Search

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.)

Purpose: Treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapy (CDK4/6i + ET) is a standard for patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR + HER2-) breast cancer (BC). However, real-world data on the implementation of therapy usage, efficacy, and toxicity have not yet been reported., Methods: The PRAEGNANT registry was used to identify advanced HR + HER2- BC patients (n = 1136). The use of chemotherapy, ET, everolimus + ET, and CDK4/6i + ET was analyzed for first-line, second-line, and third-line therapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were also compared between patients treated with CDK4/6i + ET and ET monotherapy. Also toxicity was assessed., Results: CDK4/6i + ET use increased from 38.5% to 62.7% in the first 2 years after CDK4/6i treatment became available (November 2016). Chemotherapy and ET monotherapy use decreased from 2015 to 2018 from 42.2% to 27.2% and from 53% to 9.5%, respectively. In this early analysis no statistically significant differences were found comparing CDK4/6i + ET and ET monotherapy patients with regard to PFS and OS. Leukopenia was was seen in 11.3% of patients under CDK4/6i + ET and 0.5% under ET monotherapy., Conclusions: In clinical practice, CDK4/6i + ET has been rapidly implemented. A group of patients with a more unfavorable prognosis was possibly treated in the real-world setting than in the reported randomized clinical trials. The available data suggest that longer follow-up times and a larger sample size are required in order to identify differences in survival outcomes. Studies should be supported that investigate whether chemotherapy can be avoided or delayed in this patient population by using CDK4/6i + ET., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest A.S. received honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed GmbH, Celgene, ClinSol Research GmbH, Connectmedica Sp.Z o.o., Deutsche Gesellschaft für Senologie GmbH, if-kongress management gmbh, I-MED Institute GmbH, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Medicultus GmbH, med publico GmbH, MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, onkowissen.de GmbH, Pfizer GmbH, Schattauer Verlag GmbH, Promedicis GmbH, Tesaro Bio Germany GmbH, W. Zuckschwerdt Verlag GmbH. J.E. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche and TEVA and travel support from Celgene, Pfizer, TEVA, and Pierre Fabre. D.L. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Lilly, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Tesaro, Teva. M.W.B reports support from Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Roche, Amgen, Eisai, paid to his institution. E.B. received honoraria from Novartis, Celgene, Riemser, Pfizer, Hexal, Amgen, onkowissen.de for consulting, clinical research management or medical education activities. P.A.F. received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck-Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma and Teva. His institution conducts research with funding from Novartis and Biontech. T.N.F. reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Daichii Sankyo, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work. P.H. received honoraria, unrestricted educational grants and research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. A.D.H. received honoraria from Teva, GenomicHealth, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. C.H. received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Oncovis, Roche, and Pfizer. J.H. received honoraria from Astra Zeneca, MSD, Lilly, travel grants from Novartis and research grants from Novartis, Celgene. E.R. reports personal fees from Roche, Pfizer, Amgen, Novartis, Tesaro, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Pierre Fabre and Riemer, non-financial support from Olympus GmbH, personal fees from Riemser, outside the submitted work. W.J. received research grants and honoroaria from Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Chugai, Roche, Genomic-Health, AstraZeneca, Lilly. H.-C.K. received honoraria from Carl Zeiss meditec, TEVA, Theraclion, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, and Genomic Health. C.M.K. received honoraria from Amgen, Axios, Roche, Teva, Novartis, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, NewCo, Pfizer, Riemser, and ZytoService, research grants from Amgen, Axios, Novartis, MSD Sharp & Dohme, NewCo, Pfizer, and ZytoService, and travel support from Amgen, Paxman Inc., PharmaMar, and Pfizer. M.P.L. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Genomic Health, Tesaro and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Genomic Health, AstraZeneca, medac and Eisai. V.M. received speaker honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Janssen-Cilag and consultancy honoraria from Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro and Nektar. N.N. received consultancy honoraria from Janssen-Cilag and travel support from Novartis. F.O. received speaker and consultancy honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Cellex, Chugai, Gilead, Hexal, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Riemser, Roche, Tesaro, Teva. H.T. received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, TEVA, and Pfizer and travel support. F.-A. T. received honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Genomic Health and Novartis. C.T. received honoraria from Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. M.U. reports support paid to his institution from Abbvie, Amgen GmbH München, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Celgene GmbH München, Daiji Sankyo, Eisai GmbH München, Janssen Cilag, Johnsen&Johnsen, Lilly Deutschland, Lilly Int., MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics GmbH Zürich, Odonate, Pfizer GmbH Berlin, PUMA Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche Pharma AG, Grenzach Wyhlen, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sividon Diagnostics Köln, TEVA Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd. und. Berlin(.)P.W. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, TEVA, Eisai Clovis and Tesaro. She participated in advisory boards of Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, TEVA, Eisai Clovis and Tesaro. Her institution received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Clovis and Tesaro. R.W. received honoraria from Agendia, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Boeringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Esai, Genomic Health, Glaxo Smith Kline, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, PumaBiotechnolgogy, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Teva. M.W. received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Novartis. S.Y.B. reports personal fees from Novartis and Pfizer, both outside the submitted work. All remaining authors (J.S., E.K., M.G., L.H., B.V., D.W.) have declared that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with breast cancer (BC) show strong interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), particularly for adverse effects of adjuvant endocrine treatment - e.g., with letrozole. Letrozole often induces myalgia/limb pain and arthralgia, with potential noncompliance and treatment termination. This analysis investigated whether CAM before aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy is associated with pain development and the intensity of AI-induced musculoskeletal syndrome (AIMSS) during the first year of treatment., Patients and Methods: The multicenter phase IV PreFace study evaluated letrozole therapy in postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive patients with early BC. Patients were asked about CAM use before, 6 months after, and 12 months after treatment started. They recorded pain every month for 1 year in a diary including questions about pain and numeric pain rating scales. Data were analyzed for patients who provided pain information for all time points., Results: Of 1396 patients included, 901 (64.5%) had used CAM before AI treatment. Throughout the observation period, patients with CAM before AI treatment had higher pain values, for both myalgia/limb pain and arthralgia, than non-users. Pain increased significantly in both groups over time, with the largest increase during the first 6 months. No significant difference of pain increase was noted regarding CAM use., Conclusions: CAM use does not prevent or improve the development of AIMSS. Pain intensity was generally greater in the CAM group. Therefore, because of the risk of non-compliance and treatment discontinuation due to the development of higher pain levels, special attention must be paid to patient education and aftercare in these patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest S·Y.B. has received honoraria from Pfizer and Novartis. W.J. has received honoraria and research grants from Novartis. A.D.H. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, and Pfizer. R.W. has received honoraria and research funds from Novartis. S.K. has received honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Amgen, and AstraZeneca and funding support from Roche. C.T. has received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. M.P.L. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Genomic Health, and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Genomic Health, AstraZeneca, medac, and Eisai. P.G. has received honoraria from Novartis and financial support for symposia from Novartis, Roche, and PharmaMar. H.-C.K. has received honoraria from Carl Zeiss meditec, TEVA, Theraclion, Novartis, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Roche, and Genomic Health. D.S.-B. has received honoraria from Novartis. M.W.B.‘s institution has received research grants from Novartis. T.F. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and Amgen. P.A.F. has received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, and Celgene. His institution conducts research for Novartis. N.N. has received honoraria from Janssen-Cilag, Novartis and Teva. All of the remaining authors have declared that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Mutations in the ligand-binding domain (LBD) of the ESR1 gene result in resistance to estrogen deprivation therapy (EDT) in breast cancer. Their detection might enable optimization of therapy strategies. However, the predictive utility of the primary tumor (PT) is limited, and obtaining serial biopsies of metastatic lesions is challenging. To underline their application as a liquid biopsy, single circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were analyzed with a next-generation sequencing approach for the ESR1 coding region. CTCs from 46 metastatic luminal breast cancer patients were enriched using CellSearch system and isolated by micromanipulation. Their genomic DNA was amplified and the ESR1 gene was sequenced. Furthermore, tissue samples from corresponding PTs and/or metastatic lesions were investigated. ESR1 mutations were detected in 12 patients-exclusively in patients treated with EDT (P = 0.048). In seven cases mutations were located in the hotspot regions in the LBD. Six novel mutations were identified. ESR1 mutations were absent in PT tissue samples and were detected only in metastases obtained after CTC characterization. Single-cell CTC analysis for ESR1 mutations could be of clinical value to identify patients who progress under EDT and therefore benefit from an early switch to an alternative endocrine therapy or other treatment regimens. Furthermore, our data indicate that mutations outside the LBD's hotspot regions might also contribute to resistance to EDT., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This study describes comprehensive data from a breast cancer registry concerning the use of endocrine treatment (ET) and chemotherapy in the first, second and higher therapy lines in hormone receptor (HR) positive, HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC)., Methods: The PRAEGNANT study is a real-time registry for patients with MBC. Therapies were categorized into the following categories: chemotherapy, aromatase inhibitor (AI), tamoxifen, fulvestrant, or everolimus plus ET and reported for first, second and third line or higher therapy use. Also treatment sequences for the first, second and third therapy line were analyzed., Results: This analysis includes 958 patients with HR positive, HER2 negative MBC. 42.7% were treated with a chemotherapy in the first therapy line compared to 45.9% receiving an ET. A total of 25.9% were treated with everolimus plus anti-hormone therapy in any therapy line. 34.1% were treated with fulvestrant as single agent therapy. Analyzing therapy sequences, the administration of three different chemotherapies in a row was the most frequently used pattern., Conclusions: This analysis shows that across all three first therapy lines chemotherapy is a dominant therapy for HR positive, HER2 negative MBC patients. Education about the efficacy of ET might help to increase its use and decrease the possible burden of chemotherapy related toxicities., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Improved progression-free survival is considered as treatment goal for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) since it is assumed to delay or prevent deterioration of quality of life. Aim of our analysis was to examine the influence of disease progression on health-related quality of life (HRQoL)., Materials and Methods: The PRAEGNANT study comprises a real-life registry for patients with MBC. HRQoL was assessed with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 Version 3.0 questionnaire at study entry and every 3 months thereafter. The primary endpoint was minimally important deterioration (MID) in global HRQoL score by ≥ five points between baseline and any follow-up assessment. A logistic regression model was built with MID (yes/no) at a follow-up timepoint as outcome variable and several covariates as predictors., Results: In total, 329 patients were included in this analysis, with disease progression in 63 patients. Concerning the primary study aim, progression status predicted MID of global HRQoL status in addition to the other covariates. The adjusted odds ratio for the effect of progression status on MID was 2.22 (95% CI: 1.04 - 4.73). Comparisons of mean differences of QoL domains/scales yielded no differences., Conclusions: We provide evidence that disease progression in patients with metastatic breast cancer in a real-world registry has a significant negative impact on HRQoL as measured by MID of HRQoL. This study emphasizes the relevance of avoiding progression and prolonging PFS to maintain QoL., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) are detectable in the bone marrow (BM) of patients with primary breast cancer (PBC) and predictive of an impaired prognosis. This large trial aimed to analyze the impact of DTC detection on locoregional relapse (LR)., Patients and Methods: Patients with nonmetastatic PBC were eligible for this analysis. BM aspiration (BMA1) was carried out during primary surgery and DTCs were detected by using immunocytochemistry (A45-B/B3 antibody against pancytokeratin) and morphological criteria. At the time of LR, a subgroup of patients with nonmetastatic and operable LR received a secondary BM aspiration (BMA2)., Results: A total of 3072 patients were included into the analysis. Of these, 732 (24%) presented with DTCs at BMA1. One hundred thirty-nine patients experienced LR and 48 of these (35%) were initially DTC positive. DTC detection was significantly associated with an increased risk of LR in univariate (P = 0.002) and multivariate analysis (P = 0.009) with a hazard ratio of 1.65 (95% confidence interval 1.13-2.40). Of the patients with LR, 55 patients were available for BMA2 and 17 of these (32%) were DTC positive. DTC detection at the time of LR was indicative of impaired overall survival (univariate analysis, P = 0.037)., Conclusions: DTC detection in patients with PBC is associated with an increased risk of LR, indicating that tumor cells may have the ability to recirculate from the BM to the site of the primary tumor. The impaired prognosis associated with DTC detection at the time of LR may help to identify patients that are in need for additional or more aggressive treatment., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)