Search

Key Points: Question: Does aspirin at 300 mg/d improve invasive disease–free survival among survivors of nonmetastatic breast cancer? Findings: This randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial included 3020 patients with high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer. The trial was terminated early because of lack of benefit from aspirin (hazard ratio for invasive disease–free survival for aspirin vs placebo, 1.27 [not statistically significant]). Meaning: There was no benefit of aspirin at 300 mg/d on breast cancer recurrence and survival. Importance: Observational studies of survivors of breast cancer and prospective trials of aspirin for cardiovascular disease suggest improved breast cancer survival among aspirin users, but prospective studies of aspirin to prevent breast cancer recurrence are lacking. Objective: To determine whether aspirin decreases the risk of invasive cancer events among survivors of breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A011502, a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial conducted in the United States and Canada with 3020 participants who had high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer, enrolled participants from 534 sites from January 6, 2017, through December 4, 2020, with follow-up to March 4, 2023. Interventions: Participants were randomized (stratified for hormone receptor status [positive vs negative], body mass index [≤30 vs >30], stage II vs III, and time since diagnosis [<18 vs ≥18 months]) to receive 300 mg of aspirin (n = 1510) or placebo once daily (n = 1510) for 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was invasive disease–free survival. Overall survival was a key secondary outcome. Results: A total of 3020 participants were randomized when the data and safety monitoring committee recommended suspending the study at the first interim analysis because the hazard ratio had crossed the prespecified futility bound. By median follow-up of 33.8 months (range, 0.1-72.6 months), 253 invasive disease–free survival events were observed (141 in the aspirin group and 112 in the placebo group), yielding a hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 0.99-1.63; P =.06). All invasive disease–free survival events, including death, invasive progression (both distant and locoregional), and new primary events, were numerically higher in the aspirin group, although the differences were not statistically significant. There was no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.72). Rates of grades 3 and 4 adverse events were similar in both groups. Conclusion and Relevance: Among participants with high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer, daily aspirin therapy did not improve risk of breast cancer recurrence or survival in early follow-up. Despite its promise and wide availability, aspirin should not be recommended as an adjuvant breast cancer treatment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02927249 This study examines the potential benefits of aspirin as adjuvant therapy for survivors of early breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Americans might be more likely to participate in medical research studies if they are told the results of the study once it is finished. This is not normally done, but there is no good reason why it cannot be done. A group of cancer researchers believes it is ethical to do so and has published its report on the Summit Series on Cancer Clinical Trials Web site.

Importance: Breast cancer will be diagnosed in 12% of women in the United States over the course of their lifetimes and more than 250 000 new cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in the United States in 2017. This review focuses on current approaches and evolving strategies for local and systemic therapy of breast cancer.Observations: Breast cancer is categorized into 3 major subtypes based on the presence or absence of molecular markers for estrogen or progesterone receptors and human epidermal growth factor 2 (ERBB2; formerly HER2): hormone receptor positive/ERBB2 negative (70% of patients), ERBB2 positive (15%-20%), and triple-negative (tumors lacking all 3 standard molecular markers; 15%). More than 90% of breast cancers are not metastatic at the time of diagnosis. For people presenting without metastatic disease, therapeutic goals are tumor eradication and preventing recurrence. Triple-negative breast cancer is more likely to recur than the other 2 subtypes, with 85% 5-year breast cancer-specific survival for stage I triple-negative tumors vs 94% to 99% for hormone receptor positive and ERBB2 positive. Systemic therapy for nonmetastatic breast cancer is determined by subtype: patients with hormone receptor-positive tumors receive endocrine therapy, and a minority receive chemotherapy as well; patients with ERBB2-positive tumors receive ERBB2-targeted antibody or small-molecule inhibitor therapy combined with chemotherapy; and patients with triple-negative tumors receive chemotherapy alone. Local therapy for all patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer consists of surgical resection, with consideration of postoperative radiation if lumpectomy is performed. Increasingly, some systemic therapy is delivered before surgery. Tailoring postoperative treatment based on preoperative treatment response is under investigation. Metastatic breast cancer is treated according to subtype, with goals of prolonging life and palliating symptoms. Median overall survival for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer is approximately 1 year vs approximately 5 years for the other 2 subtypes.Conclusions and Relevance: Breast cancer consists of 3 major tumor subtypes categorized according to estrogen or progesterone receptor expression and ERBB2 gene amplification. The 3 subtypes have distinct risk profiles and treatment strategies. Optimal therapy for each patient depends on tumor subtype, anatomic cancer stage, and patient preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a medical report concerning estrogen-receptor status and outcomes of modern chemotherapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer. The article suggests the much progress has been made in the treatment of early stage breast cancer, and that in patients with hormone-sensitive tumors, tamoxifen reduces the risk of recurrence and death by more than 30%. Additionally, treatment with aromatase inhibitors further reduces the risk of recurrence in post-menopausal women with estrogen-receptor positive tumors.

Context Adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival for patients with local-regional breast cancer, but healthy older patients at high risk of recurrence are frequently not offered adjuvant chemotherapy, and the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients is uncertain. Objective To compare the benefits and toxic effects of adjuvant chemotherapy among breast cancer patients in age groups of 50 years or younger, 51 to 64 years, and 65 years or older. Design and Setting Retrospective review of data from 4 randomized trials that accrued patients from academic and community medical centers between 1975 and 1999. Median follow-up for all patients was 9.6 years. All trials randomized patients to different regimens, doses, schedules, and durations of chemotherapy and all had a treatment arm with doses or schedules that were regarded to be "high" and potentially more toxic. Patients A total of 6487 women with lymph node--positive breast cancer; 542 (8%) patients were 65 years or older and 159 (2%) were 70 years or older. Main Outcome Measure Comparison of disease-free survival, overall survival, and treatment-related mortality among different age groups. Results Multivariate analysis showed that smaller tumor size, fewer positive lymph nodes, more chemotherapy, and tamoxifen use were all significantly (P<.001) related to longer disease-free and overall survival. There was no association between age and disease-free survival. Overall survival was significantly (P<.001) worse for patients aged 65 or older because of death from causes other than breast cancer. Thirty-three deaths (0.5% of all patients) were attributed to treatment, and older women had higher treatment-related mortality. Older women and younger women derived similar reductions in breast cancer mortality and recurrence from regimens containing more chemotherapy. Conclusion Age alone should not be a contraindication to the use of optimal chemotherapy regimens in older women who are in good general health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This JAMA Patient Page describes the diagnosis and treatment of different types and stages of breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) improves local-regional disease control and patient survival. Hypofractionation (HF) regimens have comparable efficacy and complication rates with improved quality of life compared with conventional fractionation (CF) schedules. However, the use of HF after mastectomy in patients undergoing breast reconstruction has not been prospectively examined., Objective: To compare HF and CF PMRT outcomes after implant-based reconstruction., Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial assessed patients 18 years or older undergoing mastectomy and immediate expander or implant reconstruction for breast cancer (Tis, TX, or T1-3) and unilateral PMRT from March 8, 2018, to November 3, 2021 (median [range] follow-up, 40.4 [15.4-63.0] months), at 16 US cancer centers or hospitals. Analyses were conducted between September and December 2023., Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to HF or CF PMRT. Chest wall doses were 4256 cGy for 16 fractions for HF and 5000 cGy for 25 fractions for CF. Chest wall toxic effects were defined as a grade 3 or higher adverse event., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the change in physical well-being (PWB) domain of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) quality-of-life assessment tool at 6 months after starting PMRT, controlling for age. Secondary outcomes included toxic effects and cancer recurrence., Results: Of 400 women (201 in the CF arm and 199 in the HF arm; median [range] age, 47 [23-79] years), 330 patients had PWB scores at baseline and at 6 months. There was no difference in the change in PWB between the study arms (estimate, 0.13; 95% CI, -0.86 to 1.11; P = .80), but there was a significant interaction between age group and study arm (P = .03 for interaction). Patients younger than 45 years had higher 6-month absolute PWB scores if treated with HF rather than CF regimens (23.6 [95% CI, 22.7-24.6] vs 22.0 [95% CI, 20.7-23.3]; P = .047) and reported being less bothered by adverse effects (mean [SD], 3.0 [0.9] in the HF arm and 2.6 [1.2] in the CF arm; P = .02) or nausea (mean [SD], 3.8 [0.4] in the HF arm and 3.6 [0.8] in the CF arm; P = .04). In the as-treated cohort, there were 23 distant (11 in the HF arm and 12 in the CF arm) and 2 local-regional (1 in the HF arm and 1 in the CF arm) recurrences. Chest wall toxic effects occurred in 39 patients (20 in the HF arm and 19 in the CF arm) at a median (IQR) of 7.2 (1.8-12.9) months. Fractionation was not associated with chest wall toxic effects on multivariate analysis (HF arm: hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.52-2.00; P = .95). Fewer patients undergoing HF vs CF regimens had a treatment break (5 [2.7%] vs 15 [7.7%]; P = .03) or required unpaid time off from work (17 [8.5%] vs 34 [16.9%]; P = .02)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the HF regimen did not significantly improve change in PWB compared with the CF regimen. These data add to the increasing experience with HF PMRT in patients with implant-based reconstruction., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03422003.

Importance: Adding fulvestrant to anastrozole (A+F) improved survival in postmenopausal women with advanced estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative breast cancer. However, the combination has not been tested in early-stage disease., Objective: To determine whether neoadjuvant fulvestrant or A+F increases the rate of pathologic complete response or ypT1-2N0/N1mic/Ki67 2.7% or less residual disease (referred to as endocrine-sensitive disease) over anastrozole alone., Design, Setting, and Participants: A phase 3 randomized clinical trial assessing differences in clinical and correlative outcomes between each of the fulvestrant-containing arms and the anastrozole arm. Postmenopausal women with clinical stage II to III, ER-rich (Allred score 6-8 or >66%)/ERBB2-negative breast cancer were included. All analyses were based on data frozen on March 2, 2023., Interventions: Patients received anastrozole, fulvestrant, or a combination for 6 months preoperatively. Tumor Ki67 was assessed at week 4 and optionally at week 12, and if greater than 10% at either time point, the patient switched to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or immediate surgery., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the endocrine-sensitive disease rate (ESDR). A secondary outcome was the percentage change in Ki67 after 4 weeks of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) (week 4 Ki67 suppression)., Results: Between February 2014 and November 2018, 1362 female patients (mean [SD] age, 65.0 [8.2] years) were enrolled. Among the 1298 evaluable patients, ESDRs were 18.7% (95% CI, 15.1%-22.7%), 22.8% (95% CI, 18.9%-27.1%), and 20.5% (95% CI, 16.8%-24.6%) with anastrozole, fulvestrant, and A+F, respectively. Compared to anastrozole, neither fulvestrant-containing regimen significantly improved ESDR or week 4 Ki67 suppression. The rate of week 4 or week 12 Ki67 greater than 10% was 25.1%, 24.2%, and 15.7% with anastrozole, fulvestrant, and A+F, respectively. Pathologic complete response/residual cancer burden class I occurred in 8 of 167 patients and 17 of 167 patients, respectively (15.0%; 95% CI, 9.9%-21.3%), after switching to neoadjuvant chemotherapy due to week 4 or week 12 Ki67 greater than 10%. PAM50 subtyping derived from RNA sequencing of baseline biopsies available for 753 patients (58%) identified 394 luminal A, 304 luminal B, and 55 nonluminal tumors. A+F led to a greater week 4 Ki67 suppression than anastrozole alone in luminal B tumors (median [IQR], -90.4% [-95.2 to -81.9%] vs -76.7% [-89.0 to -55.6%]; P < .001), but not luminal A tumors. Thirty-six nonluminal tumors (65.5%) had a week 4 or week 12 Ki67 greater than 10%., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, neither fulvestrant nor A+F significantly improved the 6-month ESDR over anastrozole in ER-rich/ERBB2-negative breast cancer. Aromatase inhibition remains the standard-of-care NET. Differential NET response by PAM50 subtype in exploratory analyses warrants further investigation., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01953588.

Importance: Patients with early-stage ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-positive breast cancer (ERBB2+ BC) who experience a pathologic complete response (pCR) after receiving neoadjuvant therapy have favorable survival outcomes. Predicting the likelihood of pCR may help optimize neoadjuvant therapy., Objective: To test the ability of the HER2DX assay to predict the likelihood of pCR in patients with early-stage ERBB2+ BC who are receiving deescalated neoadjuvant therapy., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic/prognostic study, the HER2DX assay was administered on pretreatment tumor biopsy samples from patients enrolled in the single-arm, multicenter, prospective phase 2 DAPHNe clinical trial who had newly diagnosed stage II to III ERBB2+ BC that was treated with neoadjuvant paclitaxel weekly for 12 weeks plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab every 3 weeks for 4 cycles., Interventions and Exposures: The HER2DX assay is a classifier derived from gene expression and limited clinical features that provides 2 independent scores to predict prognosis and likelihood of pCR in patients with early-stage ERBB2+ BC. The assay was administered on baseline tumor samples from 80 of 97 patients (82.5%) in the DAPHNe trial., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary aim was to test the ability of the HER2DX pCR likelihood score (as a continuous variable from 0-100) to predict pCR (ypT0/isN0)., Results: Of 80 participants, 79 (98.8%) were women and there were 4 African American (5.0%), 6 Asian (7.5%), 4 Hispanic (5.0%), and 66 White individuals (82.5%); the mean (range) age was 50.3 (26.0-78.0) years. The HER2DX pCR score was significantly associated with pCR (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.08; P < .001). The pCR rates in the HER2DX high, medium, and low pCR score groups were 92.6%, 63.6%, and 29.0%, respectively (high vs low odds ratio, 30.6; P < .001). The HER2DX pCR score was significantly associated with pCR independently of hormone receptor status, ERBB2 immunohistochemistry score, HER2DX ERBB2 expression score, and prediction analysis of microarray 50 ERBB2-enriched subtype. The correlation between the HER2DX pCR score and prognostic risk score was weak (Pearson coefficient, -0.12). Performance of the risk score could not be assessed due to lack of recurrence events., Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this diagnostic/prognostic study suggest that the HER2DX pCR score assay could predict pCR following treatment with deescalated neoadjuvant paclitaxel with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in patients with early-stage ERBB2+ BC. The HER2DX pCR score might guide therapeutic decisions by identifying patients who are candidates for deescalated or escalated approaches.

Importance: It is estimated that up to 50% of patients with ERBB2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) will develop brain metastases (BMs), which is associated with poor prognosis. Previous reports of the HER2CLIMB trial have demonstrated that tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine provides survival and intracranial benefits for patients with ERBB2-positive MBC and BMs., Objective: To describe overall survival (OS) and intracranial outcomes from tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine in patients with ERBB2-positive MBC and BMs with an additional 15.6 months of follow-up., Design, Setting, and Participants: HER2CLIMB is an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine. The 612 patients, including those with active or stable BMs, had ERBB2-positive MBC previously treated with trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and trastuzumab emtansine. The study was conducted from February 23, 2016, to May 3, 2019. Data from February 23, 2016, to February 8, 2021, were analyzed., Interventions: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive tucatinib (300 mg orally twice daily) or placebo (orally twice daily), both in combination with trastuzumab (6 mg/kg intravenously or subcutaneously every 3 weeks with an initial loading dose of 8 mg/kg) and capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14 of each 3-week cycle)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Evaluations in this exploratory subgroup analysis included OS and intracranial progression-free survival (CNS-PFS) in patients with BMs, confirmed intracranial objective response rate (ORR-IC) and duration of intracranial response (DOR-IC) in patients with measurable intracranial disease at baseline, and new brain lesion-free survival in all patients. Only OS was prespecified before the primary database lock., Results: At baseline, 291 of 612 patients (47.5%) had BMs. Median age was 52 years (range, 22-75 years), and 289 (99.3%) were women. At median follow-up of 29.6 months (range, 0.1-52.9 months), median OS was 9.1 months longer in the tucatinib-combination group (21.6 months; 95% CI, 18.1-28.5) vs the placebo-combination group (12.5 months; 95% CI, 11.2-16.9). The tucatinib-combination group showed greater clinical benefit in CNS-PFS and ORR-IC compared with the placebo-combination group. The DOR-IC was 8.6 months (95% CI, 5.5-10.3 months) in the tucatinib-combination group and 3.0 months (95% CI, 3.0-10.3 months) in the placebo-combination group. Risk of developing new brain lesions as the site of first progression or death was reduced by 45.1% in the tucatinib-combination group vs the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.36-0.85])., Conclusions and Relevance: This subgroup analysis found that tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine improved OS while reducing the risk of developing new brain lesions, further supporting the importance of this treatment option for patients with ERBB2-positive MBC, including those with BMs., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02614794.