Search

This review focuses on the immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the context of breast cancer (BC) management. These innovative treatments, by targeting proteins expressed on both tumor and immune cells, aim to overcome tumor-induced immune suppression and reactivate the immune system. The potential of this approach is the subject of numerous clinical studies. Here, we explore the key studies and emerging therapies related to ICIs providing a detailed analysis of their specific and combined use in BC treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Most premenopausal patients with early breast cancer (eBC) are diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive disease and therefore candidate for adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET)., Patients and Methods: The Gruppo Italiano Mammella (GIM) 23-POSTER (GIM23) is a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted in 26 Italian institutions, aiming to evaluate ET choices for premenopausal patients affected by hormone receptor-positive eBC in a real-world setting. Here we report also the results in terms of type of ET prescribed according to the definition of high-risk patients by monarchE and NATALEE trials., Results: Between October 2019 and June 2022, 600 premenopausal patients were included, with a median age of 46 years. Almost half (271, 45.2 %) of the patients had stage I disease, while 254 (42.3 %) and 60 (10.0 %) patients had stage II and III, respectively. Overall, 149 (25.1 %) patients received tamoxifen alone, 83 (14.0 %) tamoxifen with ovarian function suppression (OFS), while 361 (60.9 %) received aromatase inhibitor (AI) with OFS. Patients treated with AI and OFS had higher number of metastatic axillary nodes, higher grade and more often received chemotherapy (all p < 0.001). According to the inclusion criteria of the monarchE and NATALEE trials, 81 patients (15.6 %) were considered high-risk for the monarchE and received AI with OFS in 88.9 % of the cases, while 231 patients (44.4 %) were considered high-risk for the NATALEE trial and received AI with OFS in 74.5 % of cases., Conclusions: AI with OFS is the most prescribed adjuvant ET among premenopausal patients, especially in the presence of high-risk features., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Eva Blondeaux: speaker fee from Eli Lilly and research support from Gilead Science (to the institution). Valentina Guarneri: personal fees from EliLilly, Exact Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, MSD, Amgen, Sanofi, Merck Serono, and Eisai outside the submitted work. Eleonora Mioranza: personal fee from Novartis e Lilly. Fabio Puglisi: advisory role for and receiving speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Celgene, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Ipsen, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Takeda, and Viatris. Travel grants from AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Novartis, Roche. Research grants (to his institution) from Astrazeneca, Eisai, Roche. Antonella Ferro: support for attending meeting from Gilead, MSD and Pfizer; honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Ely Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, Astra Zeneca, MSD. Vincenzo Adamo: consultancy/advisory role/speaker bureau from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Sevier, Takeda. Laura Biganzoli: Personal financial interests (Honoraria, consultancy or advisory role): Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, SeaGen. Institutional financial interests: Celgene, Genomic Health, Novartis. Travel grant: AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo. Evandro de Azambuja: honoraria from or participation in advisory boards for Roche, Genentech, Novartis, SeaGen, Zodiac, Libbs, Pierre Fabre, Eli Lilly, and AstraZeneca. Francesca Poggio: fees and other support from AstraZeneca and personal fees from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Daichii Sankyo, and Gilead outside the submitted work. Matteo Lambertini: advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, and Exact Sciences; receiving speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Libbs, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Knight, Ipsen, and AstraZeneca; receiving travel grants from Gilead and Daiichi Sankyo; receiving research funding (to his institution) from Gilead. Lucia Del Mastro: grants from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Gilead, and Pierre Fabre; receiving consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Gilead, and Daiichi Sankyo; receiving speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Ipsen, GSK, and Agendia-Stemline; receiving travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca; and having an advisory role for Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sakyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Agendia, GSK, and Seagen. All the other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The phase III GIM2 trial showed improved disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) with adjuvant dose-dense (DD) as compared with standard-interval (SI) chemotherapy in women with node-positive early-stage breast cancer (BC). This exploratory analysis aimed to investigate the benefit of different schedules according to body mass index (BMI) in this trial., Patients and Methods: This analysis explored the efficacy, in terms of DFS and OS, of different chemotherapy schedules according to BMI. Univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for relevant prognostic factors, were used., Results: Out of 2091 patients enrolled, 1925 with known baseline BMI were randomized in the DD versus SI comparison and therefore included in this analysis: 31.6% were overweight and 19.3% obese. Overweight and obesity were significantly associated with postmenopausal status, pT >2, and pN >2 tumors. After a median follow-up of 15.0 years (interquartile range 8.4-16.3 years), multivariable Cox survival models demonstrated no association of different BMI categories on DFS [adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.15 and adjHR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91-1.35 for overweight and obese patients, respectively, compared to patients with normal BMI] or OS (adjHR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71-1.14 and adjHR 1.18, 95% CI 0.92-1.52 for overweight and obese patients, respectively). No significant interaction was found between BMI and treatment schedule in terms of DFS (P for interaction  = 0.56) or OS (P for interaction  = 0.19). The survival benefit of DD chemotherapy was observed irrespective of different BMI categories, with a more pronounced benefit for overweight and obese patients., Conclusion: In node-positive BC patients, DD schedule should be considered the preferred schedule irrespective of BMI., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Advancements in monoclonal antibodies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) have notably enhanced outcomes for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer patients. Despite the expanding treatment options and clinical complexities, determining the optimal sequence of HER2-targeted therapies remains partly uncertain, influenced by various factors., Methods: To refine HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer management, particularly regarding tucatinib's position, a Steering Committee of leading oncologists in breast cancer care devised a panel of statements via a Delphi approach, focusing on five key topics: general clinical management, therapeutic approaches for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases, treatment sequence, and tucatinib's safety and efficacy., Results: A total of 29 statements were deliberated, with strong consensus achieved for most. However, no consensus emerged regarding the management of brain progression alongside stable extracranial disease: 48 % advocated for switching to tucatinib, while 53 % favored a stereotactic brain radiotherapy (SBRT) approach if feasible., Conclusion: The unanimous consensus attained in this Delphi panel, particularly regarding tucatinib's efficacy and safety, underscores oncologists' recognition of its clinical significance based on existing trial data. These findings align closely with current literature, shedding light on areas necessitating further investigation, not thoroughly explored in prior studies. Moreover, the results underscore the scarcity of data on managing brain progression alongside stable extracranial disease, emphasizing the imperative for dedicated research to address these gaps and yield definitive insights., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest PC: Consulting or Advisory Role: Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, Reveal Genomics, Gilead Sciences; Speakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, BMS; Research Funding: Merck KGaA (Inst); Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: HER2Dx patent; Expert Testimony: AstraZeneca. EC: reports consulting fees from Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo; speaker's bureau from Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo; and travel and accommodations from Pfizer and Roche. GC: received honoraria for speaker's engagement: Roche, Seattle Genetics, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Foundation Medicine, NanoString, Samsung, Celltrion, BMS, MSD; Honoraria for providing consultancy: Roche, Seattle Genetics, NanoString; Honoraria for participating in Advisory Board: Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Foundation Medi-cine, Samsung, Celltrion, Mylan; Honoraria for writing engagement: Novartis, BMS; Honoraria for participation in Ellipsis Scientific Affairs Group; Institutional research funding for conducting phase I and II clinical trials: Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Celgene, Servier, Orion, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, AbbVie, Tesaro, BMS, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp Dome, Janssen-Cilag, Philogen, Bayer, Medivation, MedI- mmune MDL: advisory boards, activities as a speaker, travel grants, consultancy: Eli Lilly, Novartis, Seagen, Takeda, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Tomalab, Gilead, Genetic, Menarini, Sophos, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ipsen, Pierre Fabre, GSK. AG: research funding to the Institution: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Janssen, Roche, MSD, Daichii-Sankyo, GSK/Tesaro, HiFiBio, Merck, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Exelixis, Bayer, Incyte, Bayer, Aileron; travel, accommodation, expenses: Gentili. LDM: advisory role for Agendia, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Collage SpA, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead, GSK, Havas Life, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen Int, Stemline Menarini and Uvet; personal fees as an invited speaker for Accademia Nazionale Medicina, Andromeda E20, Aristea, Delphi international, Editree, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Meeting SrL, MSD, Novartis, Over Srl, Prex Srl, Symposia and Vyvamed Srl; personal fees for writing engagements for Edizioni Minerva Medica, Pensiero Scientifico Editore and Roche; personal consultancy fees from Eli Lilly, Gilead, Kardo Srl and Sharing Progress in Cancer Care (SPCC)—Switzerland; personal fees for author slide kits from Forum service and Think2it; personal fees for interviews from Infomedica Srl and Think2it; institutional funding as a local PI from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Novartis, Novella Clinical, Roche and Seagen; institutional funding as a national coordinating PI from Roche; institutional research grant from Pfizer; and non-remunerated product samples from FoundationOne. AG: received advisory role from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Gilead, Teva, and Gentili; lecture honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, Roche, Eisai, Seagen, Teva, and Gentili; and research support from Roche, Eisai, Gilead, and Pharmanutra AL: Research support: Roche, Agendia, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck Sharp&Dhome, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo; Consulting/advisor: Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis; Speaker's Bureaus: Lilly, Astrazeneca, Merck Sharp&Dhome, Pfizer, Novartis; Travel support: Roche, Pfizer, Astrazeneca, Merck Sharp&Dhome. MM: Honoraria: Roche/Genentech, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Seagen; Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo; Speakers' Bureau: Lilly/ImClone, Lilly/ImClone, Roche/Genentech, Pierre Fabre; Research Funding: Novartis (Inst), Roche (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst); Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Daiichi-Sankyo; Other Relationship: Roche, Novartis. FPo: advisory board from AstraZeneca; speaking honoraria and travel grants from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Seagen, Daichii Sankyo, and Gilead. AP: reports grants and personal fees from NanoString Technologies, Veracyte, Novartis, AstraZeneca, DaiichiSankyo, and Roche; in addition, A. Prat has a patent for DNADX pending. FPu: reports honoraria for advisory boards, activities as a speaker, travel grants, research grants from Amgen - Astrazeneca - Daiichi Sankyo - Celgene - Eisai - Eli Lilly- Exact Sciences- Gilead - Ipsen – Menarini- MSD - Novartis - Pierre Fabre - Pfizer - Roche - Seagen - Takeda – Viatris; Research funding from Astrazeneca – Eisai – Roche. CS: consultancy or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Ax's Consulting, Byondis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Exeter, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., International Society for the Study and Exchange of evidence from Clinical research And Medical experience (ISSECAM), Medical Statistics Consulting, MediTech, Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp, Novartis, Pfizer, Philips, Pierre Fabre, PintPharma, Puma, Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, Zymeworks, and research funding from Aragon, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Byondis, CytomX, Daiichi Sankyo, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Genentech, German Breast Group Forchungs, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, Innoup, International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG), Lilly, Macrogenics, Medica Scientia Innovation Research, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp, Merus, Millennium, Novartis, Pfizer, Piqur, Puma, Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, Synthon, and Zenith., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of the nontaxane microtubule dynamics inhibitor eribulin plus the humanized anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody bevacizumab in a novel second-line chemotherapy scheme in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients progressing after first-line paclitaxel and bevacizumab., Patients and Methods: This is a multicenter, single-arm, Simon's two-stage, phase II study. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate, considered as the sum of partial and complete response based on the best overall response rate (BORR). The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and clinical benefit rate., Results: A total of 58 of the 61 patients enrolled in the study were evaluable for efficacy. The BORR was 24.6% (95% CI 14.5-37.3). The clinical benefit rate was 32.8% (95% CI 21.3-46.0). The median PFS was 6.2 months (95% CI 4.0-7.8), and median OS was 14.8 months (95% CI 12.6-22.8). Overall, adverse events (AEs) were clinically manageable and the most common AEs were fatigue, paresthesia, and neutropenia. Quality of life was well preserved in most patients., Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that second-line therapy with bevacizumab in combination with eribulin has a meaningful clinical activity and may represent a potential therapeutic option for patients with HER2-negative MBC., Competing Interests: Disclosure CDA is a consultant/advisory board member for Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. FP has received travel, accommodations, expenses supported by Takeda, Ely Lilly, and received honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Ely Lilly, and Novartis outside the submitted work. AM is a consultant/advisory board member for EISAI, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Teva, Pfizer, Celgene; has received travel accommodations supported by Eisai, Celgene, Novartis, and Ipsen. LDM is a consultant/advisory board member for Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Pfizer, MSD, Genomic Health, Ipsen, Takeda, Eli Lilly, Seattle Genetics, Pierre Fabre, and Eisai. MG, GA, and SDP have declared honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Amgen, and Eisai. MDL has declared consulting fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Eisai, and Celgene. The remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest. Data sharing The data sets obtained and/or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In HER2-positive breast cancer, time elapsed between completion of (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab and diagnosis of metastatic disease ('trastuzumab-free interval', TFI) is crucial to choose the optimal first-line treatment. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence to support its possible prognostic role., Methods: In the Adjuvant Lapatinib and/or Trastuzumab Treatment Optimisation (ALTTO) trial, patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer were randomised to 1 year of either trastuzumab alone, lapatinib alone, their sequence or their combination. This exploratory analysis included only patients in the trastuzumab alone or trastuzumab plus lapatinib arms who developed a distant disease-free survival (DDFS) event. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time between date of DDFS event and death; age at diagnosis, tumour size and hormone receptor status were the variables included in the multivariate models., Results: Out of 8381 patients included in ALTTO, 404 patients in the trastuzumab alone and trastuzumab plus lapatinib arms developed a DDFS event, of which 201 occurred < 12 months (group A) and 203 >12 months (group B) after completion of adjuvant trastuzumab. No significant difference in location of first DDFS event was observed (p=0.073); a numerically higher number of patients in group A than in group B developed brain metastasis (26% vs 15%). Choice of first-line therapy differed between the two groups (p=0.022): in group A, more patients received lapatinib (25% vs 11%) and less pertuzumab (8% vs 17%). Median OS was 29.3 and 18.4 months in groups B and A, respectively (adjusted HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.54-0.89; p=0.004). The longer OS for patients in group B was observed across the analysed subgroups without interaction according to hormone receptor status (p=0.814) nor type of administered adjuvant anti-HER2 treatment (p=0.233)., Conclusions: TFI has prognostic value in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer treated with adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy. TFI is a valid tool to better individualise clinical recommendations and to design future first-line treatment trials for metastatic patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ML acted as a consultant for Roche and Novartis, and received speaker honoraria from Theramex, Roche, Takeda, Novartis, Pfizer and Lilly outside the submitted work. NFP acted as a consultant for Lilly; received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lilly and Roche-Genentech, travel support from Novartis and research grants from Daiichi Sankyo, MSD and BMS outside the submitted work. OW reports employment at Novartis. LDM acted as a consultant for Roche, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Lilly, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi Sankyo; received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Lilly and MSD, and travel grants from Roche, Pfizer and Celgene outside the submitted work. RC received speaker fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, AstraZeneca and Janssen, and travel support from AstraZeneca and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. AM-A received research grants from GSK/Novartis (to the institution) outside the submitted work. MJP served as board member of Oncolytics; received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Camel-IDS, Crescendo Biologics, Debiopharm, G1 Therapeutics, Roche-Genentech, Huya, Immunomedics, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Odone, Periphagen, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, research grants from AstraZeneca, Lilly, MEDSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Radius, Roche-Genentech, Servier and Synthon (to the institution) outside the submitted work. EdA received honoraria and/or advisory board from Roche/GNE, Novartis, Seattle Genetics and Zodiac, travel grants from Roche/GNE and GSK/Novartis, research grants to his institution from Roche/GNE, Astra-Zeneca, GSK/Novartis and Servier outside the submitted work; his institution has received research grants for the conduct of ALTTO., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background: In the prepertuzumab era, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer who underwent first-line trastuzumab-based or lapatinib-based therapy according to prior exposure to (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab., Materials and Methods: In this multicentre retrospective cohort study conducted in 14 Italian centres of the Gruppo Italiano Mammella, consecutive patients undergoing first-line trastuzumab or lapatinib-based therapy were included. Analyses were performed according to the type of first-line therapy for metastatic disease (trastuzumab or lapatinib). Dichotomous clinical outcomes were analysed using logistic regression and time-to-event outcomes using Cox proportional hazard models controlling for relevant demographic, clinicopathological and therapy characteristics., Results: Out of 450 patients included in the study, 416 (92%) received trastuzumab and 34 (7.5%) lapatinib. As compared with the trastuzumab cohort, more patients in the lapatinib cohort had a trastuzumab-free interval <1 month (37% vs 13.9%; p=0.017) and brain metastasis as first site of relapse (38.2% vs 9.4%; p<0.001). Among the 128 patients who relapsed after prior (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab, 101 (78.9%) received first-line trastuzumab and 27 (21.1%) first-line lapatinib. The following outcomes were observed with first-line lapatinib or trastuzumab, respectively: overall response rate 45.5% vs 61.3% (p=0.184), clinical benefit rate 68.2% vs 72.5% (p=0.691), median progression-free survival (PFS) 11.4 vs 12.0 months (p=0.814) and median overall survival (OS) 34.7 vs 48.2 months (p=0.722). In patients with brain metastasis as first site of relapse, median PFS was 12.2 vs 9.9 months (p=0.093) and median OS 33.7 vs 28.5 months (p=0.280), respectively., Conclusions: In patients with HER2-positive breast cancer relapsing after prior (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab, first-line treatment with trastuzumab or lapatinib was not associated with a significant difference in the clinical outcomes. A non-significant trend favouring the use of lapatinib was observed in patients with brain metastasis as the first site of relapse., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ARF received travel grant directed to his institution to participate in scientific meeting from Roche and Novartis outside of the submitted work. FP served as a consultant and received honoraria, outside the submitted work, from Amgen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Roche; received research funding from Astrazeneca, Eisai, Roche outside the submitted work and received travel grants from Celgene, Roche, Servier outside the submitted work. FM served as a consultant and/or received speaker’s honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Daiichi Sankyo. ML served as a consultant for Teva and received honoraria from Theramex and Takeda outside the submitted work. LDM served as a consultant and received honoraria, outside the submitted work, from Roche, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Eisai, Eli lilly, MSD, Genomic health, Takeda, Ipsen, Pfeizer, Seattle Genetics., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background: T-DM1 improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2 + ) breast cancer progressing on prior trastuzumab plus a taxane. A paucity of data is available on T-DM1 efficacy after dual anti-HER2 blockade with pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus a taxane, which represents the current first-line standard of care. The present study is a retrospective/prospective evaluation of the efficacy and activity of second-line T-DM1 after front-line pertuzumab-based therapy., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were identified within the Gruppo Italiano Mammella (GIM) 14/BIOMETA study, a retrospective/prospective multicenter study on treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with metastatic breast cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02284581). We searched for patients who received second-line T-DM1 after taxane plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab between November 15, 2013 and May 31, 2018. We calculated median PFS, median time to treatment failure (TTF), prolonged duration of therapy (PDT), objective response rate (ORR), and 1-year OS., Results: Of 445 patients with HER2 + metastatic breast cancer, 77 were eligible for the analysis. At a median follow-up of 7 months, median PFS was 6.3 months (95% confidence intervals [CI], 4.8-7.7 months), and median TTF was 6.2 months (95% CI, 4-8.6 months). More than one-third of patients (37.6%; n = 29) experienced PDT with an ORR of 27.1%. At data cutoff, the median OS was not reached, and the 1-year OS was 82%., Conclusions: Our results show meaningful activity of T-DM1 after front-line pertuzumab plus trastuzumab and a taxane, with about 27% of patients having an objective response and 40% of patients achieving durable disease control., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Research Question: This study explored the knowledge, attitudes and practice of physicians towards fertility and pregnancy-related issues in young BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients., Design: Physicians attending two international breast cancer conferences completed a 26-item questionnaire exploring fertility preservation, pregnancy during (BCP) or after breast cancer. A statistical comparison was carried out of the responses exploring the same issues in young breast cancer patients overall or specifically in those with BRCA mutations., Results: The survey was completed by 273 physicians. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation (33% versus 40%; P = 0.009) and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues during chemotherapy (74% versus 81%; P = 0.001) were less commonly suggested in BRCA-mutated patients than in the overall breast cancer population. 42% of respondents agreed or were neutral on the statement that ovarian stimulation should not be considered safe in BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients. 45% and 30% agreed or were neutral on the statement that pregnancy in breast cancer survivors may increase the risk of recurrence in BRCA-mutated patients or in the overall breast cancer population, respectively (P < 0.001). 15% and 3% disagreed that transplanting the cryopreserved ovarian tissue can be considered safe in BRCA-mutated patients or in the overall breast cancer population, respectively (P < 0.001). 33.3% were against the addition of platinum agents as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in BRCA-mutated patients with BCP., Conclusions: Several misconceptions on fertility preservation and pregnancy-related issues in breast cancer patients persist even among physicians directly involved in breast cancer care. Focused research efforts to address these issues in BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients and education to improve physicians' knowledge and adherence to available guidelines are urgently needed., (Copyright © 2019 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Fertility and pregnancy-related issues are major concerns for young breast cancer patients. Limited data are available on physicians' knowledge, attitudes and practice in these fields., Methods: A 26-item questionnaire exploring 3 different topics (fertility preservation, pregnancy after breast cancer and breast cancer during pregnancy) was sent by email to physicians attending the 2016 3rd European School of Oncology (ESO) - European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer in Young Women Conference (BCY3) and the 15th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference 2017 (BCC 2017). Given the selected sample, survey respondents were expected to have a higher than average interest in the management of breast cancer patients. Descriptive analyses were performed., Results: A total of 273 physicians (105 at BCY3 and 168 at BCC 2017) completed the survey; 37.0%, 46.9% and 34.8% reported never having consulted the available international guidelines on fertility preservation, pregnancy after breast cancer and management of breast cancer during pregnancy, respectively. Up to 18.3% of respondents did not know if the different fertility preservation options were available in their country; 22.3% suggested that controlled ovarian stimulation should not be considered safe in patients with hormone receptor-positive disease. A total of 30.4% of respondents agreed or were neutral on the statement that pregnancy in breast cancer survivors may increase the risk of recurrence. Regarding breast cancer during pregnancy, 23.8% and 38.1% disagreed or were neutral on the statements that endocrine therapy and anti-HER2 agents should be avoided during pregnancy, respectively., Conclusions: Further educational initiatives are needed to improve physicians' knowledge and adherence to available guidelines when addressing fertility and pregnancy-related issues in young breast cancer patients., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Breast cancer is still the most frequent cancer diagnosed in women aged ≤40 years and the primary cause of death in this age group. The management of these patients needs a dedicated approach involving a multidisciplinary team that takes into account their treatment and survivorship issues. The present review aims to provide a perspective on the many challenges associated with treatment of young women with early breast cancer. We will focus on the standard (neo)adjuvant treatment, highlighting the paucity of age-specific results about the available genomic signatures, the groundbreaking landscape of adjuvant endocrine therapy and the relevant issue of the fertility preservation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LDM received honoraria from Takeda and personal fees from Ipsen and Takeda outside the submitted work. ML served as a consultant for Teva and received honoraria from Theramex outside the submitted work.

Background: Despite the availability of different strategies for ovarian function and/or fertility preservation in young breast cancer patients candidates for chemotherapy, limited data are available on patients' actual need of these options., Patients and Methods: The PREFER study is a prospective cohort study including premenopausal women with newly diagnosed early stage breast cancer between the age of 18 and 45 years and candidates for chemotherapy. The study aimed to investigate patients' preferences and their choices of the different available strategies for ovarian function and/or fertility preservation (i.e. acceptance rate) and reasons for refusal., Results: A total of 131 consecutive patients referred from a single breast unit were included. Median age was 38.9 years with 92 patients (70.3%) diagnosed at ≤ 40 years. The majority of patients (122, 93.1%) were concerned about the risk of treatment-induced premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) and/or infertility. A total of 120 (91.6%) patients underwent temporary ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists during chemotherapy for ovarian function preservation. Among patients with ≤40 years, only 11 (12.0%) decided to access cryopreservation strategies for fertility preservation. The main reason for not accessing the fertility unit was completion of family planning before breast cancer diagnosis; for patients who accessed the fertility unit, fear of the procedure was the main reason to refuse the proposed cryopreservation strategies., Conclusion: Despite the majority of young breast cancer patients are concerned about the risk of treatment-induced POI and/or infertility, only a limited number of them required to access the fertility unit to undergo cryopreservation strategies., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients is highly controversial and it is not endorsed by current guidelines. Our meta-analysis aimed to better elucidate its activity, efficacy and safety., Material and Methods: A systematic search of Medline, Web of Science and conferences proceedings up to 30 October 2017 was carried out to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating platinum-based versus platinum-free neoadjuvant chemotherapy in TNBC patients. Using the fixed and random effects models, pooled odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pathological complete response (pCR, defined as ypT0/is pN0), event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS) and grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs: neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia and neuropathy)., Results: Nine RCTs (N = 2109) were included. Overall, platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly increased pCR rate from 37.0% to 52.1% (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.46-2.62, P < 0.001). Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy remained significantly associated with increased pCR rate also after restricting the analysis to the three RCTs (N = 611) that used the same standard regimen in both groups of weekly paclitaxel (with or without carboplatin) followed by anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.37-4.66, P = 0.003). Conversely, among the 96 BRCA-mutated patients included in two RCTs, the addition of carboplatin was not associated with significantly increased pCR rate (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.51-2.67, P = 0.711). Two RCTs (N = 748) reported survival outcomes: no significant difference in EFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49-1.06, P = 0.094) and OS (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.46-1.63, P = 0.651) was observed. A significant higher risk of grade 3 and 4 hematological AEs, with no increased risk of grade 3 and 4 neuropathy was observed with platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy., Conclusion: In TNBC patients, platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with significantly increased pCR rates at the cost of worse hematological toxicities. Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be considered an option in TNBC patients., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018080042.

Single-agent poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) have been approved as the first targeted therapy available for patients with BRCA -mutated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. This meta-analysis aimed to better evaluate activity, efficacy and safety of single-agent PARPi in this population. A systematic search of Medline, Embase and conference proceedings up to 31 January 2018 was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating single-agent PARPi versus monochemotherapy in patients with BRCA -mutated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Using the random-effect model, we calculated summary risk estimates (pooled HR and OR with 95% CI) for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), any grade and grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs), treatment discontinuation rate and time to deterioration in quality of life (QoL). Two RCTs (n=733) were included. As compared with monochemotherapy, single-agent PARPi significantly improved PFS (HR 0.56(95% CI 0.45 to 0.70)) and ORR (OR 4.15 (95% CI 2.82 to 6.10)), with no difference in OS (HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.05)). Single-agent PARPi significantly increased risk of anaemia and any grade headache, but reduced risk of neutropenia and any grade palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome as compared with monochemotherapy. No significant differences in other AEs and treatment discontinuation rate were observed. Patients treated with PARPi experienced a significant delayed time to QoL deterioration (HR 0.40 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.54)). Single-agent PARPi showed to be an effective, well tolerated and useful treatment in maintaining QoL of patients with BRCA -mutated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LDM received personal fees from Novartis Pharma AG, Roche-Genentech, Ipsen, Astrazeneca, Takeda, Eli Lilly outside the submitted work. EdA received honoraria from Roche-Genentech, research grant from Roche-Genentech (to the institution) and travel grants from Roche-Genentech and GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. ML served as a consultant for Teva outside the submitted work.

Background: The aim of the study was to compare the patterns of care and clinical outcomes of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients with de novo or recurrent disease who underwent first-line trastuzumab-based therapy., Patients and Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients with HER2-positive MBC who received first-line trastuzumab-based therapy. Analyses on treatment response and effectiveness were conducted according to type of metastatic presentation (ie, de novo vs. recurrent disease). Exploratory analyses were used to evaluate whether the use of surgery of the primary tumor in the de novo cohort influenced patients' survival., Results: From January 2000 to December 2013, 416 patients were included in the study, 113 (27.2%) presented with de novo MBC and 303 (72.8%) with recurrent disease. Compared with patients in the recurrence cohort, those in the de novo cohort had worse baseline characteristics, received more aggressive first-line treatments, and showed better survival, with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) of 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.97; P = .035) and for overall survival (OS) of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.30-0.95; P = .034). In the de novo cohort, the 54 patients (47.8%) who underwent surgery of the primary tumor had significantly better PFS (adjusted HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.72; P = .001) and OS (adjusted HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26-0.93; P = .029) than those who did not undergo surgery., Conclusion: Patients with de novo HER2-positive MBC showed significantly better survival outcomes than those with recurrent disease. In this population, surgery of the primary breast tumor was associated with better outcomes., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although in clinical practice adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) and endocrine therapy (ET) are administered sequentially in patients with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer, the optimal timing, i.e. concurrent or sequential administration, of these treatments has been scarcely investigated. To better clarify this issue we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies comparing these two modalities of administrations in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS)., Methods: Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed, Web of Knowledge and the proceedings of the major conferences with no date restriction up to March 2016. The summary risk estimates (pooled hazard ratio [HR] and 95% confidence intervals [CI]) for DFS and OS were calculated using random effect models (DerSimonian and Laird method)., Results: A total of three randomized studies were eligible including 2021 breast cancer patients. Overall, 755 DFS events were observed, 365 in the sequential arm and 390 in the concomitant arm, with a pooled HR of 0.95 (95% CI = 0.76 to 1.18, P = 0.643). No association between timing of treatment and OS was observed (HR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.80 to 1.12, P = 0.529)., Conclusion: Our pooled analysis showed no association between the timing of administration of adjuvant CT and ET and DFS and OS in breast cancer patients candidates for both adjuvant treatments. Because of the small number of published trials, the lack of data on the timing with modern adjuvant treatments, i.e. taxane-containing CT and aromatase inhibitors, this topic remain still controversial and requires further studies to be clarified., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Luteinising hormone releasing hormone agonists (LH-RHa) are effective in the treatment of advanced endocrine-sensitive breast cancer in premenopausal patients, but their role in the adjuvant setting has remained controversial for a long time. Tamoxifen for 5 years has been traditionally considered the standard endocrine therapy for premenopausal patients and this is still valid for many patients. However, the recently reported SOFT trial has suggested that adding ovarian function suppression (OFS) to tamoxifen could improve DFS in women at sufficient risk to warrant adjuvant chemotherapy and who remained premenopausal after this therapy. The administration of an aromatase inhibitor plus OFS represents an additional therapeutic option for hormone-receptor positive premenopausal breast cancer patients, according to the combined analysis of the SOFT and TEXT trials. Temporary ovarian suppression induced by LH-RHa has been recognized as an effective strategy to preserve ovarian function from the toxic effects of chemotherapy and is now recommended in young breast cancer patients with endocrine-insensitive tumors. In this review, we discuss recent data on the role of LH-RHa in combination with tamoxifen or with an aromatase inhibitor, and we comment on its role as a strategy to preserve ovarian function in young patients candidates for adjuvant or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of temporary ovarian suppression with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa) in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian failure (POF) is still controversial. Our meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) investigates whether the use of LHRHa during chemotherapy in premenopausal breast cancer patients reduces treatment-related POF rate, increases pregnancy rate, and impacts disease-free survival (DFS)., Methods: A literature search using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, and the proceedings of major conferences, was conducted up to 30 April 2015. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for POF (i.e. POF by study definition, and POF defined as amenorrhea 1 year after chemotherapy completion) and for patients with pregnancy, as well hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CI for DFS, were calculated for each trial. Pooled analysis was carried out using the fixed- and random-effects models., Results: A total of 12 RCTs were eligible including 1231 breast cancer patients. The use of LHRHa was associated with a significant reduced risk of POF (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23-0.57; P < 0.001), yet with significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 47.1%, Pheterogeneity = 0.026). In eight studies reporting amenorrhea rates 1 year after chemotherapy completion, the addition of LHRHa reduced the risk of POF (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.73, P < 0.001) without heterogeneity (I(2) = 0.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.936). In five studies reporting pregnancies, more patients treated with LHRHa achieved pregnancy (33 versus 19 women; OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.02-3.28, P = 0.041; I(2) = 0.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.629). In three studies reporting DFS, no difference was observed (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.49-2.04, P = 0.939; I(2) = 68.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.044)., Conclusion: Temporary ovarian suppression with LHRHa in young breast cancer patients is associated with a reduced risk of chemotherapy-induced POF and seems to increase the pregnancy rate, without an apparent negative consequence on prognosis., (© 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.)

Background: The role of temporary ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian failure (POF) is still controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of GnRHa, given before and during chemotherapy, in the prevention of POF in premenopausal cancer patients., Methods: Studies were retrieved by searching PubMed, Web of Knowledge database and the proceedings of major conferences. We calculated Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for POF from each trial and obtained pooled estimates through the random effects model as suggested by DerSimonian and Laird., Results: Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis with 225 events of POF occurring in 765 analyzed patients. The pooled OR estimate indicates a highly significant reduction in the risk of POF (OR=0.43; 95% CI: 0.22-0.84; p=0.013) in patients receiving GnRHa. There was statistically significant heterogeneity among studies (I(2)=55.8%; p=0.012). There was no evidence of publication bias. Subgroups analyses showed that the protective effect of GnRHa against POF was similar in subgroups of patients defined by age and timing of POF assessment, while it was present in breast cancer but unclear in ovarian cancer and lymphoma patients., Conclusions: Our pooled analysis of randomized studies shows that the temporary ovarian suppression induced by GnRHa significantly reduces the risk of chemotherapy-induced POF in young cancer patients., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)