Search

Purpose: Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) experience higher local-regional recurrence rates than those with luminal or HER2-positive tumors. This prospective, phase 1B trial was designed to assess the safety and to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of cisplatin with radiation therapy for women with early-stage TNBC.Methods and Materials: Eligible patients had stage II or III TNBC. Cisplatin was initiated at 10 mg/m2 intravenously once weekly during radiation and then escalated in a 3 + 3 design by 10 mg/m2 at each dose level until 40 mg/m2, or the MTD, was reached. Patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy (BCT) or mastectomy were accrued in separate parallel cohorts during dose escalation, followed by a 10-patient expansion at the MTD.Results: During 2013 to 2018, 55 patients were accrued. Four patients developed dose-limiting toxicity. In the BCT cohort, 1 patient receiving 40 mg/m2 developed tinnitus resulting in a cisplatin delay; therefore, this was the BCT cohort MTD. In the mastectomy cohort, 1 patient receiving 20 mg/m2 developed a grade 3 urinary infection, and 2 additional patients had dose-limiting toxicities at 40 mg/m2 (grade 3 neutropenia and grade 2 tinnitus), both resulting in cisplatin delay. Thus, 30 mg/m2 was the mastectomy cohort MTD. Median follow-up was 48.5 months. Three-year disease-free survival was 74.7% for the BCT cohort and 64.4% for the mastectomy cohort.Conclusions: Adjuvant radiation therapy with concurrent cisplatin is feasible with a recommended phase 2 dose of 30 mg/m2 and 40 mg/m2 intravenously weekly in mastectomy and BCT cohorts, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy has shown promising efficacy across many different tumour types. We report the prespecified second interim overall survival analysis of the phase 3 IMpassion130 study assessing the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.Methods: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial, done in 246 academic centres and community oncology practices in 41 countries, patients aged 18 years or older, with previously untreated, histologically documented, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a permuted block method (block size of four) and an interactive voice-web response system. Randomisation was stratified by previous taxane use, liver metastases, and PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells. Patients received atezolizumab 840 mg or matching placebo intravenously on day 1 and day 15 of every 28-day cycle and nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 of body surface area intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Investigators, patients, and the funder were masked to treatment assignment. Coprimary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population and in patients with PD-L1 immune cell-positive tumours (tumours with ≥1% PD-L1 expression). The final progression-free survival results were previously reported at the first interim overall survival analysis. The prespecified statistical testing hierarchy meant that overall survival in the subgroup of PD-L1 immune cell-positive patients could only be formally tested if overall survival was significantly different between the treatment groups in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02425891.Findings: Between June 23, 2015, and May 24, 2017, 902 patients were enrolled, of whom 451 were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel and 451 were assigned to receive placebo plus nab-paclitaxel (the intention-to-treat population). Six patients from each group did not receive treatment. At the second interim analysis (data cutoff Jan 2, 2019), median follow-up was 18·5 months (IQR 9·6-22·8) in the atezolizumab group and 17·5 months (8·4-22·4) in the placebo group. Median overall survival in the intention-to-treat patients was 21·0 months (95% CI 19·0-22·6) with atezolizumab and 18·7 months (16·9-20·3) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·72-1·02, p=0·078). In the exploratory overall survival analysis in patients with PD-L1 immune cell-positive tumours, median overall survival was 25·0 months (95% CI 19·6-30·7) with atezolizumab versus 18·0 months (13·6-20·1) with placebo (stratified HR 0·71, 0·54-0·94]). As of Sept 3, 2018 (the date up to which updated safety data were available), the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (38 [8%] of 453 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 36 [8%] of 437 patients in the placebo group), peripheral neuropathy (25 [6%] vs 12 [3%]), decreased neutrophil count (22 [5%] vs 16 [4%]), and fatigue (17 [4%] vs 15 [3%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in two (<1%) patients in the atezolizumab group (autoimmune hepatitis related to atezolizumab [n=1] and septic shock related to nab-paclitaxel [n=1]) and one (<1%) patient in the placebo group (hepatic failure). No new treatment-related deaths have been reported since the primary clinical data cutoff date (April 17, 2018).Interpretation: Consistent with the first interim analysis, this second interim overall survival analysis of IMpassion130 indicates no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment groups in the intention-to-treat population but suggests a clinically meaningful overall survival benefit with atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel in patients with PD-L1 immune cell-positive disease. However, this positive result could not be formally tested due to the prespecified statistical testing hierarchy. For patients with PD-L1 immune cell-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel is an important therapeutic option in a disease with high unmet need.Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Exercise interventions improve fitness, functional capacity, and quality of life in patients with early-stage breast cancer, but to the authors' knowledge there are few data regarding the feasibility or potential benefits of exercise in women with metastatic breast cancer.Methods: Individuals with metastatic breast cancer were randomized 1:1 to a 16-week moderate-intensity exercise intervention or wait-list control group. Intervention goals included 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise per week. The baseline and 16-week evaluations included a modified Bruce Ramp treadmill test, 7-day Physical Activity Recall interview, and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ C-30) questionnaire.Results: A total of 101 participants were randomized (48 to the intervention group and 53 to the control group). The median age of the participants was 49 years, the median time since the diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer was 1.1 years, and approximately 42% of participants were undergoing chemotherapy at the time of enrollment. Study attrition was higher in the intervention arm (14 participants vs 8 participants; P = .15). Women randomized to the exercise intervention experienced a nonsignificant increase with regard to minutes of weekly exercise (62.4 minutes vs 46.0 minutes; P = .17) and physical functioning (EORTC QLQ C30: 4.79 vs 0.93 [P = .23] and Bruce Ramp Treadmill test: 0.61 minutes vs 0.37 minutes [P = .35]) compared with control participants.Conclusions: Participation in an exercise intervention did not appear to result in significant improvements in physical functioning in a heterogeneous group of women living with advanced breast cancer. Given the significant benefits of exercise in women with early-stage breast cancer, more work is needed to explore alternative interventions to determine whether exercise could help women with metastatic disease live more fully with fewer symptoms from disease and treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Variations in hospice use are not well understood.Objective: Assess whether care before death, including the types of physicians seen, number of outpatient visits, and hospitalizations, was associated with hospice use and the timing of enrollment.Design/setting: Observational study of a population-based sample of advanced breast cancer patients included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results--Medicare database.Patients: There were 4,455 women aged > or =65 diagnosed with stage III/IV breast cancer during 1992-1999 who died before the end of 2001.Measurements: Hospice use and, among enrollees, enrollment within 2 weeks of death. Independent variables of interest included hospitalizations, outpatient visits, and physicians seen before death.Results: Adjusted hospice use rates were higher for hospitalized patients (45% if hospitalized for 1-7 days, 46% if 8-20 days, 35% if > or =21 days) than those not hospitalized (31%, P < 0.001). Adjusted rates were also higher among patients seeing a cancer specialist and primary care provider (PCP; 41%) and those seeing a cancer specialist and no PCP (38%) than among those seeing a PCP and no cancer specialist (30%) or neither type of physician (22%; P < 0.001). Hospice use also increased with increasing frequency of outpatient visits (P < 0.001). Hospitalizations, physicians seen, and visits were not associated with referral within 2 weeks of death (all P > or = 0.10).Discussion: Care before death is associated with hospice use among older women with advanced breast cancer. Additional research is needed to understand better how differences in patient characteristics and disease status influence cancer care before death and the role of various types of physicians in hospice referrals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]