports employment as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at German Breast Group (GBG) Forschungs GmbH; institutional fees for advisory board membership for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Celgene, DSI, EirGenix, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Olema, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Relay Therapeutics, Roche, Sanofi and Seagen; institutional fees as an invited speaker for AstraZeneca, DSI, Gilead, Medscape, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen and Stemline-Menarini; institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Immunomedics/Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; institutional funding from AbbVie, Greenwich Life Sciences and Molecular Health; institutional licensing fees from VMscope GmbH; a role as a steering committee member (non-financial interest) for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Immunomedics/Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and SeaGen; a role as a principal investigator (PI) for Pfizer (non-financial interest); a non-remunerated advisory role for Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) Kommission Mamma; a non-remunerated role as PI for PI Aphinity; non-remunerated membership of Die AGO, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), German Cancer Society (DKG), ESMO and the ESMO Guidelines Committee; non-remunerated role as Chair of ESMO Breast; institutional patents for EP19808852.8, EP14153692.0, EP21152186.9 and EP15702464.7 (non-financial interest)., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Bidirectional crosstalk between HER2 and estrogen receptor (ER) pathways may influence outcomes and the efficacy of endocrine therapy (ET). Low HER2 expression levels (HER2-low) have emerged as a predictive biomarker in patients with breast cancer (BC)., Methods: PALLAS is an open, international, phase 3 study evaluating the addition of palbociclib for 2 years to adjuvant ET in patients with stage II-III ER-positive/HER2-negative BC. To assess the impact of HER2 expression on patient outcomes in the phase III PALLAS trial, we analyzed (1) the association between rate of HER2-low with demographic and clinicopathological parameters, (2) the prognostic value of HER2-low status on invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), distant relapse-free survival (DRFS), and overall survival (OS) and (3) HER2 expression's value as a predictive biomarker of response to palbociclib. HER2-low was defined as HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1 + or IHC 2 + with negative in situ hybridization (ISH). All pathologic evaluation was performed locally. Prognostic and predictive power of HER2 were assessed with Cox models., Results: From the original PALLAS intention-to-treat population (N = 5753), 5304 patients (92.2%) were included in this analysis. Among these, 2254 patients (42.5%) were classified as having HER2 IHC 0 (HER2-0), and 3050 (57.5%) as having HER2-low disease (1838 with IHC 1 + and 1212 with IHC 2 +). Median follow-up was 59.8 months. HER2-low prevalence varied significantly across 21 participating countries (range 16.7% to 75.6%; p < 0.001) and was more frequent in patients enrolled in North America (63.1%) than in Europe (53.4%) or other regions (53.4%) (p < 0.001). HER2 status was not significantly associated with iDFS in a multivariable Cox model (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.81 - 1.06). No significant interaction was observed between treatment arm and HER2 status for iDFS (p = 0.43). Similar results were obtained for DRFS and OS., Conclusions: In this large, prospective, global patient cohort, no differences were observed in clinical parameters, prognosis, or differential benefit from palbociclib between HER2-0 and HER2-low tumors. Significant geographic variability was observed in the prevalence of HER2-low status, suggesting a high degree of variation in pathologic assessment of HER2 expression without impact on outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) have a relatively poor clinical outcome. The immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy is the current standard of care in TNBC patients with stage II and III. Monotherapy with ICIs has not been comprehensively assessed in the neoadjuvant setting in TNBC patients, given unfavorable results in metastatic trials. ICIs, however, have been tested in the window of opportunity (WOO) before surgery or standard chemotherapy-based neoadjuvant treatment. The WOO design is well suited to assess an ICI alone or in combination with other ICIs, targeted therapy, radiotherapy or cryotherapy, and measure their pharmacodynamic and clinical effect in this treatment-naive population. Some patients show a good response to ICIs in WOO studies. Biomarkers like tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, programmed death ligand-1, and interferon-γ signature may predict activity and may identify patients likely to benefit from ICIs. Moreover, an increase in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, programmed death ligand-1 expression or T cell receptor expansion following administration of ICIs in the WOO setting could potentially inform of immunotherapy benefit, which would allow tailoring further treatment. This article reviews WOO trials that assessed immunotherapy in the early-stage TNBC population, and how these results could be translated to test de-escalation strategies of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy without compromising a patient's prognosis., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer (BC) have better outcomes, potentially warranting less extensive surgical and systemic treatments. Early prediction of treatment response could aid in adapting therapies., Methods: On-treatment biopsies from 297 patients with invasive BC in three randomized, prospective neoadjuvant trials were assessed (GeparQuattro, GeparQuinto, GeparSixto). BC quantity, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), and the proliferation marker Ki-67 were compared to pre-treatment samples. The study investigated the correlation between residual cancer, changes in Ki-67 and TILs, and their impact on pathologic complete response (pCR) and disease-free survival (DFS)., Results: Among the 297 samples, 138 (46%) were hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor 2-negative (HER2-), 87 (29%) were triple-negative (TNBC), and 72 (24%) were HER2+. Invasive tumor cells were found in 70% of on-treatment biopsies, with varying rates across subtypes (HR+/HER2-: 84%, TNBC: 62%, HER2+: 51%; p < 0.001). Patients with residual tumor on-treatment had an 8% pCR rate post-treatment (HR+/HER2-: 3%, TNBC: 19%, HER2+: 11%), while those without any invasive tumor had a 50% pCR rate (HR+/HER2-: 27%; TNBC: 48%, HER2+: 66%). Sensitivity for predicting residual disease was 0.81, with positive and negative predictive values of 0.92 and 0.50, respectively. Increasing TILs from baseline to on-treatment biopsy (if residual tumor was present) were linked to higher pCR likelihood in the overall cohort (OR 1.034, 95% CI 1.013-1.056 per % increase; p = 0.001) and with a longer DFS in TNBC (HR 0.980, 95% CI 0.963-0.997 per % increase; p = 0.026). Persisting or increased Ki-67 was associated with with lower pCR probability in the overall cohort (OR 0.957, 95% CI 0.928-0.986; p = 0.004) and shorter DFS in TNBC (HR 1.023, 95% CI 1.001-1.047; p = 0.04)., Conclusion: On-treatment biopsies can predict patients unlikely to achieve pCR post-therapy. This could facilitate therapy adjustments for TNBC or HER2 + BC. They also might offer insights into therapy resistance mechanisms. Future research should explore whether standardized or expanded sampling enhances the accuracy of on-treatment biopsy procedures. Trial registration GeparQuattro (EudraCT 2005-001546-17), GeparQuinto (EudraCT 2006-005834-19) and GeparSixto (EudraCT 2011-000553-23)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) has become increasingly important in the treatment of breast cancer because of its various advantages. These include the ability to downstage tumors without compromising locoregional control and the potential to obtain valuable information about clinical and biological response to therapy with implications for individual prognoses. Surgical response assessment paves the way for response-adapted therapy, and pathological complete response (pCR; defined as ypT0/is ypN0) serves as an additional endpoint for drug development trials. Recommended NST regimens commonly consist of anthracyclines and taxane, with dose-dense anthracyclines and weekly paclitaxel often preferred, whenever feasible. For patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-positive tumors, dual anti-HER2 therapy (trastuzumab and pertuzumab) is indicated together with NST in case of elevated risk of recurrence. For patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), adding carboplatin to NST correlates with improved pCR and survival rates, as does the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors. For hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-negative cancers, emerging data on NST including immune checkpoint inhibitors may elevate the significance of NST in high-risk luminal breast cancer. Here, we present a synthesis of the results from neoadjuvant clinical trials that aim at optimizing treatment options for patients with high-risk breast cancer.

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 .Although dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy administered once every 2 weeks leads to superior outcomes compared with standard regimens once every 3 weeks, the observed improvement is largely limited to studies using the suboptimal paclitaxel schedule once every 3 weeks as control. PANTHER is an international phase III trial which compared sequential epirubicin/cyclophosphamide and docetaxel administered either once every 2 or once every 3 weeks, with tailored dosing at the dose-dense schedule according to hematologic toxicity. In this end-of-study analysis, the median follow-up was 10.3 years. Compared with standard adjuvant chemotherapy, dose-dense treatment improved breast cancer recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.98]; P = .030), event-free survival (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.94]; P = .009), and distant disease-free survival (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.98]; P = .030) while the improvement in overall survival was not statistically significant (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.04]; P = .109). To our knowledge, this is the first trial that confirms the benefit of a dose-dense regimen over a control regimen containing docetaxel once every 3 weeks.

Purpose: The PI3K signaling pathway is frequently dysregulated in breast cancer, and mutations in PIK3CA are relevant for therapy resistance in HER2-positive (HER2pos) breast cancer. Mutations in exons 9 or 20 may have different impacts on response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy-based treatment regimens., Experimental Design: We investigated PIK3CA mutations in 1,691 patients with early breast cancer who were randomized into four neoadjuvant multicenter trials: GeparQuattro (NCT00288002), GeparQuinto (NCT00567554), GeparSixto (NCT01426880), and GeparSepto (NCT01583426). The role of different PIK3CA exons and hotspots for pathologic complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and patient survival were evaluated for distinct molecular subgroups and anti-HER2 treatment procedures., Results: A total of 302 patients (17.9%) of the full cohort of 1,691 patients had a tumor with a PIK3CA mutation, with a different prevalence in molecular subgroups: luminal/HER2-negative (HER2neg) 95 of 404 (23.5%), HER2pos 170 of 819 (20.8%), and triple-negative breast cancer 37 of 468 patients (7.9%). We identified the mutations in PIK3CA exon 20 to be linked with worse response to anti-HER2 treatment (OR = 0.507; 95% confidence interval, 0.320-0.802; P = 0.004), especially in hormone receptor-positive HER2-positive breast cancer (OR = 0.445; 95% confidence interval, 0.237-0.837; P = 0.012). In contrast, exon 9 hotspot mutations p.E452K and p.E545K revealed no noteworthy differences in response therapy. Luminal/HER2neg patients show a trend to have worse treatment response when PIK3CA was mutated. Interestingly, patients with residual disease following neoadjuvant treatment had better survival rates when PIK3CA was mutated., Conclusions: The PIK3CA hotspot mutation p.H1047R is associated with worse pCR rates following NACT in HER2pos breast cancer, whereas hotspot mutations in exon 9 seem to have less impact., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Capivasertib is a potent, selective pan-AKT inhibitor. In CAPItello-291, the addition of capivasertib to fulvestrant resulted in a statistically significant (P < 0.001) improvement in progression-free survival over fulvestrant monotherapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer and disease progression on or after aromatase inhibitor-based therapy. Characterization of the capivasertib-fulvestrant adverse event (AE) profile as managed in CAPItello-291 can inform future management guidance and optimize clinical benefit., Patients and Methods: Seven hundred and eight patients were randomized 1 : 1 to capivasertib (400 mg twice daily; 4 days on, 3 days off) or placebo, plus fulvestrant, on a 4-week cycle. Dose reductions/interruptions for capivasertib/placebo were permitted (up to two dose reductions). Safety analyses included exposure, AE, and clinical laboratory data and were conducted in patients who received at least one dose of capivasertib, fulvestrant, or placebo. Frequent AEs associated with phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase (AKT) pathway inhibition (diarrhea, rash, hyperglycemia) were characterized using group terms. AEs were summarized using descriptive statistics; time-to-event analyses were conducted., Results: Safety analyses included 705 patients: capivasertib-fulvestrant (n = 355) and placebo-fulvestrant (n = 350). Frequent any-grade AEs with capivasertib-fulvestrant were diarrhea (72.4%), rash (38.0%), and nausea (34.6%); frequent grade ≥3 AEs were rash (12.1%), diarrhea (9.3%), and hyperglycemia (2.3%). Diarrhea, rash, and hyperglycemia occurred shortly after starting capivasertib-fulvestrant [median days to onset (interquartile range) of any grade: 8 (2-22), 12 (10-15), and 15 (1-51), respectively], and were managed with supportive medications, dose reductions, interruptions, and/or discontinuation. Discontinuation rates were 2.0%, 4.5%, and 0.3%, respectively. Overall, 13.0% discontinued capivasertib due to AEs., Conclusions: Frequent AEs associated with PI3K/AKT pathway inhibition occurred early and were manageable. The low rate of treatment discontinuations suggests that, when appropriately managed, these AEs do not pose a challenge to clinical benefit., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

For patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) progressed on first-line endocrine therapy plus a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i), fulvestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) administered intramuscularly, represented the only monotherapy option until the approval of elacestrant. This oral SERD has been approved for patients with ESR1-mutant HR+/HER2- mBC by the European Medicines Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, according to the results of the randomized phase III EMERALD trial, which demonstrated elacestrant superiority over standard endocrine monotherapy. Consequently, elacestrant has been incorporated in the European Society for Medical Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines. However, in Europe, the access to this recommended drug depends on the decision of the National Health Authorities of each state. In this communication, we describe the main results and implications of the EMERALD trial, in the context of the biomarker-driven algorithm for patients with HR+/HER2- mBC progressed on CDK4/6i, and conclude that a subgroup of patients with ESR1-mutant tumors and specific clinical features can really derive a clinically meaningful benefit from elacestrant, sparing access to more toxic combination approaches and preserving the quality of life., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: CAPItello-291 is an ongoing phase 3 trial in which capivasertib-fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo-fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after aromatase inhibitor treatment, in both the overall population and in patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. This study further explored patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functioning, symptoms, and symptom tolerability in CAPItello-291., Methods: This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, which was conducted across 193 hospitals and cancer centres in 19 countries, enrolled women with any menopausal status or men, aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Japan), with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4 or 6 inhibitor therapy. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/WHO performance score of 0 or 1 and could have received up to two previous lines of endocrine therapy and up to one previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using block randomisation (stratified according to the presence or absence of liver metastases, previous use of a CDK4/6 inhibitor [yes vs no], and geographical region) to receive oral capivasertib 400 mg (twice daily for 4 days, followed by 3 days off) plus intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (every 14 days for the first three injections, then every 28 days) or placebo with matching fulvestrant dosing. The dual primary endpoint of the trial was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module (QLQ-C30) and breast module (QLQ-BR23), Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Patient Global Impression of Treatment Tolerability (PGI-TT) questionnaires were used to assess patient-reported outcomes. Evaluation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 were secondary endpoints and evaluation of PRO-CTCAE and PGI-TT were pre-defined exploratory endpoints, and these endpoints are the subject of analysis in this Article. Data were collected at baseline and prespecified timepoints. Patient-reported outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients with an evaluable baseline assessment and at least one evaluable post-baseline assessment. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed model with repeated measures for EORTC QLQ-C30 and summarised for QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration was described using the Kaplan-Meier method. PGI-TT and PRO-CTCAE responses were summarised at each treatment cycle. Patient-reported outcomes were not prospectively powered for statistical comparison. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04305496., Findings: Between June 2, 2020, and Oct 13, 2021, 901 patients were enrolled, of whom 708 patients were randomly assigned to receive capivasertib-fulvestrant (n=355) or placebo-fulvestrant (n=353). The median age of the patients was 59 years (IQR 51-67) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 58 years (IQR 49-66) in the placebo-fulvestrant group. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2022), the median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival in censored patients was 13·0 months (IQR 9·1-16·7) for capivasertib-fulvestrant and 12·7 months (IQR 2·0-16·4) for placebo-fulvestrant in the overall population. EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL) scores were maintained from baseline and were similar between treatment groups throughout the study period (difference in mean change from baseline of -2·5 [95% CI -4·5 to -0·6] with capivasertib-fulvestrant vs -5·6 [-7·9 to -3·4] with placebo-fulvestrant; treatment difference 3·1 [95% CI 0·2 to 6·0]). Median time to deterioration in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL was 24·9 months (95% CI 13·8 to not reached) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 12·0 months (10·2 to 15·7) in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·53 to 0·92). Time to deterioration HRs for all EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 subscale scores showed little difference between the treatment groups, except for diarrhoea, which was worse in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group (HR 2·75, 95% CI 2·01-3·81). In PRO-CTCAE symptom assessment, the proportion of patients reporting loose and watery stools "frequently" or "almost constantly" was 29% higher at cycle 1, day 15 in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group, decreasing at subsequent cycles. Other PRO-CTCAE-reported symptoms (rash, mouth or throat sores, itchy skin, and numbness or tingling in hands or feet) were absent or mild in most patients in both groups throughout treatment. According to the PGI-TT, most patients in both groups reported "not at all" or "a little bit" of bother from treatment side-effects., Interpretation: Patient-reported outcomes from CAPItello-291 demonstrated that capivasertib-fulvestrant delayed time to deterioration of GHS/QOL and maintained other dimensions of HRQOL (except symptoms of diarrhoea) similarly to fulvestrant. With the clinical efficacy and manageable safety profile, these exploratory results further support the positive benefit-risk profile of capivasertib-fulvestrant in this population., Funding: AstraZeneca., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MOl has received honoraria from Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Libbs, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, AstraZeneca Taiwan, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Seagen, Zenith Epigenetics, Gilead Sciences, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, and Genentech; has received travel grants from Eisai and Gilead Sciences; has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, ITeos Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Relay Therapeutics, Roche, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre; and serves as the head on the board of directors for the SOLTI Breast Cancer Research Group. HSR has served as a consultant or advisor for Napo Pharmaceuticals, Puma Biotechnology, Mylan, Eisai, and Daiichi Sankyo, and has received research funding from OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Astellas Pharma, Taiho Oncology, Veru, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, and Stemline Therapeutics. SJH has received institutional grants from Eli Lilly; has served as a consultant for Pfizer; has received payments to their institution per patient from AstraZeneca (study sponsor); has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Eli Lilly; has received honoraria from Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and AstraZeneca; and has received support for attending meetings and travel from Novartis. FD has received honoraria from Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, and AstraZeneca and has received travel grants from Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Gilead Sciences, and Pfizer. JC has served as a consultant or advisor for Celgene, Cellestia Biotech, AstraZeneca, Roche, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, ERYTECH Pharma, Polyphor, Athenex Oncology, Eli Lilly, SERVIER, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, Leuko, Clovis Oncology, Bioasis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, HiberCell, Bioinvent, GEMoaB Monoclonals, Gilead Sciences, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal Genomics, Expres2ion Biotechnologies, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Bridgebio, and BioNTech; has received travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Stemline Therapeutics; holds stock in Leuko and MAJ3 Capital; holds two patents, WO 2014/199294 A and US 2019/ 0338368 A1; has received honoraria from Novartis, Eisai, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, and Stemline Therapeutics; and has received research funding from ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Baxalta, Bayer, Eisai, Guardant Health, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Queen Mary University of London, Roche, and Piqur. HLG has served as a consultant or advisor for AstraZeneca; has received research funding from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and has served on speakers’ bureaus for Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Technofarma, and Novartis. MT has served on advisory boards for Athenex Oncology, Bertis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Kansai Medical Net, and Terumo; has received compensation as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Bertis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Devicore Medical Japan, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exact Science, Kyowa-Kirin, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nippon-Kayaku, Novartis, Pfizer, Shimadzu, Sysmex, Taiho, Takeda, and Yakult; has received research funding from AFI Technology, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, GL Science, Kansai Medical Net, Luxonus, Pfizer, Sanwa Shurui, Shimadzu, Takeda, The Japan Breast Cancer Research Group association, The Kyoto Breast Cancer Research Network association, and Yakult; has served on steering committees for AstraZeneca, Chugai, and Daiichi Sankyo; and serves as a member of the board of directors for the Organisation for Oncology and Translational Research, The Japan Breast Cancer Research Group association, The Japanese Onco-Cardiology Society, The Kyoto Breast Cancer Research Network association, and The Japanese Breast Cancer Society. KJ has served on advisory boards for Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Jounce Therapeutics, Synthon, Intellisphere, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, BluePrint Medicines, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, Biotheranostics, Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company, Taiho Oncology, Sanofi, Gilead Sciences, and Scorpion Therapeutics; has received research funding from Novartis, Genentech, Debiopharm Group, ADC Therapeutics, Pfizer, Novita Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Zymeworks, Immunomedics, Puma Biotechnology, VelosBio/Merck, AstraZeneca, Context Therapeutics, Scorpion Therapeutics, and Blueprint Medicines; and has received travel grants from Taiho Pharmaceutical, Jounce Therapeutics, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Intellisphere, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, and Genentech/Roche. SL has served as a consult or on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, EirGenix, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Olema, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Relay Therapeutics, Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, and AGO (German Gynecological Oncology Group) Kommission Mamma; has served as an invited speaker at AstraZeneca, DSI, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Stemline-Menarini, and Medscape; is a full or part-time employee at GBG Forschungs GmbH; has received licensing or royalties from VMscope GmbH, and research funding from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Greenwich Life Sciences, Immunomedics/Gilead Sciences, Molecular Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; and has served as a principal investigator at PI Aphinity. YHP has received research funding from MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gencurix, and Genome Insight; has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, MSD, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Gilead Sciences; has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, MSD, Eisai, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Menarini, Everest, and Novartis; has received travel grants from Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca; has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Menarini, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo; and has received equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from Dong-A ST, Sanofi, Roche, and Pfizer. JHS has received research funding from MSD, Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Seagen, Qurient, Dragonfly Therapeutics, Eikon Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Celcuity, Bristol Myers Squibb, HLB Pharmaceutical, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Olema Oncology, Hanmi, Ildong Pharmaceutical, and Samyang Holdings. ET has received honoraria from Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Chugai. NCT has served on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Repare Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Inivata, Guardant Health, and Exact Sciences and received research funding from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, MSD, Invitae, Inivata, Personalis, and Natera. CD’C, HA, MF, and IW are employees of AstraZeneca, and may hold AstraZeneca stocks or shares. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

GAIN-2 trial evaluated the optimal intense dose-dense (idd) strategy for high-risk early breast cancer. This study reports the secondary endpoints pathological complete response (pCR) and overall survival (OS). Patients (n = 2887) were randomized 1:1 between idd epirubicin, nab-paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide (iddEnPC) versus leukocyte nadir-based tailored regimen of dose-dense EC and docetaxel (dtEC-dtD) as adjuvant therapy, with neoadjuvant therapy allowed after amendment. At median follow-up of 6.5 years (overall cohort) and 5.7 years (neoadjuvant cohort, N = 593), both regimens showed comparable 5-year OS rates (iddEnPC 90.8%, dtEC-dtD 90.0%, p = 0.320). In the neoadjuvant setting, iddEnPC yielded a higher pCR rate than dtEC-dtD (51.2% vs. 42.6%, p = 0.045). Patients achieving pCR had significantly improved 5-year iDFS (88.7% vs. 70.1%, HR 0.33, p < 0.001) and OS rates (93.9% vs. 83.1%, HR 0.32, p < 0.001), but OS outcomes were comparable regardless of pCR status. Thus, iddEnPC demonstrates superior pCR rates compared to dtEC-dtD, yet with comparable survival outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

pCR should be integrated with other prognostic factors to optimize postneoadjuvant treatments in BC.

The Breast Committee of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (German Gynecological Oncology Group, AGO) presents the 2024 update of the evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer., Competing Interests: Prof. Dr. med. Marc Thill was a member of advisory board Agendia, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Becton/Dickinson, Biom‘Up, ClearCut, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead Science, Grünenthal, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Neodynamics, Novartis, Onkowissen, Organon, Pfizer, pfm medical, Pierre Fabre, Roche, RTI Surgical, Seagen, Sirius Medical, and Sysmex; received manuscript support from Amgen, ClearCut, Clovis, Organon, pfm medical, Roche, and Servier; received travel expenses from Amgen, Art Tempi, AstraZeneca, Clearcut, Clovis, Connect Medica, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Hexal, I-Med-Institute, Lilly, MCI, MSD, Neodynamics, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm medical, Roche, RTI Surgical, and Seagen; received congress support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sanyko, Gilead, Hexal, Lilly, Neodynamics, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Sirius Medical; has received lecture honoraria from Amgen, Art Tempi, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Connect Medica, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gedeon Richter, Gilead Science, GSK, Hexal, I-Med-Institute, Jörg Eickeler, Laborarztpraxis Walther et al. Lilly, MCI, Medscape, MSD, Medtronic, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, pfm medical, Roche, Seagen, StreamedUp, Stemline, Sysmex, Vifor, Viatris, and ZP Therapeutics; has received trial funding from Endomag, Exact Sciences; and received trial honoraria (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Biom’Up, Cairn Surgical, Celgene, Clearcut, Neodynamics, Novartis, pfm medical, Roche, and RTI Surgical. Prof. Dr. med. Wolfgang Janni has received research grants and/or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, ExactScience, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi Aventis, Roche, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, Inivata, and Guardant Health. Prof. Dr. med. Ute-Susann Albert has received lectures from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, was a member of advisory board Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer. Prof. Dr. Malgorzata Banys-Paluchowski has received honoraria for lectures and advisory from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm, Eli Lilly, Onkowissen, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Amgen, Stemline, Samsung, Canon, MSD, GSK, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Sirius Medical, Syantra, Pierre Fabre, and ExactSciences; received study support from EndoMag, Mammotome, MeritMedical, Gilead, Hologic, and ExactSciences; and received travel/congress support from Eli Lilly, ExactSciences, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche. Dr. med. Ingo Bauerfeind has received honoraria and travel reimbursement from Brustkrebs Deutschland e.V., Krankenhaus Kempten, Akademie für Psychoonkologie, IF-Kongress Management. Prof. Dr. med. Jens-Uwe Blohmer has received honoraria for advisory boards and lectures from Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen. Prof. Dr. med. Wilfried Budach has received honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from Merck, BMS, Jörg Eickeler Veranstaltungen, medpublico GmbH, and BVDST. Prof. Dr. med. Peter Dall has received honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from Novartis, Pierre Fabré, MSD, Lilly, and AstraZeneca. Prof. Dr. Nina Ditsch was a member of advisory boards and speakers bureaus AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, BGGF, Daiichi Sankyo, Elsevier Verlag, ESO, Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, GSK, if-Kongress, KelCon, Leopoldina Schweinfurt, Lilly, Lukon, Molekular Health, MSD, Novartis, onkowissen, Pfizer, RG-Ärztefortbildungen, Roche, and Seagen. Prof. Dr. med. Eva Maria Fallenberg has received research grant from DFG and speaker honorarium from GE Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, Guerbet, Siemens, BD, Roche, EUSOBI, ESOR, ESMO, and B-Rayz. Prof. Dr. med. Peter A. Fasching participate on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, Agendia, Sanofi Aventis, Gilead, and Mylan; has received honoraria for lecture, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, Agendia, Sanofi Aventis, Gilead, and Mylan; and has received consulting from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, Agendia, Sanofi Aventis, Gilead, and Mylan. Medical Writing: Merck, to institution: Biontech, Cepheid, Pfizer. Prof. Dr. med. Tanja N. Fehm has receiverd honoraria from Onkowissen. Prof. Dr. med. Michael Friedrich was a member of advisory board: Gilead Sciences has received other honoraria from Roche, MSD. Prof. Dr. med. Bernd Gerber has received travel support from Pfizer. PD Dr. med. Oleg Gluz has received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sanyko, Eisai, Gilead Science, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Agendia, MedConcept, and GynUpdate, Minority share holder: Westdeutsche Studiengruppe (WSG). Prof. Nadia Harbeck, MD has received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Viatris, and Zuelligpharma; received other from Co-Director West German Study Group (WSG). Prof. Dr. med. Andreas Daniel Hartkopf has received honoraria for consulting and speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Agendia, Amgen, Clovis, Daichi Sankyo, Eisai, ExactScience, Gilead, GSK, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Stemline, and Verazyte. Prof. Dr. med. Jens Huober has received honoraria for lectures from Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, and Daiichi; has received honoraria for consulting/advisory board from Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Daiichi, and Gilead; and has received travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi, and Gilead. Prof. Dr. med. Christian Jackisch was a member of advisory board Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Lilly, Gilead, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, Roche, GSK, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Seagen and received lecture from Art tempi, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Exact Sciences, MSD, GynUpdate, and StreamedUp. Prof. Dr. med. Cornelia Kolberg-Liedtke was a member of advisory board: SeaGen, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, SeaGen, Daiichi Sankyo, Agendia, Gilead, and Onkowissen; has received lecture from NOGGO, CECOG, PINK, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Lilly, SeaGen, and Daiichi Sankyo; received other honoraria from Gilead Science and POMME; and stockholding Theraclion SA. Prof. Dr. med. Hans-Heinrich Kreipe was a member of advisory board: Lilly; has received lecture from AstraZeneca, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer. PD Dr. David Krug has received lecture from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, onkowissen, med update; was a member of advisory board: Gilead; and has received research funding from Merch KGaA and Deutsche Krebshilfe. Prof. Dr.med. Thorsten Kühn was a member of advisory board/lecture Sysmex, Neodynamics, Pfizer, MSD, Merit Medical, Sirius Medical, Hologic, Endomag, Lilly; and has received trial funding from Merit Medical, Endomag, Mammotome. Prof. Dr. med. Sherko Kümmel has received lecture from Roche, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Novartis, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, Agendia; Hologic, PINK!, and Stemline; has received other honoraria from Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sonoscape; was a member of advisory board Lilly, MSD, Roche, Astra Zeneca, Stemline, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, and Exact Science. Prof. Dr. med. Sibylle Loibl was a member of advisory board, institutional: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, DSI, Eirgenix, GSK, Gilead Science, Lilly, Novartis, Olema, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Relay Therapeuticas, Puma, Roche, Seagen, and Stemline-Menarini; invited speaker, personal: Medscape; and has received trial funding/others from Astra Zeneca, Abbvie, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Greenwich Life Sciences, GSK, Immunomedics/Gilead, Molecular Health, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Stemline-Menarini, and VM Scope GmbH. Prof. Dr. med. Diana Lüftner D.L. has received honoraria for advisory board activities and/or oral presentations from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, high5md, Loreal, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, onkowissen.de, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and TEVA. Prof. Dr. med. Michael Patrick Lux M.P.L. has received honoraria from Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Hexal, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Agendia, Daiichi Sankyo, Grünenthal, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, PharmaMar, Samantree, Endomag, and medac for advisory boards, lectures, and travel support. Prof. Dr. med. Nicolai Maass was a member of advisory board Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen has received lecture from Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Prof. Dr. med. Christoph Mundhenke was a member of advisory board AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, and Novartis and has received lecture from Pfizer and Novartis. Prof. Dr. med. Toralf Reimer has received trial funding from German Cancer Aid and Else Kroener-Fresenius-Stiftungwas a member of advisory board MSD, Novartis, and Myriad; and has received lecture from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and AstraZeneca. Prof. Dr. med. Kerstin Rhiem has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, streamed up. Prof. Dr. med. Achim Rody was a member of advisory board AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Lilly, Seagen, Amgen, MSD, Gilead; has received lecture from Pfizer, Celgene, Eisai; and has received trial funding from Eisai. Prof. Dr. med. Marcus Schmidt M.S. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GILEAD, Lilly, Menarini-Stemline, Molecular Health, MSD, Novartis, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and SeaGen, His institution has received research funding from AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Eisai, Genentech, German Breast Group, Novartis, Palleos, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pierre Fabre, and SeaGen. In addition, he has a patent for EP 2390370 B1 and a patent for EP 2951317 B1 issued. Prof. Dr. med. Andreas Schneeweiss has received research grants from Celgene, Roche; has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Bayer, Celgene, ClinSol, Clovis Oncology, coma UroGyn, Connectmedica, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, if-kongress, I-MED, iOMEDICO, Lilly, MCI Deutschland, med publico, Metaplan, MSD, Mylan, NanoString Technologies, Novartis, onkowissen.de, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, promedicis, Roche, Seagen, streamedup, and Tesaro; and has received travel support from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Pfizer, and Roche. Prof. Dr. med. Florian Schütz has received lecture from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, ExactSciences, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, ClinSol, Pfizer, and Roche Pharma; was a member of advisory board Lilly, MSD, Gilead, Atheneum Partners, and ClinSol; and received travel expenses from Lilly, Gilead. Prof. Dr. med. Hans-Peter Sinn was a member of advisory board Astra Zeneca, Exact Sciences, and Daiichi Sankyo; has received lecture from AstraZeneca and Diacentus; and has received trial funding from AstraZeneca. Prof. Dr. med. Christine Solbach has received lecture from DiaLog Service GmbH, Jörg Eickeler, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, MedConcept, I-Med, GBG, BVF Akademie, and LÄK Hessen Akademie was a member of advisory board: MSD, Roche. Prof. Dr. med. Erich Solomeyer has received honoraria from Roche, Amgen, Celgen, Tesaro, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Storz, Erbe, Gedeon Richter, Eisai, Medac, MSD, Vifor, Teva, Ethikon, Johnson Johnson, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Exact Sciences, GSK, and Pierre Fabre. Prof. Dr. med. Elmar Stickeler was a member of advisory boards Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Gilead, Iomedico, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Seagen, and Roche and received lecture from Astra Zeneca, BSH Düsseldorf, Gilead, Iomedico, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, PharmaMar, and Roche. Prof. Dr. med. Christoph Thomssen has received compensation for advisory boards, lectures or publications from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Daiichi Sankyo, Forum Sanitas, Gilead, Jörg Eickeler, Hexal, Lilly, Medupdate, MSD, Nanostring, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Vifor. Prof. Dr. med. Michael Untch M. U. has received honoraria to travel support, lectures, and consulting or advisory role from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Aventis, Myriad, Seagen, Novartis, Gilead, Stemline, Genzyme, Agendia, Onkowissen, and Eisai, all honoraria and fees to the employer/institution. Prof. Dr. Isabell Witzel has received lecture from Astra Zeneca, Lilly, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Pfizer and Novartis, and Onkowissen and has received Travel support from Roche and Lilly. Prof. Dr. med. Achim Wöckel has received compensation for advisory boards, lectures, trial funding advisory board from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Celgene, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro, Sirtex, MSD, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Clovis, Organon, Daiji Sankyo, Seagen, Stemline, and Gilead. PD. Dr. Rachel Würstlein served as advisor, consultant, speaker, and travel grant Agendia, Amgen, Apogepha, Aristo, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Esteve, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hexal, Lilly, Medstrom Medical, MSD, Mundipharma, Mylan, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, PINK, PumaBiotechnolgogy, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Sanofi Genzyme, Seattle Genetics/Seagen, Sidekick, Stemline, Tesaro Bio, Teva, Veracyte, Viatris, Wiley, FOMF, Aurikamed, Clinsol, Pomme Med, medconcept, MCI, and MediSeminar. Prof. Dr. med. Volkmar Müller has received speaker honoraria Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, and i-MED Institute; has received consultancy honoraria from Roche, Pierre Fabre, PINK, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, and Stemline; has received institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech, and Astra Zeneca; and has received travel grants from Astra Zeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Gilead. Prof. Dr. Tjoung-Won Park-Simon has received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Roche, AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, Lilly, MSD, Exact Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Novartis, Gilead Science, NCO, Onkowissen, Exact Sciences, and Seagen and has received travel compensation from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, and Pierre Fabre. Prof. Dr. med. Jörg Heil has none to declare., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Purpose: To summarize the radiotherapy-relevant statements of the 18th St. Gallen Breast Cancer Consensus Conference and interpret the findings in light of German guideline recommendations., Methods: Statements and voting results from the 18th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Consensus Conference were collected and analyzed according to their relevance for the radiation oncology community. The voting results were discussed in two hybrid meetings among the authors of this manuscript on March 18 and 19, 2023, in light of the German S3 guideline and the 2023 version of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) guidelines., Results and Conclusion: There was a high level of agreement between the radiotherapy-related statements of the 18th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Consensus Conference and the German S3 and AGO guidelines. Discrepancies include the impact of number of lymph node metastases for the indication for postmastectomy radiotherapy., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The PENELOPE-B study demonstrated that the addition of 1-year post-neoadjuvant palbociclib to endocrine therapy (ET) in patients with high-risk early breast cancer (BC) did not improve invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) compared to placebo. Here, we report results for premenopausal women., Patients and Methods: Patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative BC at high risk of relapse [defined as no pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and a clinical, pathological stage, estrogen receptor, grading (CPS-EG) score ≥3 or 2/ypN+] were randomized to receive 13 cycles of palbociclib or placebo + standard ET. Ovarian function (OF) was evaluated by centrally assessed estradiol, follicle-stimulating hormone and anti-Müllerian hormone serum levels., Results: Overall, 616 of 1250 randomized patients were premenopausal; of these, 30.0% were <40 years of age, 47.4% had four or more metastatic lymph nodes, and 58.2% had a CPS-EG score ≥3. 66.1% of patients were treated with tamoxifen alone, and 32.9% received ovarian function suppression (OFS) in addition to either tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor (AI). After a median follow-up of 42.8 months (97.2% completeness) no difference in iDFS between palbociclib and placebo was observed [hazard ratio = 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.30, P = 0.737]. The estimated 3-year iDFS rate was marginally higher in the palbociclib arm (80.6% versus 78.3%). Three year iDFS was higher in patients receiving AI than tamoxifen plus OFS or tamoxifen alone (86.0% versus 78.6% versus 78.0%). Patients receiving tamoxifen plus OFS showed a favorable iDFS with palbociclib (83.0% versus 74.1%, hazard ratio = 0.52, 95% CI 0.27-1.02, P = 0.057). Hematologic adverse events were more frequent with palbociclib (76.1% versus 1.9% grade 3-4, P < 0.001). Palbociclib seems not to negatively impact the OF throughout the treatment period., Conclusions: In premenopausal women, who received tamoxifen plus OFS as ET, the addition of palbociclib to ET results in a favorable iDFS. The safety profile seems favorable and in contrast to chemotherapy palbociclib does not impact OF throughout the treatment period., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Each year the interdisciplinary AGO (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie, German Gynecological Oncology Group) Breast Committee on Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer provides updated state-of-the-art recommendations for early and metastatic breast cancer., Methods: The updated evidence-based treatment recommendations for early and metastatic breast cancer have been released in March 2024., Results and Conclusion: This paper concisely captures the updated recommendations for early breast cancer chapter by chapter., Competing Interests: Prof. Dr. Tjoung-Won Park-Simon has received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Roche, AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, Lilly, MSD, ExactSciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Novartis, Gilead Science, NCO, Onkowissen, Exact Sciences, Seagen. Travel compensation: Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, and Pierre Fabre. Prof. Dr. med. Ute-Susann Albert has received honoraria for lectures from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca and is a member of advisory board Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer. Prof. Dr. Malgorzata Banys-Paluchowski has received honoraria for lectures and advisory from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm, Eli Lilly, Onkowissen, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Amgen, Stemline, Samsung,Canon, MSD, GSK, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Sirius Medical, Syantra, Pierre Fabre, ExactSciences, study support from EndoMag, Mammotome, Merit Medical, Gilead, Hologic, ExactSciences, and travel/congress support from Eli Lilly, ExactSciences, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche. Prof. Dr. med. Jens-Uwe Blohmer has received honoraria for advisory boards and lectures: AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen. Prof. Dr. med. Wilfried Budach has received honoraria for lectures and advisory boards: Merck, BMS, Jörg Eickeler Veranstaltungen, med publico GmbH, BVDST. Prof. Dr. med. Peter Dall has received honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from Novartis, Pierre Fabré, MSD, Lilly, AstraZeneca. Prof. Dr. Nina Ditsch was a member of advisory boards and speakers bureaus: AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, BGGF, Daiichi-Sankyo, Elsevier Verlag, ESO, Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, GSK, if-Kongress, KelCon, Leopoldina Schweinfurt, Lilly, Lukon, Molekular Health, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, RG-Ärztefortbildungen, Roche, Seagen. Prof. Dr. med. Eva Maria Fallenberg has received research grant from DFG and received speaker honorarium from GE Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, Guerbet, Siemens, BD, Roche, EUSOBI, ESOR, ESMO, B-Rayz. Prof. Dr. med. Peter A. Fasching: participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, Agendia, Sanofi Aventis, Gilead, Mylan, has received honoraria for lecture, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, Agendia, Sanofi Aventis, Gilead, Mylan, consulting from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, Agendia, Sanofi Aventis, Gilead, Mylan. Medical Writing: Merck. To institution: Biontech, Cepheid, Pfizer. Prof. Dr. med. Michael Friedrich is a member of the advisory board Gilead Sciences and has received other honoraria from Roche, MSD. Prof. Dr. med. Bernd Gerber has received travel support from Pfizer. PD Dr. med. Oleg Gluz has received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sanyko, Eisai, Gilead Science, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Agendia, MedConcept, GynUpdate, and minority share holder: Westdeutsche Studiengruppe (WSG). Prof. Nadia Harbeck, MD has received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Viatris, Zuelligpharma, other are Co-Director West German Study Group (WSG). Prof. Dr. med. Andreas Daniel Hartkopf has received honoraria for consulting and speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Agendia, Amgen, Clovis, DaichiiSankyo, Eisai, Exact Science, Gilead, GSK, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Stemline, and Verazyte. Prof. Dr. med. Jens Huober has received honoraria for lectures: Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Daiichi and honoraria for consulting/advisory board: Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Daiichi, Gilead and received travel grants: Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi, Gilead. Prof. Dr. med. Christian Jackisch is a member of advisory board: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lilly, Gilead, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, Roche, GSK, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen; Lecture: Art tempi, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Exact Sciences, MSD, GynUpdate, StreamedUp. Prof. Dr. med. Cornelia Kolberg-Liedtke is a member of advisory board: SeaGen, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, SeaGen, Daiichi Sankyo, Agendia, Gilead, Onkowissen, has received honoraria for lectures from NOGGO, CECOG, PINK, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Lilly, SeaGen, Daiichi Sankyo. Other: Gilead Science, POMME. Stockholding: Theraclion SA. Prof. Dr. med. Hans-Heinrich Kreipe is a member of advisory board: Lilly, has received honoraria for lecture: AstraZeneca, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer. PD Dr. David Krug has received honoraria for lecture from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Onkowissen, med update is a member of advisory board: Gilead, has received research funding from Merch KGaA, Deutsche Krebshilfe. Prof. Dr. med. Thorsten Kühn is a member of advisory board/lecture: Sysmex, Neodynamics, Pfizer, MSD, Merit Medical, Sirius Medical, Hologic, Endomag, Lilly has received trial funding from Merit Medical, Endomag, Mammotome. Prof. Dr. med. Sherko Kümmel has received honoraria for lecture: Roche, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Novartis, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, Agendia; Hologic, PINK!; Stemline, other honoraria from Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Sonoscape, is a member of advisory board: Lilly, MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Stemline, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Exact Science. Prof. Dr. med. Sibylle Loibl is a member of advisory board, institutional: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, DSI, Eirgenix, GSK, Gilead Science, Lilly, Novartis, Olema, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Relay Therapeuticas, Puma, Roche, Seagen, Stemline-Menarini, invited speaker, personal: Medscape received trial funding/others from: AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Greenwich Life Sciences, GSK, Immunomedics/Gilead, Molecular Health, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Stemline-Menarini, VM Scope GmbH. Prof. Dr. med. Diana Lüftner has received honoraria for advisory board activities and/or oral presentations from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, high5md, Loreal, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, onkowissen.de, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche and TEVA. Prof. Dr. med. Michael Patrick Lux has received honoraria from Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Hexal, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Agendia, Daiichi-Sankyo, Grünenthal, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, PharmaMar, Samantree, Endomag, and medac for advisory boards, lectures, and travel support. Prof. Dr. med. Nicolai Maass was a member of advisory board: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen and has received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. Prof. Dr. med. Christoph Mundhenke was a member of advisory board: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Novartis, has received honoraria for lecture: Pfizer, Novartis. Prof. Dr. med. Toralf Reimer has received trial funding from German Cancer Aid and Else Kroener-Fresenius-Stiftung, is a member of advisory board: MSD, Novartis, Myriad lecture from: Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca. Prof. Dr. med. Achim Rody was a member of advisory board: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Lilly, Seagen, Amgen, MSD, Gilead, lecture Pfizer, Celgene, Eisai, has received trial funding from Eisai. Prof. Dr. med. Marcus Schmidt reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GILEAD, Lilly, Menarini-Stemline, Molecular Health, MSD, Novartis, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and SeaGen, his institution has received research funding from AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Eisai, Genentech, German Breast Group, Novartis, Palleos, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pierre Fabre, and SeaGen. In addition, he has a patent for EP 2390370 B1 and a patent for EP 2951317 B1 issued. Prof. Dr. med. Andreas Schneeweiss has received research grants from Celgene, Roche, honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Bayer, Celgene, ClinSol, Clovis Oncology, coma UroGyn, Connect Medica, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, if-kongress, I-MED, iOMEDICO, Lilly, MCI Deutschland, med publico, Metaplan, MSD, Mylan, NanoString Technologies, Novartis, onkowissen.de, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, promedicis, Roche, Seagen, StreamedUp, and Tesaro, received travel support from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Pfizer, Roche. Prof. Dr. med. Florian Schütz has received honoraria for lecture Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, ExactSciences, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, ClinSol, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, was a member of advisory board: Lilly, MSD, Gilead, Atheneum Partners, ClinSol, has received travel expenses from Lilly, Gilead. Prof. Dr. med. Hans-Peter Sinn was a member of advisory board: AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, has received honoraria for lecture from AstraZeneca, Diacentus, has received trial funding from AstraZeneca. Prof. Dr. med. Christine Solbach has received honoraria for lecture: DiaLog Service GmbH, Jörg Eickeler, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, MedConcept, I-Med, GBG, BVF Akademie, LÄK Hessen Akademie, was a member of advisory board: MSD, Roche. Prof. Dr. med. Elmar Stickeler was a member of advisory boards Amgen, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Iomedico, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Seagen, Roche; has received honoraria for lecture: AstraZeneca, BSH Düsseldorf, Gilead, Iomedico, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche. Prof. Dr. med. Christoph Thomssen: compensation for advisory boards, lectures or publications. Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Daiichi-Sankyo, Forum Sanitas, Gilead, Jörg Eickeler, Hexal, Lilly, med update, MSD, Nanostring, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Vifor. Prof. Dr. med. Michael Untch has received honoraria to travel support, lectures, and consulting or advisory role from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi-Aventis, Myriad, Seagen, Novartis, Gilead, Stemline, Genzyme, Agendia, Onkowissen, Eisai, all honoraria and fees to the employer/institution. Prof. Dr. Isabell Witzel has received honoraria for lecture: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Pfizer and Novartis, Onkowissen. travel support from Roche and Lilly. Prof. Dr. med. Achim Wöckel compensation for advisory boards, lectures, trial funding Advisory board: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Celgene, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro, Sirtex, MSD, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Clovis, Organon, Daiji Sankyo, Seagen, Stemline, Gilead. PD. Dr. Rachel Würstlein served as advisor, consultant, speaker, and travel grant from Agendia, Amgen, Apogepha, Aristo, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Esteve, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hexal, Lilly, Medstrom Medical, MSD, Mundipharma, Mylan, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, PINK, PumaBiotechnolgogy, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Sanofi Genzyme, Seattle Genetics /Seagen, Sidekick, Stemline, Tesaro Bio, Teva, Veracyte, Viatris, Wiley, FOMF, Aurikamed, Clinsol, Pomme Med, medconcept, MCI, MediSeminar. Prof. Dr. med. Volkmar Müller has received speaker honoraria from: AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, iMED Institute, consultancy honoraria from Roche, Pierre Fabre, PINK, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, Stemline, institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech, AstraZeneca, travel grants form AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead. Prof. Dr. med. Wolfgang Janni has received research grants and/or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Science, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, Inivata, Guardant Health. Prof. Dr. med. Marc Thill is a member of advisory board: Agendia, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Becton/Dickinson, Biom‘Up, ClearCut, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead Science, Grünenthal, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Neodynamics, Novartis, Onkowissen, Organon, Pfizer, pfm Medical, Pierre Fabre, Roche, RTI Surgical, Seagen, Sirius Medical, Sysmex, has received manuscript support from Amgen, ClearCut, Clovis, Organon, pfm medical, Roche, Servier, has received travel expenses from Amgen, Art Tempi, AstraZeneca, Clearcut, Clovis, Connect Medica, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Hexal, I-Med-Institute, Lilly, MCI, MSD, Neodynamics, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm Medical, Roche, RTI Surgical, Seagen; Congress support: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sanyko, Gilead, Hexal, Lilly, Neodynamics, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sirius Medical; Lecture honoraria: Amgen, Art Tempi, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Connect Medica, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gedeon Richter, Gilead Science, GSK, Hexal, I-Med-Institute, Jörg Eickeler, Laborarztpraxis Walther et al., Lilly, MCI, Medscape, MSD, Medtronic, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, pfm medical, Roche, Seagen, StreamedUp, Stemline, Sysmex, Vifor, Viatris, ZP Therapeutics has received trial funding from Endomag, Exact Sciences, and trial honoraria from AstraZeneca, Biom’Up, Celgene, Clearcut, Neodynamics, Novartis, pfm medical, Roche, RTI Surgical. Prof. Dr. med. Jörg Heil: none to disclose. Dr. I. Bauerfeind received speaker honoraria from Brustkrebs Deutschland e.V., Krankenhaus Kempten, Akademie für Psychoonkologie, IF Kongressmanagement. Prof. Dr. med. Kerstin Rhiem received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, streamed up. Prof. Dr. med. Tanja N. Fehm received honoraria for lectures from Onkowissen. Prof. Dr. med. Erich-Franz Solomayer received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Roche, Amgen, Celgen, Tesaro, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Storz, Erbe, Gedeon Richter, Eisai, Medac, MSD, Vifor, Teva, Ethikon, Johnson Johnson, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Exact Sciences, GSK, Pierre Fabre., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

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. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG), a first-in-class anti-trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (Trop-2) antibody-drug conjugate, demonstrated superior efficacy over single-agent chemotherapy (treatment of physician's choice [TPC]) in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) in the international, multicenter, phase III ASCENT study.Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive SG or TPC until unacceptable toxicity/progression. Final efficacy secondary end point analyses and post hoc analyses of outcomes stratified by Trop-2 expression and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status are reported. Updated safety analyses are provided.In this final analysis, SG (n = 267) improved median progression-free survival (PFS; 4.8 v 1.7 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.41 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.52]) and median overall survival (OS; 11.8 v 6.9 months; HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.63]) over TPC (n = 262). SG improved PFS over TPC in each Trop-2 expression quartile (n = 168); a trend was observed for improved OS across quartiles. Overall, SG had a manageable safety profile, with ≤5% of treatment-related discontinuations because of adverse events and no treatment-related deaths. The safety profile was consistent across all subgroups.These data confirm the clinical benefit of SG over chemotherapy, reinforcing SG as an effective treatment option in patients with mTNBC in the second line or later.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with early breast cancer were updated and published online in 2023, and adapted, according to previously established standard methodology, to produce the Pan-Asian adapted (PAGA) ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of Asian patients with early breast cancer. The adapted guidelines presented in this manuscript represent the consensus opinions reached by a panel of Asian experts in the treatment of patients with breast cancer representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), Indonesia (ISHMO), India (ISMPO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), the Philippines (PSMO), Singapore (SSO), Taiwan (TOS) and Thailand (TSCO), co-ordinated by ESMO and KSMO. The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of the current treatment practices, drug access restrictions and reimbursement decisions in the different Asian regions represented by the 10 oncological societies. The latter are discussed separately in the manuscript. The aim is to provide guidance for the optimisation and harmonisation of the management of patients with early breast cancer across the different regions of Asia, drawing on the evidence provided by both Western and Asian trials, whilst respecting the differences in screening practices, molecular profiling, as well as the age and stage at presentation. Attention is drawn to the disparity in the drug approvals and reimbursement strategies, between the different regions of Asia., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The GENEVIEVE study, comparing neoadjuvant cabazitaxel versus paclitaxel in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and luminal B/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer (BC), previously reported significant differences in pathological complete response (pCR) rates. Effects on long-term outcome are unknown., Patients and Methods: GENEVIEVE randomized patients with cT2-3, any cN or cT1, cN+/pN SLN +, centrally confirmed TNBC or luminal B/HER2-negative BC (latter defined as estrogen/progesterone receptor-positive and >14% Ki-67-stained cells) to receive either cabazitaxel 25 mg/m 2 q3w for four cycles or paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 weekly for 12 weeks. Anthracycline-containing chemotherapy was allowed in case of histologically proven invasive residuals as neoadjuvant treatment or after surgery as adjuvant treatment. Here we report the secondary endpoints invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and overall survival (OS)., Results: Of the 333 patients randomized, 74.7% and 83.2% completed treatment in the cabazitaxel and paclitaxel arms, respectively. After a median follow-up of 89.3 months (interquartile range 68.8-97.3 months), 80 iDFS events (43 after cabazitaxel and 37 after paclitaxel) and 47 deaths (23 after cabazitaxel and 24 after paclitaxel) were reported. IDFS rates were not significantly different between the cabazitaxel and paclitaxel arms after a 3-year (83.6% versus 85.0%) and 5-year follow-up (76.2% versus 78.3%) [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval 0.82-1.96, P = 0.294], respectively. DDFS rates at 3 years (88.6% versus 87.8%) and 5 years (82.1% versus 82.8%) for cabazitaxel and paclitaxel were comparable (HR = 1.15, P = 0.573). Similarly, OS rates at 3 years (91.6% versus 91.8%) and 5 years (89.2% versus 86.8%) showed no significant differences (HR = 1.05, P = 0.872). Subgroup analysis for TNBC and luminal B/HER2-negative BCs indicated no significant variations in 3- or 5-year iDFS, DDFS, or OS., Conclusions: The significant differences in pCR rates observed in both treatment arms did not significantly impact long-term outcomes for patients treated with cabazitaxel versus paclitaxel in the GENEVIEVE trial., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is routinely used for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Upfront breast-conserving therapy (BCT) consisting of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) has been shown to be associated with improved outcome in patients with early TNBC as compared to mastectomy., Methods: We identified 2632 patients with early TNBC from the German Breast Group meta-database. Patients with cT1-2 cN0 and ypN0, available surgery and follow-up data were enrolled. Data of 1074 patients from 8 prospective NACT trials were available. Endpoints of interest were locoregional recurrence as first site of relapse (LRR), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). We performed univariate and multivariate Fine-Gray analysis and Cox regression models., Results: After a median follow-up of 64 months, there were 94 (8.8%) locoregional events as first site of relapse. Absence of pathologic complete response (pCR) was associated with increased LRR upon uni- and multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.28; p < 0.001 and HR = 2.22; p = 0.001). Type of surgery was not associated with LRR. Patients in the BCS-group had better DFS and OS (DFS: HR = 0.47; p < 0.001 and OS: HR = 0.40; p < 0.001). BCS was associated with improved DFS and OS upon multivariate analysis (DFS: HR = 0.51; p < 0.001; and OS HR = 0.43; p < 0.001), whereas absence of pCR was associated with worse DFS and OS (DFS: HR = 2.43; p < 0.001; and OS: HR = 3.15; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: In this retrospective analysis of patients with early stage node-negative TNBC treated with NACT, BCS was not associated with an increased risk of LRR but with superior DFS and OS., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest DK reports honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dome, med update, onkowissen, best practice onkologie, ESO, ESMO, Astra Zeneca and Pfizer, advisory boards for Gilead as well as research funding from Merck KGaA, all outside the submitted work. MU declares honoraria from AstraZeneca, Art tempi, Amgen, Daiji Sankyo, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi-Aventis, Myriad, Seagen, Gilead and Novartis; he also reports honoraria or fees for consulting or advisory role from Amgen, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, MSD Oncology, Roche, Agendia, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Gilead, Lily, Stemline and Genzyme. All honoraria and fees paid to the employer/institution. TK reports honoraria from MSD, Pfizer, Gilead, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Merit Medical, Endomagnetics, Sirius Medical, Hologic. AS declares grants from Celgene, Roche and AbbVie; personal fees from Celgene, Roche, Pfizer and AstraZeneca for travel expenses outside the submitted work. AS received honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, GSK, Bayer, Amgen and Pierre Fabre outside the submitted work outside the submitted work. BA reports honoraria for lectures from Roche, Astra Zeneca, GSK, MSD, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Eisai and advisory board for MSD, GSK, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eisai. SS reports personal fees from Abbvie outside the submitted work. SS declares to be an employee of GBG Forschungs GmbH. GBG Forschungs GmbH received funding for research grants from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Molecular Health, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche (paid to the institution); other (non-financial/medical writing) from Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Seagen (paid to the institution). GBG Forschungs GmbH has licensing fees from VMscope GmbH. In addition, GBG Forschungs GmbH has a patent EP21152186.9 pending, a patent EP19808852.8 pending, and a patent EP14153692.0 pending. VN declares to be GBG Forschungs GmbH employee. GBG Forschungs GmbH received funding for research grants from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Molecular Health, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche (paid to the institution); other (non-financial/medical writing) from Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Seagen (paid to the institution). GBG Forschungs GmbH has licensing fees from VMscope GmbH. In addition, GBG Forschungs GmbH has a patent EP21152186.9 pending, a patent EP19808852.8 pending, and a patent EP14153692.0 pending. JH reports personal fees and non-financial support from Daiichi Sankyo, non-financial support from Hologic, personal fees from MSD Oncology, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Palleos Health Care, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Roche Pharma, personal fees from Seagen, outside the submitted work. JH declares to be GBG Forschungs GmbH employee. GBG Forschungs GmbH received funding for research grants from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Molecular Health, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche (paid to the institution); other (non-financial/medical writing) from Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Seagen (paid to the institution). GBG Forschungs GmbH has licensing fees from VMscope GmbH. In addition, GBG Forschungs GmbH has a patent EP21152186.9 pending, a patent EP19808852.8 pending, and a patent EP14153692.0 pending. SL reports institutional COIs: The institute receives grants and other from Abbvie, other from Amgen, grants and other from AstraZeneca, other from BMS, grants and other from Celgene, grants, non-financial support and other from Daiichi-Sankyo, other from Eirgenix, other from Eisai Europe Ltd, other from GSK, grants, non-financial support and other from Immunomedics/Gilead, other from Lilly, other from Merck, grants from Molecular Health, grants, non-financial support and other from Novartis, grants, non-financial support and other from Pfizer, other from Pierre Fabre, other from Relay Therapeutics, grants, non-financial support and other from Roche, other from Sanofi, non-financial support and other from Seagen, other from Olema Pharmaceutics, other from VMscope GmbH, outside the submitted work; In addition, Dr. Loibl has a patent EP21152186.9 pending, a patent EP19808852.8 pending, and a patent EP14153692.0 pending. All other authors report that they have no conflicts to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Recent advances in the field of immuno-oncology have brought transformative changes in the management of cancer patients. The immune profile of tumours has been found to have key value in predicting disease prognosis and treatment response in various cancers. Multiplex immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence have emerged as potent tools for the simultaneous detection of multiple protein biomarkers in a single tissue section, thereby expanding opportunities for molecular and immune profiling while preserving tissue samples. By establishing the phenotype of individual tumour cells when distributed within a mixed cell population, the identification of clinically relevant biomarkers with high-throughput multiplex immunophenotyping of tumour samples has great potential to guide appropriate treatment choices. Moreover, the emergence of novel multi-marker imaging approaches can now provide unprecedented insights into the tumour microenvironment, including the potential interplay between various cell types. However, there are significant challenges to widespread integration of these technologies in daily research and clinical practice. This review addresses the challenges and potential solutions within a structured framework of action from a regulatory and clinical trial perspective. New developments within the field of immunophenotyping using multiplexed tissue imaging platforms and associated digital pathology are also described, with a specific focus on translational implications across different subtypes of cancer. © 2024 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland., (© 2024 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibition in combination with endocrine therapy is the standard-of-care treatment for patients with advanced-stage hormone receptor-positive, HER2 non-amplified (HR + HER2 - ) breast cancer. These agents can also be administered as adjuvant therapy to patients with higher-risk early stage disease. Nonetheless, the clinical success of these agents has created several challenges, such as how to address acquired resistance, identifying which patients are most likely to benefit from therapy prior to treatment, and understanding the optimal timing of administration and sequencing of these agents. In this Review, we describe the rationale for targeting CDK4/6 in patients with breast cancer, including a summary of updated clinical evidence and how this should inform clinical practice. We also discuss ongoing research efforts that are attempting to address the various challenges created by the widespread implementation of these agents., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

What Is This Summary About?: A medicine called sacituzumab govitecan (brand name TRODELVY ® ) has been proven to be an effective treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC for short). Metastatic breast cancer is cancer that has spread to other parts of the body. In mTNBC, the breast cancer cells do not have 3 common proteins on the cell surface, called receptors. mTNBC is more difficult to treat and more likely to come back than other types of breast cancer. The ASCENT study showed that participants with mTNBC treated with sacituzumab govitecan had a higher likelihood of living longer and delayed progression (worsening) of their cancer than those treated with standard chemotherapy . Here, we summarize the quality of life of participants with mTNBC in the ASCENT study. We compared quality of life between 236 participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan and 183 participants treated with standard chemotherapy. All participants previously received 2 or more chemotherapies that no longer controlled their cancer., What Are the Key Takeaways?: This analysis showed that participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan had better overall quality of life than participants treated with standard chemotherapy. They also had better "physical functioning", which is the ability to walk and do physical activities. Participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan maintained their overall quality of life for a longer time than those treated with standard chemotherapy. Participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan had less pain and were less tired than those treated with standard chemotherapy. On the other hand, participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan had worse diarrhea (loose or watery stools) and were more likely to have nausea/vomiting (feel sick or throw up) than participants treated with standard chemotherapy., What Were the Main Conclusions Reported by the Researchers?: Participants treated with sacituzumab govitecan had a higher likelihood of living longer and delayed progression (worsening) of their cancer. Participants also had a better overall quality of life, which was maintained (did not get worse) for a longer time. However, they experienced worsening of diarrhea and/or nausea/vomiting. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02574455 (ASCENT) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

What Is This Summary About?: This is a summary of the article discussing the results of the CAPItello-291 study. In the study, participants had advanced breast cancer that could not be completely removed with surgery, and that was diagnosed as a type of breast cancer where tumor cells had hormone receptors (HR-positive) but did not have HER2 receptors (HER2-negative). All participants were also required to have previously received treatment with a type of therapy called an aromatase inhibitor (with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor), but over time their cancer cells had still grown or spread. The CAPItello-291 study researchers wanted to find out if a treatment combination of the medications capivasertib plus fulvestrant worked better than placebo plus fulvestrant. Capivasertib is a drug that blocks the activity of a protein called AKT, which is found inside breast cancer cells., What Are the Key Takeaways?: The main finding was that participants who took capivasertib plus fulvestrant lived longer without their disease getting worse (progressing) compared with those treated with placebo plus fulvestrant. This is called progression-free survival. This result was seen across all participants (median progression-free survival of 7.2 months with capivasertib plus fulvestrant vs 3.6 months with placebo plus fulvestrant). It was also seen in participants whose tumors had detectable genetic alterations in genes called PIK3CA, AKT1, and/ or PTEN (median progression-free survival of 7.3 months with capivasertib plus fulvestrant vs 3.1 months with placebo plus fulvestrant). The most common side effects experienced by participants included diarrhea and different types of rash. These were as expected (given how capivasertib works). The CAPItello-291 study is still ongoing, and more results are expected to be released in the future., What Were the Main Conclusions Reported by the Researchers?: Results from the CAPItello-291 study showed that capivasertib plus fulvestrant compared with placebo plus fulvestrant improved progression-free survival in participants with HR-positive/ HER2-negative advanced breast cancer whose cancer had grown or spread despite hormone therapy (with/without a CDK4/6 inhibitor). Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04305496 (CAPItello-291) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Background: An increased risk of breast cancer is associated with high serum concentrations of oestradiol and testosterone in postmenopausal women, but little is known about how these hormones affect response to endocrine therapy for breast cancer prevention or treatment. We aimed to assess the effects of serum oestradiol and testosterone concentrations on the efficacy of the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole for the prevention of breast cancer in postmenopausal women at high risk., Methods: In this case-control study we used data from the IBIS-II prevention trial, a randomised, controlled, double-blind trial in postmenopausal women aged 40-70 years at high risk of breast cancer, conducted in 153 breast cancer treatment centres across 18 countries. In the trial, women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive anastrozole (1 mg/day, orally) or placebo daily for 5 years. In this pre-planned case-control study, the primary analysis was the effect of the baseline oestradiol to sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) ratio (oestradiol-SHBG ratio) on the development of all breast cancers, including ductal carcinoma in situ (the primary endpoint in the trial). Cases were participants in whom breast cancer was reported after trial entry and until the cutoff on Oct 22, 2019, and who had valid blood samples and no use of hormone replacement therapy within 3 months of trial entry or during the trial. For each case, two controls without breast cancer were selected at random, matched on treatment group, age (within 2 years), and follow-up time (at least that of the matching case). For each treatment group, we applied a multinominal logistic regression likelihood-ratio trend test to assess what change in the proportion of cases was associated with a one-quartile change in hormone ratio. Controls were used only to determine quartile cutoffs. Profile likelihood 95% CIs were used to indicate the precision of estimates. A secondary analysis also investigated the effect of the baseline testosterone-SHBG ratio on breast cancer development. We also assessed relative benefit of anastrozole versus placebo (calculated as 1 - the ratio of breast cancer cases in the anastrozole group to cases in the placebo group). The trial was registered with ISRCTN (number ISRCTN31488319) and completed recruitment on Jan 31, 2012, but long-term follow-up is ongoing., Findings: 3864 women were recruited into the trial between Feb 2, 2003, and Jan 31, 2012, and randomly assigned to receive anastrozole (n=1920) or placebo (n=1944). Median follow-up time was 131 months (IQR 106-156), during which 85 (4·4%) cases of breast cancer in the anastrozole group and 165 (8·5%) in the placebo group were identified. No data on gender, race, or ethnicity were collected. After exclusions, the case-control study included 212 participants from the anastrozole group (72 cases, 140 controls) and 416 from the placebo group (142 cases, 274 controls). A trend of increasing breast cancer risk with increasing oestradiol-SHBG ratio was found in the placebo group (trend per quartile 1·25 [95% CI 1·08 to 1·45], p=0·0033), but not in the anastrozole group (1·06 [0·86 to 1·30], p=0·60). A weaker effect was seen for the testosterone-SHBG ratio in the placebo group (trend 1·21 [1·05 to 1·41], p=0·011), but again not in the anastrozole group (trend 1·18 [0·96 to 1·46], p=0·11). A relative benefit of anastrozole was seen in quartile 2 (0·55 [95% CI 0·13 to 0·78]), quartile 3 (0·54 [0·22 to 0·74], and quartile 4 (0·56 [0·23 to 0·76]) of oestradiol-SHBG ratio, but not in quartile 1 (0·18 [-0·60 to 0·59])., Interpretation: These results suggest that serum hormones should be measured more routinely and integrated into risk management decisions. Measuring serum hormone concentrations is inexpensive and might help clinicians differentiate which women will benefit most from an aromatase inhibitor., Funding: Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and DaCosta Fund., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JC reports royalties from Cancer Research UK for commercial use of the IBIS (Tyrer-Cuzick) breast cancer risk evaluation software. ARB reports grants from Breast Cancer Now, Cancer Research UK, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research during the conduct of study; royalties from commercial use of the IBIS (Tyrer-Cuzick) breast cancer risk evaluation software from Cancer Research UK; and consulting fees from King's College London. NZ reports payments from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer; receipt of support for conference travel from Novartis; participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Novartis; and receipt of payment through the University of Newcastle from AstraZeneca. SL reports support for the manuscript through the University of Frankfurt from AZ Germany for the IBIS-II trial; receipt of grants through the University of Frankfurt from Amgen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, DSI, Gilead, Molecular Health, Celegene/BMS, Novartis, and Pfizer; royalties through the University of Frankfurt from VM Scope; consulting fees for steering committees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche, and Stemline Menarini and for participation on an independent data monitoring committee from Parexel; payments through the University of Frankfurt from Amgen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, DSI, Gilead, Celegene/BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Seagen, Sanofi, Stemline Menarini, Relay, Olema, Eirgenix, Merck KG, Lilly, GSK, Pierre Fabre, Esai, MSD, Incyte, and Hexal; patents pending for EP14153692.0, EP21152186.9, EP15702464.7 for work not related to this trial; participation in the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Guideline Committee; and involvement in medical writing support for steering committees from Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, AstraZeneca, DSI, and Cellcuity. DGE reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca relating to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and from EverythingGenetic for genetic testing. MD reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, ROVI, Agilent, Lilly, Roche, and Besins; patents pending for AIR-CIS (Aromatase Inhibitor-Resistant CDK4/6 Inhibitor-Sensitive molecular signature, an RNA-based signature that we developed to identify women with primary oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer that is resistant to an aromatase inhibitor but who have a greater chance than average patients to benefit from a CDK4/6 inhibitor; international patent application number PCT/EP2021/076368); being a Trustee and Chair of the Scientific Strategy Committee for Breast Cancer Now; and payments related to the invention of abiraterone from the Institute of Cancer Rewards for Innovations Scheme. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)