Search

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) in combination with endocrine therapy improve the outcomes of patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and can be used early as first-line treatment or deferred to second-line treatment 1-7 . Randomized data comparing the use of CDK4/6i in the first- and second-line setting are lacking. The phase 3 SONIA trial (NCT03425838) randomized 1,050 patients who had not received previous therapy for advanced breast cancer to receive CDK4/6i in the first- or second-line setting 8 . All of the patients received the same endocrine therapy, consisting of an aromatase inhibitor for first-line treatment and fulvestrant for second-line treatment. The primary end point was defined as the time from randomization to disease progression after second-line treatment (progression-free survival 2 (PFS2)). We observed no statistically significant benefit for the use of CDK4/6i as a first-line compared with second-line treatment (median, 31.0 versus 26.8 months, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% confidence interval = 0.74-1.03; P = 0.10). The health-related quality of life was similar in both groups. First-line CDK4/6i use was associated with a longer CDK4/6i treatment duration compared with second-line use (median CDK4/6i treatment duration of 24.6 versus 8.1 months, respectively) and more grade ≥3 adverse events (2,763 versus 1,591, respectively). These data challenge the need for first-line use of a CDK4/6i in all patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: G.S.S. reports institutional research support from Agendia, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Seagen; and consultancy for Biovica, Novartis and Seagen. H.M.B. received grants from CADTH, ZIN and Medical Delta; and participated in a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Pfizer. A.H.H. received consulting fees from Gilead and Lilly; and received payment or honoraria from Lilly. Q.C.v.R.-S. has participated in a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Roche. I.R.K. reports institutional research grant support from Novartis and Gilead. The other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: A previous prospective multicenter study revealed the change of the oncologists' chemotherapy advice due to the 70-Gene signature (GS) test result in half of the estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) invasive early-stage breast cancer patients with disputable chemotherapy indication. This resulted in less patients receiving chemotherapy. This study aims to complement these results by the 7-year oncological outcomes according to the 70-GS test result and the oncologists' pre-test advice., Methods: Patients operated for early-stage ER+ breast cancer with disputable chemotherapy indication, had been prospectively included between 2013 and 2015. Oncologists were asked whether they intended to administer adjuvant chemotherapy before deployment of the 70-GS test. Information on adjuvant systemic treatment and oncological outcome was obtained through active follow-up by data managers of the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The primary endpoint of this study was distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) according to the genomic risk. Exploratory analyses were done to evaluate DMFS in relation to the oncologists' pre-test advice., Results: After a median follow-up of 7 years, distant metastases were diagnosed in 23 of the 606 patients (3.8%) and 36 (5.9%) patients had died. The DMFS rate for the 357 70-GS genomic low-risk patients was 94.2% (95% CI 91.2-96.2) and 89.1% for the 249 genomic high-risk patients (95% CI 84.3-92.4). Of the low-risk patients 3% had received chemotherapy compared to 80% of the high-risk patients. For the subgroups based on the pre-test oncologists' advice (no chemotherapy/chemotherapy/unsure) there were no clinically relevant differences in DMFS (89.8, 93.2 and 92.0%, respectively), while comparable proportions of patients had received chemotherapy., Conclusions: In patients with early-stage ER+ breast cancer with a disputable chemotherapy indication it is sensible to deploy the 70-GS to better select patients for adjuvant chemotherapy., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Exploratory analyses of high-dose alkylating chemotherapy trials have suggested that BRCA1 or BRCA2-pathway altered (BRCA-altered) breast cancer might be particularly sensitive to this type of treatment. In this study, patients with BRCA-altered tumors who had received three initial courses of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC), were randomized between a fourth ddAC course followed by high-dose carboplatin-thiotepa-cyclophosphamide or conventional chemotherapy (initially ddAC only or ddAC-capecitabine/decetaxel [CD] depending on MRI response, after amendment ddAC-carboplatin/paclitaxel [CP] for everyone). The primary endpoint was the neoadjuvant response index (NRI). Secondary endpoints included recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). In total, 122 patients were randomized. No difference in NRI-score distribution (p = 0.41) was found. A statistically non-significant RFS difference was found (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.23-1.25; p = 0.15). Exploratory RFS analyses showed benefit in stage III (n = 35; HR 0.16; 95% CI 0.03-0.75), but not stage II (n = 86; HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.30-3.30) patients. For stage III, 4-year RFS was 46% (95% CI 24-87%), 71% (95% CI 48-100%) and 88% (95% CI 74-100%), for ddAC/ddAC-CD, ddAC-CP and high-dose chemotherapy, respectively. No significant differences were found between high-dose and conventional chemotherapy in stage II-III, triple-negative, BRCA-altered breast cancer patients. Further research is needed to establish if there are patients with stage III, triple negative BRCA-altered breast cancer for whom outcomes can be improved with high-dose alkylating chemotherapy or whether the current standard neoadjuvant therapy including carboplatin and an immune checkpoint inhibitor is sufficient. Trial Registration: NCT01057069., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: The MINDACT trial showed excellent 5-year distant metastasis-free survival of 94·7% (95% CI 92·5-96·2) in patients with breast cancer of high clinical and low genomic risk who did not receive chemotherapy. We present long-term follow-up results together with an exploratory analysis by age., Methods: MINDACT was a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 112 academic and community hospitals in nine European countries. Patients aged 18-70 years, with histologically confirmed primary invasive breast cancer (stage T1, T2, or operable T3) with up to three positive lymph nodes, no distant metastases, and a WHO performance status of 0-1 were enrolled and their genomic risk (using the MammaPrint 70-gene signature) and clinical risk (using a modified version of Adjuvant! Online) were determined. Patients with low clinical and low genomic risk results did not receive chemotherapy, and patients with high clinical and high genomic risk did receive chemotherapy (mostly anthracycline-based or taxane-based, or a combination thereof). Patients with discordant risk results (ie, patients with high clinical risk but low genomic risk, and those with low clinical risk but high genomic risk) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chemotherapy or not based on either the clinical risk or the genomic risk. Randomisation was done centrally and used a minimisation technique that was stratified by institution, risk group, and clinical-pathological characteristics. Treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was to test whether the distant metastasis-free survival rate at 5 years in patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk not receiving chemotherapy had a lower boundary of the 95% CI above the predefined non-inferiority boundary of 92%. In the primary test population of patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk who adhered to the treatment allocation of no chemotherapy and had no change in risk post-enrolment. Here, we present updated follow-up as well as an exploratory analysis of a potential age effect (≤50 years vs >50 years) and an analysis by nodal status for patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative disease. These analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00433589, and the European Clinical Trials database, EudraCT2005-002625-31. Recruitment is complete and further long-term follow-up is ongoing., Findings: Between Feb 8, 2007, and July 11, 2011, 6693 patients were enrolled. On Feb 26, 2020, median follow-up was 8·7 years (IQR 7·8-9·7). The updated 5-year distant metastasis-free survival rate for patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk receiving no chemotherapy (primary test population, n=644) was 95·1% (95% CI 93·1-96·6), which is above the predefined non-inferiority boundary of 92%, supporting the previous analysis and proving MINDACT as a positive de-escalation trial. Patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy (n=749) or not (n=748); this was the intention-to-treat population. The 8-year estimates for distant metastasis-free survival in the intention-to-treat population were 92·0% (95% CI 89·6-93·8) for chemotherapy versus 89·4% (86·8-91·5) for no chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0·66; 95% CI 0·48-0·92). An exploratory analysis confined to the subset of patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative disease (1358 [90.7%] of 1497 randomly assigned patients, of whom 676 received chemotherapy and 682 did not) shows different effects of chemotherapy administration on 8-year distant metastasis-free survival according to age: 93·6% (95% CI 89·3-96·3) with chemotherapy versus 88·6% (83·5-92·3) without chemotherapy in 464 women aged 50 years or younger (absolute difference 5·0 percentage points [SE 2·8, 95% CI -0·5 to 10·4]) and 90·2% (86·8-92·7) versus 90·0% (86·6-92·6) in 894 women older than 50 years (absolute difference 0·2 percentage points [2·1, -4·0 to 4·4]). The 8-year distant metastasis-free survival in the exploratory analysis by nodal status in these patients was 91·7% (95% CI 88·1-94·3) with chemotherapy and 89·2% (85·2-92·2) without chemotherapy in 699 node-negative patients (absolute difference 2·5 percentage points [SE 2·3, 95% CI -2·1 to 7·2]) and 91·2% (87·2-94·0) versus 89·9% (85·8-92·8) for 658 patients with one to three positive nodes (absolute difference 1·3 percentage points [2·4, -3·5 to 6·1])., Interpretation: With a more mature follow-up approaching 9 years, the 70-gene signature shows an intact ability of identifying among women with high clinical risk, a subgroup, namely patients with a low genomic risk, with an excellent distant metastasis-free survival when treated with endocrine therapy alone. For these women the magnitude of the benefit from adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy remains small (2·6 percentage points) and is not enhanced by nodal positivity. However, in an underpowered exploratory analysis this benefit appears to be age-dependent, as it is only seen in women younger than 50 years where it reaches a clinically relevant threshold of 5 percentage points. Although, possibly due to chemotherapy-induced ovarian function suppression, it should be part of informed, shared decision making. Further study is needed in younger women, who might need reinforced endocrine therapy to forego chemotherapy., Funding: European Commission Sixth Framework Programme., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In the phase II DIRECT study a fasting mimicking diet (FMD) improved the clinical response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy as compared to a regular diet. Quality of Life (QoL) and illness perceptions regarding the possible side effects of chemotherapy and the FMD were secondary outcomes of the trial., Methods: 131 patients with HER2-negative stage II/III breast cancer were recruited, of whom 129 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a fasting mimicking diet (FMD) or their regular diet for 3 days prior to and the day of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-BR23; the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ) and the Distress Thermometer were used to assess these outcomes at baseline, halfway chemotherapy, before the last cycle of chemotherapy and 6 months after surgery., Results: Overall QoL and distress scores declined during treatment in both arms and returned to baseline values 6 months after surgery. However, patients' perceptions differed slightly over time. In particular, patients receiving the FMD were less concerned and had better understanding of the possible adverse effects of their treatment in comparison with patients on a regular diet. Per-protocol analyses yielded better emotional, physical, role, cognitive and social functioning scores as well as lower fatigue, nausea and insomnia symptom scores for patients adherent to the FMD in comparison with non-adherent patients and patients on their regular diet., Conclusions: FMD as an adjunct to neoadjuvant chemotherapy appears to improve certain QoL and illness perception domains in patients with HER2-negative breast cancer. Trialregister ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02126449.

Background: For the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the delayed phase (24-120 hours) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), the use of 3-day dexamethasone (DEX) is often recommended. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two DEX-sparing regimens with 3-day DEX, focusing on delayed nausea., Patients and Methods: This open-label, randomized, phase III study was designed to demonstrate noninferiority of two DEX-sparing regimens: ondansetron + DEX on day 1 + metoclopramide on days 2-3 (MCP arm), and palonosetron + DEX on day 1 (PAL arm) versus ondansetron on day 1 + DEX on days 1-3 (DEX arm) in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving MEC. Primary efficacy endpoint was total control (TC; no emetic episodes, no use of rescue medication, no nausea) in the delayed phase. Noninferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the noninferiority margin set at -20%. Secondary endpoints included no vomiting, no rescue medication, no (significant) nausea, impact of CINV on quality of life, and antiemetics-associated side effects., Results: Treatment arms were comparable for 189 patients analyzed: predominantly male (55.7%), median age 65.0 years, colorectal cancer (85.7%), and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (81.5%). MCP demonstrated noninferiority to DEX for delayed TC (MCP 56.1% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -11.3%, 23.5%). PAL also demonstrated noninferiority to DEX (PAL 55.6% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -12.0%, 23.2%). There were no statistically significant differences for all secondary endpoints between treatment arms., Conclusion: This study showed that DEX-sparing regimens are noninferior to multiple-day DEX in terms of delayed TC rate in patients undergoing MEC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT02135510., Implications for Practice: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) remains one of the most troublesome adverse effects associated with cancer treatment. In particular, delayed nausea is often poorly controlled. The role of dexamethasone (DEX) in the prevention of delayed nausea after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) is controversial. This study is the first to include nausea assessment as a part of the primary study outcome to better gauge the effectiveness of CINV control and patients' experience. Results show that a DEX-sparing strategy does not result in any significant loss of overall antiemetic control: DEX-sparing strategies incorporating palonosetron or multiple-day metoclopramide are safe and at least as effective as standard treatment with a 3-day DEX regimen with ondansetron in controlling delayed CINV-and nausea in particular-following MEC., (© 2020 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Short-term fasting protects tumor-bearing mice against the toxic effects of chemotherapy while enhancing therapeutic efficacy. We randomized 131 patients with HER2-negative stage II/III breast cancer, without diabetes and a BMI over 18 kg m -2 , to receive either a fasting mimicking diet (FMD) or their regular diet for 3 days prior to and during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Here we show that there was no difference in toxicity between both groups, despite the fact that dexamethasone was omitted in the FMD group. A radiologically complete or partial response occurs more often in patients using the FMD (OR 3.168, P = 0.039). Moreover, per-protocol analysis reveals that the Miller&Payne 4/5 pathological response, indicating 90-100% tumor-cell loss, is more likely to occur in patients using the FMD (OR 4.109, P = 0.016). Also, the FMD significantly curtails chemotherapy-induced DNA damage in T-lymphocytes. These positive findings encourage further exploration of the benefits of fasting/FMD in cancer therapy. Trial number: NCT02126449.

Background: This study evaluated the effectiveness of a screening and stepped care program (the TES program) in reducing psychological distress compared with care as usual (CAU) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer starting with first-line systemic palliative treatment., Patients and Methods: In this cluster randomized trial, 16 hospitals were assigned to the TES program or CAU. Patients in the TES arm were screened for psychological distress with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Distress Thermometer/Problem List (at baseline and 10 and 18 weeks). Stepped care was offered to patients with distress or expressed needs, and it consisted of watchful waiting, guided self-help, face-to-face problem-solving therapy, or referral to specialized mental healthcare. The primary outcome was change in psychological distress over time, and secondary outcomes were quality of life, satisfaction with care, and recognition and referral of distressed patients by clinicians. Linear mixed models and effect sizes were used to evaluate differences., Results: A total of 349 patients were randomized; 184 received the TES program and 165 received CAU. In the TES arm, 60.3% of the patients screened positive for psychological distress, 26.1% of which entered the stepped care program (14.7% used only watchful waiting and 11.4% used at least one of the other treatment steps). The observed low use of the TES program led us to pursue a futility analysis, which showed a small conditional power and therefore resulted in halted recruitment for this study. No difference was seen in change in psychological distress over time between the 2 groups (effect size, -0.16; 95% CI, -0.35 to 0.03; P>.05). The TES group reported higher satisfaction with the received treatment and better cognitive quality of life (all P<.05)., Conclusions: As a result of the low use of stepped care, a combined screening and treatment program targeting psychological distress in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve psychological distress. Our results suggest that enhanced evaluation of psychosocial concerns may improve aspects of patient well-being.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of enzalutamide (Enz) as fourth- or fifth-line treatment in men with metastasized castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), by analyzing a retrospective cohort of heavily pretreated patients., Methods: We evaluated toxicity, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression data from 47 CRPC patients treated with fourth- or fifth-line Enz., Results: All patients were treated with docetaxel and abiraterone acetate and 42 patients (89%) with cabazitaxel. The median age of the patients was 69 years (IQR, 63-73.5), 79% had bone metastases, 55% had lymph node metastases, and 17% had visceral metastases. The median duration of Enz treatment was 12.0 weeks (IQR, 8.3-20.4), and 11 patients (23%) responded to Enz (maximum PSA decline ≥50%). In general, Enz was well tolerated, with the most frequently reported adverse events being fatigue and nausea. The median OS was 40.1 weeks (95% CI, 25.4-61.4), the median PFS was 12.1 weeks (95% CI, 9.9-14.0) and the median time to PSA progression was 15.7 weeks (95% CI, 14.0-28.7)., Conclusions: Analysis of this retrospective cohort suggests that Enz is well tolerated and that there is a 23% response rate in heavily pretreated CRPC patients, which is comparable with third-line treatment outcomes., (© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Abiraterone Acetate (AA) and Enzalutamide (Enz) are effective hormonal treatments in mCRPC patients. Retrospective studies suggested clinical cross-resistance between Enz and AA. However, 12.8-39.1% of patients previously treated with docetaxel (Doc) and AA do respond to Enz. These responders have not been characterized., Methods: 102 Enz treated mCRPC patients after AA and Doc treatment were included in this study. Differences in patient characteristics and previous treatment outcomes between PSA responders and non-responders on Enz were evaluated., Results: Median Progression-Free Survival was 12.2 weeks (95%CI 11.7-14.3) and Overall Survival 43.5 weeks (95%CI 37.4-61.2). There were 26 (25%) Enz-responders and 76 (75%) non-responders. Significant higher percentages of Gleason scores ≥ 8 and PSA doubling times (PSA-DT) <3 months were found in Enz responders than in non-responders. The interval between end of AA and start of Enz treatment (IAE) for responders was 24.6 weeks (IQR 4.0-48.1) and 8.9 weeks for non-responders (IQR 3.7-25.9) (P = 0.08). In an IAE <40 days subgroup (34 patients), Enz responses were related to AA non-responsiveness, while univariate and logistic regression analysis of baseline criteria of a subgroup of patients with an IAE ≥ 40 (68 patients) revealed significant differences in baseline PSA levels, PSA-DT <3 months, Gleason scores ≥ 8 and IAE's between Enz responders and non-responders., Conclusions: PSA response to Enz after previous AA and Doc treatment was associated with a longer IAE, a higher Gleason score and a PSA-DT <3 months. Identification of these patients might be of value for sequencing of treatment options., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is one of the major symptoms in palliative care with a prevalence of 30-50%. Methylnaltrexone for the treatment of OIC is significantly more effective than placebo, but only in about fifty percent of the patients regardless of dose increase. Dose increases cause increased toxicity without additional efficacy, and are therefore not recommended. While methylnaltrexone is a μ-receptor antagonist, only a few opioids are solely μ-receptor agonists. Therefore, the response to methylnaltrexone may be determined by the receptor-profile of a specific opioid. In addition, methylnaltrexone may also affect the immune system and angiogenesis as was found in pre-clinical studies. Primary aim of this study is to determine differences in the efficacy of methylnaltrexone prescribed to resolve opioid induced constipation between three commonly used opioid subtypes: morphine sulphate, oxycodone and fentanyl. Secondary aim is to explore potential immunomodulatory and antiangiogenic effects of methylnaltrexone., Methods: In this multi-center, prospective, parallel group trial we will evaluate the efficacy of methylnaltrexone in resolving OIC occurring as a side effect of the most common opioid subtypes: morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl. In total 195 patients with OIC despite prophylactic laxatives will receive methylnaltrexone every other day up to fourteen days. Patients will report its effect in a laxation diary. Group allocation is based on the opioid type the patient is using. At the start and end of the study period patients complete the Bowel Function Index questionnaire. A subgroup of the patients will donate blood for analysis of immunomodulatory- and anti-angiogenic effects of methylnaltrexone., Discussion: In this study we aim to determine the efficacy of methylnaltrexone per opioid subtype to reduce constipation. We expect that the outcome of this study will improve the clinical use of methylnaltraxone., Trial Registration: This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01955213 and in the Dutch trial register: NTR4272.

Purpose: Macrophages are migratory cells that are frequently recruited to the site of tumors. Their presence is associated with poor clinical outcome in a variety of epithelial malignancies. The aim of this study is to examine the prognostic significance of tumor-associated macrophages in sarcomas., Experimental Design: Global gene expression profiling data of a series of soft tissue tumors were analyzed for macrophage-associated gene expression. Immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays containing leiomyosarcoma cases with known clinical outcome was used to verify the presence of macrophages and to examine the relationship between tumor-associated macrophages and clinical outcome., Results: Gene expression profiling revealed high-level expression of several macrophage-associated genes such as CD163 and CD68 in a subset of leiomyosarcomas, indicating the presence of variable numbers of tumor-infiltrating macrophages. This was confirmed by CD68 and CD163 immunostaining of a tissue microarray containing 149 primary leiomyosarcomas. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that high density of tumor-infiltrating macrophages as identified by CD163 or CD68 staining is associated with a significantly worse disease-specific survival in nongynecologic leiomyosarcomas, whereas leiomyosarcomas arising from the gynecologic tract showed no significant association between macrophage infiltration and survival. The presence of tumor necrosis did not correlate significantly with outcome., Conclusions: An increased density of CD163- or CD68-positive tumor-infiltrating macrophages is associated with poor outcome in nongynecologic leiomyosarcomas. This may help the clinical management of patients with leiomyosarcomas.