Search

BACKGROUND: In the BROCADE3 trial, addition of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, veliparib, to carboplatin/paclitaxel improved progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.57-0.88; P = 0.002) in patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, germline BRCA1/2-mutated breast cancer. A subset of patients discontinued both carboplatin and paclitaxel before progression and continued on veliparib/placebo maintenance monotherapy until progression. Analyses in this patient subgroup are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to veliparib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel or placebo plus carboplatin/paclitaxel. Veliparib (120 mg twice daily) or placebo was given on days -2 to 5, carboplatin (area under the curve 6 mg/ml) on day 1, and paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of 21-day cycles. Patients who discontinued both carboplatin and paclitaxel before progression received blinded study drug monotherapy at an increased dose of 300-400 mg twice daily continuously. PFS was the primary endpoint. Exploratory analyses were carried out in the subgroup of patients who received blinded study drug as monotherapy. A time-varying Cox model including data from all patients was also used to evaluate treatment effect in the combination and monotherapy phases. RESULTS: A total of 136 of 337 patients randomized to veliparib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel and 58/172 patients randomized to placebo plus carboplatin/paclitaxel discontinued both carboplatin and paclitaxel before progression and continued on blinded veliparib or placebo monotherapy. In this blinded monotherapy subgroup, investigator-assessed median PFS from randomization was 25.7 months with veliparib versus 14.6 months with placebo. Hazard ratios from a time-varying Cox model favored veliparib during both combination therapy and monotherapy. Any-grade adverse events occurring in the monotherapy phase were primarily gastrointestinal. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were neutropenia and anemia (4% each with veliparib; 5% and 2%, respectively, with placebo). CONCLUSIONS: Veliparib maintenance monotherapy had a tolerable safety profile and may extend PFS following combination chemotherapy. ispartof: ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY vol:33 issue:3 pages:299-309 ispartof: location:England status: published

PARP inhibitors are effective in different types of tumors such as ovarian, breast, prostate and pancreatic cancer. Many studies are in progress and may lead to prescription evolution. PARP inhibitors prescription is almost reserved to patients with a constitutional BRCA mutation or a somatic BRCA alteration or a tumor with a deficiency in homologous recombination. Nowadays, the diagnosis of homologous recombination deficit, HRD, is possible with the prescription of a myChoice CDx (Myriad) test. PARP inhibitors are studied in association with chemotherapy and targeted therapies but also with radiotherapy and with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Access to PARP inhibitors is challenged with the emergence of resistance mechanism. Various trials are now studying the possibility of reversing these resistance mechanisms.

BACKGROUND: Addition of veliparib to carboplatin-paclitaxel, with continuation of veliparib monotherapy if carboplatin-paclitaxel was discontinued, improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with germline BRCA-associated locally advanced/metastatic HER2- breast cancer and ≤2 lines of previous cytotoxic therapy for metastatic disease in BROCADE3. A pre-planned subgroup analysis evaluated efficacy and safety in patients without previous cytotoxic therapy for metastatic disease. METHODS: Patients were randomised 2:1 to receive veliparib (120 mg orally BID) or placebo on days -2 to 5. Carboplatin (AUC 6) was administered on day 1, and paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) on days 1, 8 and 15 (21-day cycles). Patients discontinuing carboplatin-paclitaxel for reasons besides progression could continue veliparib/placebo monotherapy (300 mg BID, increasing to 400 mg BID if tolerated) until progression. The primary end-point was PFS assessed by investigator. RESULTS: Of 509 patients in the intention-to-treat population (98.6% female; mean age 47, standard deviation 11), 413 (81%) had no previous cytotoxic therapy for metastatic disease (274, veliparib; 139, placebo). In the first-line subgroup, median PFS was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 13.4-18.7) versus 13.1 months (95% CI 11.4-14.5) for the veliparib versus control groups (hazard ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.54-0.89, P = .004). More patients were alive and progression-free at 2 years (36% versus 23.2%) and 3 years (27.9% versus 13.3%) in the veliparib versus control group. Adverse events unrelated to progression leading to study drug discontinuation occurred in 25 (9.1%) and 8 (5.8%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Veliparib with carboplatin-paclitaxel led to durable disease control among first-line patients, suggesting a benefit of this treatment approach in early lines. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02163694. ispartof: European Journal Of Cancer vol:154 pages:35-45 ispartof: location:England status: accepted

s Introduction During the COVID-19 pandemic, teleconsultation was implemented in clinical practice to limit patient exposure to COVID-19 while monitoring their treatment and follow-up. We sought to examine the satisfaction of patients with breast cancer (BC) who underwent teleconsultations during this period. Methods Eighteen centres in France and Italy invited patients with BC who had at least one teleconsultation during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic to participate in a web-based survey that evaluated their satisfaction (EORTC OUT-PATSAT 35 and Telemedicine Satisfaction Questionnaire [TSQ] scores) with teleconsultation. Results Among the 1299 participants eligible for this analysis, 53% of participants were undergoing standard post-treatment follow-up while 22 and 17% were currently receiving active anticancer therapy for metastatic and localised cancers, respectively. The mean satisfaction scores were 77.4 and 73.3 for the EORTC OUT-PATSAT 35 and TSQ scores, respectively. In all, 52.6% of participants had low/no anxiety. Multivariable analysis showed that the EORTC OUT-PATSAT 35 score correlated to age, anxiety score and teleconsultation modality. The TSQ score correlated to disease status and anxiety score. Conclusion Patients with BC were satisfied with oncology teleconsultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Teleconsultation may be an acceptable alternative follow-up modality in specific circumstances.

Purpose: Safety, efficacy, and exploratory biomarker analyses were evaluated in patients with advanced HER2-negative germline breast cancer susceptibility gene (gBRCA)-associated breast cancer enrolled in the BROCADE3 trial who received crossover veliparib monotherapy after disease progression on placebo plus carboplatin/paclitaxel. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients (N = 513) were randomized 2:1 to veliparib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel or placebo plus carboplatin/paclitaxel; patients had variable platinum-free intervals (PFI) at progression. In the placebo arm, patients were eligible to receive crossover veliparib monotherapy (300–400 mg twice daily continuous). Antitumor activity and adverse events were assessed during crossover veliparib treatment. BRCA reversion mutations at crossover were analyzed retrospectively using next-generation sequencing on plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Results: Seventy-five patients in the placebo plus carboplatin/paclitaxel arm received ≥1 dose of crossover veliparib postprogression (mean treatment duration: 154 days). Eight of 50 (16%) patients with measurable disease had a RECIST v1.1 response. Activity was greater in patients with PFI ≥180 days compared with Conclusions: Crossover veliparib monotherapy demonstrated limited antitumor activity in patients who experienced disease progression on placebo plus carboplatin/paclitaxel. PFI appeared to affect veliparib activity. BRCA reversion mutations may promote cross-resistance and limit veliparib activity following progression on platinum.

Background In the phase III IMpassion130 study, atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (A+nP) showed clinical benefit in advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer patients who were programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)+ (tumor-infiltrating immune cells [IC] ≥1%) using the SP142 immunohistochemistry assay. Here we evaluate 2 other PD-L1 assays for analytical concordance with SP142 and patient-associated clinical outcomes. Methods Samples from 614 patients (68.1% of intention-to-treat population) were centrally evaluated by immunohistochemistry for PD-L1 status on IC (VENTANA SP142, SP263, Dako 22C3) or as a combined positive score (CPS; 22C3). Results Using SP142, SP263, and 22C3 assays, PD-L1 IC ≥1% prevalence was 46.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 42.5% to 50.4%), 74.9% (95% CI = 71.5% to 78.3%), and 73.1% (95% CI = 69.6% to 76.6%), respectively; 80.9% were 22C3 CPS ≥1. At IC ≥1% (+), the analytical concordance between SP142 and SP263 and 22C3 was 69.2% and 68.7%, respectively. Almost all SP142+ cases were captured by other assays (double positive), but several SP263+ (29.6%) or 22C3+ (29.0%) cases were SP142– (single positive). A+nP clinical activity vs placebo+nP in SP263+ and 22C3+ patients (progression-free survival [PFS] hazard ratios [HRs] = 0.64 to 0.68; overall survival [OS] HRs = 0.75 to 0.79) was driven by double-positive cases (PFS HRs = 0.60 to 0.61; OS HRs = 0.71 to 0.75) rather than single-positive cases (PFS HRs = 0.68 to 0.81; OS HRs = 0.87 to 0.95). Concordance for harmonized cutoffs for SP263 (IC ≥4%) and 22C3 (CPS ≥10) to SP142 (IC ≥1%) was subpar (approximately 75%). Conclusions 22C3 and SP263 assays identified more patients as PD-L1+ (IC ≥1%) than SP142. No inter-assay analytical equivalency was observed. Consistent improved A+nP efficacy was captured by the SP142 PD-L1 IC ≥1% subgroup nested within 22C3 and SP263 PD-L1+ (IC ≥1%) populations.

Background Previous studies demonstrated the tolerability of palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET). This analysis evaluated safety based on more recent cutoff dates and a longer palbociclib treatment exposure. Patients and Methods Data were pooled from three randomized studies of patients with hormone receptor‐positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‐negative (HR+/HER2−) advanced breast cancer (ABC), including postmenopausal women who had not received prior systemic treatment for advanced disease (PALOMA‐1/‐2) and pre‐ and postmenopausal women who had progressed on prior ET (PALOMA‐3). Results Updated cutoff dates were December 21, 2017 (PALOMA‐1), May 31, 2017 (PALOMA‐2), and April 13, 2018 (PALOMA‐3). Total person‐years of treatment exposure were 1,421.6 with palbociclib plus ET (n = 872) and 528.4 with ET (n = 471). Any‐grade neutropenia and infections were more frequent with palbociclib plus ET (82.1% and 59.2%, respectively) than with ET (5.1% and 39.5%). The hazard ratios were 1.6 (p = .0995) for grade 3/4 infections, 1.8 (p = .4358) for grade 3/4 viral infections, 1.4 (p = .0001) for infections, and 30.8 (p < .0001) for neutropenia. Febrile neutropenia was reported in 1.4% of patients receiving palbociclib plus ET. Cumulative incidence of all‐grade hematologic adverse events in both arms peaked during the first year of treatment and plateaued over the 5 subsequent years. Interstitial lung disease was reported in 13 patients receiving palbociclib plus ET and 3 receiving ET. Conclusion This 5‐year, long‐term analysis demonstrated that palbociclib plus ET has a consistent and stable safety profile and is a safe treatment for patients with HR+/HER2− ABC. Implications for Practice Several treatments for patients with breast cancer are associated with long‐term or latent adverse events. This long‐term, 5‐year analysis demonstrated that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy has a consistent and stable safety profile without cumulative or delayed toxicities. These results further support palbociclib plus endocrine therapy as a safe and manageable treatment in clinical practice for patients with hormone receptor‐positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‐negative advanced breast cancer., This updated analysis based on data pooled from the three PALOMA studies is the largest long‐term analysis, to date, of the safety of a CDK4/6 inhibitor in combination with endocrine therapy for the treatment of advanced breast cancer.

Background: Trophoblast cell-surface antigen-2 (Trop-2) is highly expressed in many epithelial tumors, including triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an anti-Trop-2 antibody coupled to SN-38, an active metabolite of irinotecan, via a unique hydrolyzable linker that allows for SN-38 release intracellularly and in the tumor microenvironment (bystander effect). Preclinical studies have shown a great range of efficacy with SG in mice bearing tumors with low, moderate, and high Trop-2 expression levels. We report subgroup analyses by Trop-2 expression from ASCENT, a randomized, phase 3 confirmatory study of SG versus standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with metastatic TNBC (mTNBC). Methods: In the global, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 ASCENT study (NCT02574455), 529 patients with mTNBC refractory to or relapsing after at least 2 prior chemotherapies were randomized 1:1 to receive SG (10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 21 days) or single-agent treatment of physician’s choice (capecitabine, eribulin, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) measured by central independent review per RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1, duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety. Exploratory endpoints included biomarker assessments, including Trop-2 and BRCA1/2. Trop-2 expression was assessed using a validated immunohistochemistry assay. Results: Subgroup analyses by biomarker expression including Trop-2 and BRCA1/2 were performed, and outcomes by PFS, OS, ORR, and safety results will be reported. Conclusions: These analyses will provide further insights into the relationship of Trop-2 expression and the activity of SG in previously treated patients with mTNBC. Citation Format: Sara A. Hurvitz, Sara M. Tolaney, Kevin Punie, Delphine Loirat, Mafalda Oliveira, Kevin Kalinsky, Amelia Zelnak, Philippe Aftimos, Florence Dalenc, Sagar Sardesai, Erika Hamiltion, Priyanka Sharma, Sabela Recalde, Eva Ciruelos Gil, Tiffany Traina, Joyce O'Shaughnessy, Javier Cortés, Michaela Tsai, Linda Vahdat, Véronique Diéras, Lisa Carey, Hope S. Rugo, David M. Goldenberg, Quan Hong, Martin Olivo, Loretta M. Itri, Aditya Bardia. Biomarker evaluation in the phase 3 ASCENT study of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS3-06.

Background: Trophoblast cell-surface antigen-2 (Trop-2) is highly expressed in many epithelial tumors, including triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an anti-Trop-2 antibody coupled to SN-38, the active metabolite of irinotecan, via a unique hydrolyzable linker that allows SN-38 release intracellularly and in the tumor microenvironment (bystander effect). SG received accelerated approval in April 2020 for the treatment of patients with metastatic TNBC (mTNBC) who received at least 2 prior therapies for metastatic disease. The most common adverse events (AEs) observed with SG are neutropenia and gastrointestinal toxicity, also seen with irinotecan. To provide further information on SG, additional safety analyses from ASCENT, a randomized, phase 3 confirmatory study of SG versus standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with mTNBC, will be reported. Methods: In the global, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 ASCENT study (NCT02574455), 529 patients with mTNBC refractory to or relapsing after at least 2 prior chemotherapies were randomized 1:1 to receive SG (10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 21 days) or single-agent treatment of physician’s choice (capecitabine, eribulin, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival measured by central independent review per RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate, duration of response, overall survival, and safety. An exploratory analysis of incidence of grade 3-5 AEs by UGT1A1 genotype was also performed. Post-hoc analysis of the time to onset and duration of key AEs will be performed, and descriptive analyses on alopecia, nausea and vomiting will also be provided. Results: Exploratory safety analyses by UGT1A1 allele status will be shown as well as time to onset and duration of neutropenia and diarrhea. Further descriptive analyses on alopecia, nausea, and vomiting will be provided along with AE management strategies. Conclusions: These analyses will provide further insights into the safety profile of SG and appropriate AE management strategies for patients with previously treated mTNBC to allow optimal therapeutic exposure. Citation Format: Hope S. Rugo, Sara M. Tolaney, Delphine Loirat, Kevin Punie, Aditya Bardia, Sara A. Hurvitz, Joyce O'Shaughnessy, Javier Cortés, Véronique Diéras, Lisa Carey, Luca Gianni, Martine J. Piccart, Sibylle Loibl, David M. Goldenberg, Quan Hong, Martin Olivo, Loretta M. Itri, Kevin Kalinsky. Impact of UGT1A1 status on the safety profile of sacituzumab govitecan in the phase 3 ASCENT study in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS11-09.

Background: Patients (pts) with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) who have brain metastases represent a poor prognosis cohort with a high unmet clinical need. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an anti-Trop-2 antibody coupled to SN-38, an active metabolite of irinotecan, via a unique hydrolyzable linker that allows for SN-38 release intracellularly and in the tumor microenvironment (bystander effect). SN-38 can cross the blood-brain barrier and is a drug partner in central nervous system (CNS) disease regimens (PMID: 18784279; PMID: 26080460). Although antibody-based therapy raises concerns regarding CNS penetration, activity with SG has been seen in intracranial xenograft models (Brenner Neurooncol Adv 2019). In a subgroup analysis from ASCENT, the efficacy and safety of SG were evaluated in pts with stable brain metastases. Methods: In the phase 3 ASCENT study (NCT02574455), 529 pts with mTNBC refractory to or relapsing after at least 2 prior chemotherapies were randomized 1:1 to receive SG (10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 every 21 days) or single-agent treatment of physician’s choice (TPC; capecitabine, eribulin, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Brain MRIs were required in pts with known brain metastases who were eligible if they had stable CNS disease for ≥4 wk by MRI. Per protocol, stable disease was defined as ≥2 wk from discontinuation of antiseizure medication and corticosteroid dose (≤20 mg prednisone equivalent) that was stable or decreasing for ≥2 wk before randomization. In these pts, brain MRIs were required throughout the study. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per independent central review (RECIST v1.1) in brain metastases-negative pts. Secondary endpoints included PFS per investigator assessment, PFS in the full population (in pts with/without brain metastases) by central review, objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: Overall, 61 of 529 (12%) enrolled pts had stable brain metastases at screening and were randomized to SG (n=32) or TPC (n=29). Median age was 53 y for SG and 51 y for TPC; all pts were female and had a median of 5 prior anticancer regimens. In this subset, median PFS was 2.8 mo (95% CI, 1.5-3.9) for SG vs 1.6 mo (95% CI, 1.3-2.9) for TPC by central review, and median OS was 6.8 mo (95% CI, 4.7-14.1) for SG vs 7.5 mo (95% CI, 4.7-11.1) for TPC. ORR for SG vs TPC, respectively, was 3% (1/32) vs 0% by central review, with a clinical benefit rate of 9.4% vs. 3.4%. Stable disease was achieved in 15 (47%) pts with SG vs 9 (31%) pts with TPC. In 53 pts who received at least 1 dose of treatment (SG, n=30; TPC, n=23), any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (>20% with SG) for SG vs TPC were fatigue (63% vs 52%), diarrhea (50% vs 13%), neutropenia (43% vs 35%), nausea (43% vs 26%), decreased appetite (30% vs 17%), decreased neutrophil count (33% vs 22%), anemia (23% vs 35%), alopecia (23% vs 13%), and constipation (23% vs 22%). There were no treatment-related deaths. Two pts treated with SG are continuing study treatment for 16.2 and 6.3 mo as of the data cutoff date. Conclusions: Data interpretation in this population with poor prognosis is limited by the small sample size. In this exploratory analysis of pts with brain metastases from the phase 3 ASCENT study, SG was numerically better than TPC for tumor response and PFS but not OS. The safety profile was similar to that of the population without brain metastases for both study arms. SG is currently under clinical investigation for pts undergoing elective craniotomy for breast cancer with brain metastases or recurrent glioblastoma (NCT03995706) based on promising preclinical and intracranial clinical data. Citation Format: Véronique Diéras, Robert Weaver, Sara M. Tolaney, Aditya Bardia, Kevin Punie, Adam Brufsky, Hope S. Rugo, Kevin Kalinsky, Tiffany Traina, Leonard Klein, Delphine Loirat, Filipa Lynce, Brooke Daniel, Foluso Ademuyiwa, Sara A. Hurvitz, David M. Goldenberg, Quan Hong, Martin Olivo, Loretta M. Itri, Lisa Carey. Subgroup analysis of patients with brain metastases from the phase 3 ASCENT study of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD13-07.

Background Understanding the impact of the tumor immune microenvironment and BRCA1/2-related DNA repair deficiencies on the clinical activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors may help optimize both patient and treatment selection in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. In this substudy from the phase 3 IMpassion130 trial, immune biomarkers and BRCA1/2 alterations were evaluated for association with clinical benefit with atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel (A+nP) vs placebo and nP in unresectable (P+nP) locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Methods Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle) and atezolizumab 840 mg every 2 weeks or placebo until progression or toxicity. Progression-free survival and overall survival were evaluated based on programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression on immune cells (IC) and tumor cells, intratumoral CD8, stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and BRCA1/2 mutations. Results PD-L1 IC+ in either primary or metastatic tumor tissue was linked to progression-free survival and overall survival benefit with A+nP. PD-L1 IC+ low (26.9%; 243 of 902 patients) and high (13.9%; 125 of 902 patients) populations had improved outcomes that were comparable. Intratumoral CD8 and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes positivity (sTIL+) were associated with PD-L1 IC+ status; improved outcomes were observed with A+nP vs P+nP only in CD8+ and sTIL+ patients who were also PD-L1 IC+. BRCA1/2 mutations (occurring in 14.5% [89 of 612 patients]) were not associated with PD-L1 IC status, and PD-L1 IC+ patients benefited from A+nP regardless of BRCA1/2 mutation status. Conclusions Although A+nP was more efficacious in patients with richer tumor immune microenvironment, clinical benefit was only observed in patients whose tumors were PD-L1 IC+.

Background The phase III SANDPIPER study assessed taselisib (GDC-0032), a potent, selective PI3K inhibitor, plus fulvestrant in estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, PIK3CA-mutant locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Patients and methods Postmenopausal women with disease recurrence/progression during/after an aromatase inhibitor were randomized 2 : 1 to receive taselisib (4 mg; taselisib arm) or placebo (placebo arm) plus fulvestrant (500 mg). Stratification factors were visceral disease, endocrine sensitivity, and geographic region. Patients with PIK3CA-mutant tumors (central cobas® PIK3CA Mutation Test) were randomized separately from those without detectable mutations. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (INV-PFS) in patients with PIK3CA-mutant tumors. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate, overall survival, clinical benefit rate, duration of objective response, PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR-PFS), safety, and time to deterioration in health-related quality of life. Results The PIK3CA-mutant intention-to-treat population comprised 516 patients (placebo arm: n = 176; taselisib arm: n = 340). INV-PFS was significantly improved in the taselisib {7.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.26-9.07]} versus placebo arm (5.4 months [95% CI, 3.68-7.29]) (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.89; P = 0.0037) and confirmed by BICR-PFS (HR 0.66). Secondary endpoints, including objective response rate, clinical benefit rate, and duration of objective response, showed consistent improvements in the taselisib arm. Safety was assessed in all randomized patients who received at least one dose of taselisib/placebo or fulvestrant regardless of PIK3CA-mutation status (n = 629). Serious adverse events were lower in the placebo versus taselisib arm (8.9% versus 32.0%). There were more discontinuations (placebo arm: 2.3%; taselisib arm: 16.8%) and dose reductions (placebo arm: 2.3%; taselisib arm: 36.5%) in the taselisib arm. Conclusion SANDPIPER met its primary endpoint; however, the combination of taselisib plus fulvestrant has no clinical utility given its safety profile and modest clinical benefit.

Background Palbociclib is indicated for hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). Objective Exposure-response analyses were conducted to evaluate efficacy in Asian versus non-Asian patients and in patients with versus without dose reduction in PALOMA-2. Patients and Methods PALOMA-2 compared palbociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in patients with ABC. Population pharmacokinetic analysis provided apparent palbociclib clearance (CL/F) for each patient. The time-varying exposure metric, Cavg,t, was calculated using average dose intensity and CL/F at the time of each progression-free survival (PFS) event. A Cox proportional model characterized PFS and palbociclib Cavg,t relationships. Significant prognostic factors for PFS were identified by univariate analysis, which were subsequently included in multivariate analyses, in addition to the Cavg,t effect on PFS. PFS profiles in Asian/non-Asian patients and patients with/without dose reduction were simulated and compared using observed palbociclib exposures and established exposure-response relationships. Results Patients (n = 421) received palbociclib plus letrozole (Asian = 64, non-Asian = 357; no dose reduction = 272, dose reduction = 149). Based on univariate analyses, significant prognostic factors were Ki67 score, age, and baseline aspartate aminotransferase (BAST), tumor size, alkaline phosphatase, and albumin levels. In multivariate analysis, only Ki67 and BAST remained significant. Palbociclib exposure did not significantly affect PFS in either univariate (P = 0.12) or multivariate (P = 0.44) analyses. Conclusions This analysis suggests that palbociclib exposure has no impact on PFS when the dose reduction algorithm from palbociclib clinical trials is used. There is no difference in efficacy between Asians and non-Asians, despite the higher level of dose reductions in Asians. Pfizer NCT01740427.

Purpose:The primary objective was to evaluate intracranial objective response rate (iORR) in patients receiving abemaciclib with brain or leptomeningeal metastases (LM) secondary to hormone receptor–positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Secondary objectives evaluated extracranial response, abemaciclib pharmacokinetics, brain metastases tissue exposure, and safety.Patients and Methods:This nonrandomized, phase II study (NCT02308020) enrolled patients in tumor subtype–specific cohorts A–D: A (HR+, HER2− MBC), B (HR+, HER2+ MBC), C (HR+ MBC LM), and D (brain metastases surgical resection). Abemaciclib 200 mg was administered twice daily as monotherapy or with endocrine therapy, or 150 mg twice daily with trastuzumab. Cohorts A and B used a Simon two-stage design.Results:In cohort A (n = 58), 3 patients were confirmed responders resulting in an iORR of 5.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.0–10.9], and the intracranial clinical benefit rate (iCBR) was 24% (95% CI, 13.1–35.2). Median overall survival (OS) was 12.5 months (95% CI, 9.3–16.4). A volumetric decrease in target intracranial lesions was experienced by 38% of patients. In cohort B (n = 27), there were no confirmed intracranial responses. An iCBR of 11% (95% CI, 0.0–23.0) was observed. Median OS was 10.1 months (95% CI, 4.2–14.3). A volumetric decrease in target intracranial lesions was experienced by 22% of patients. In cohort C (n = 10), one confirmed complete parenchymal response was observed. In cohort D (n = 9), unbound brain metastases concentrations of total active abemaciclib analytes were 96- [cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4)] and 19-fold (CDK6) above in vitro IC50. Safety was consistent with prior studies.Conclusions:This study did not meet its primary endpoint. Abemaciclib was associated with an iCBR of 24% in patients with heavily pretreated HR+, HER2− MBC. Abemaciclib achieved therapeutic concentrations in brain metastases tissue, far exceeding those necessary for CDK4 and CDK6 inhibition. Further studies are warranted, including assessing novel abemaciclib-based combinations.

Purpose In MONARCH 1 (NCT02102490), single-agent abemaciclib demonstrated promising efficacy activity and tolerability in a population of heavily pretreated women with refractory HR+, HER2− metastatic breast cancer (MBC). To help interpret these results and put in clinical context, we compared overall survival (OS) and duration of therapy (DoT) between MONARCH 1 and a real-world single-agent chemotherapy cohort. Methods The real-world chemotherapy cohort was created from a Flatiron Health electronic health records-derived database based on key eligibility criteria from MONARCH 1. The chemotherapies included in the cohort were single-agent capecitabine, gemcitabine, eribulin, or vinorelbine. Results were adjusted for baseline demographics and clinical differences using Mahalanobis distance matching (primary analysis) and entropy balancing (sensitivity analysis). OS and DoT were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results A real-world single-agent chemotherapy cohort (n = 281) with eligibility criteria similar to the MONARCH 1 population (n = 132) was identified. The MONARCH 1 (n = 108) cohort was matched to the real-world chemotherapy cohort (n = 108). Median OS was 22.3 months in the abemaciclib arm versus 13.6 months in the matched real-world chemotherapy cohort with an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 0.54. The median DoT was 4.1 months in MONARCH 1 compared to 2.9 months in the real-world chemotherapy cohort with HR of 0.76. Conclusions This study demonstrates an approach to create a real-world chemotherapy cohort suitable to serve as a comparator for trial data. These exploratory results suggest a survival advantage and place the benefit of abemaciclib monotherapy in clinical context.

Background Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is incurable. A key treatment goal is providing palliation while maintaining patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). IMpassion130 demonstrated progression-free survival benefit with atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel (A + nP) versus placebo + nab-paclitaxel (Pl + nP) in first-line treatment of mTNBC patients with programmed death-ligand 1 positive (PD-L1+) tumors. We report data on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which capture patient perspectives of treatment. Patients and methods Patients with untreated advanced or mTNBC received atezolizumab (840 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks in combination with nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle until progression or intolerance. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its Breast Cancer Module (QLQ-BR23) on day 1 of each cycle, at end of treatment, and every 4 weeks during 1 year of follow-up. Time-to-deterioration (TTD) in HRQoL (first ≥10-point decrease from baseline lasting two cycles) was a secondary end point. Exploratory end points included TTD in functioning and mean and mean change from baseline scores in HRQoL, functioning, and disease- and treatment-related symptoms. Results Baseline completion of PROs was 92% (QLQ-C30) and 89% (QLQ-BR23) and remained >80% through cycle 20 in intent-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1+ patients. No differences between arms in median TTD in PD-L1+ patients were observed for HRQoL {hazard ratio (HR) 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69–1.28]} or physical [HR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76–1.37)] or role [HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.57–1.04)] functioning. Mean baseline scores for A + nP versus Pl + nP for HRQoL (67.5 versus 65.0) and physical (82.8 versus 79.4) and role (73.7 versus 71.7) functioning were comparable between arms and throughout the course of treatment, with no clinically meaningful (≥10 point) changes from baseline until patients discontinued treatment. No differences in clinically meaningful worsening in treatment symptoms (fatigue, diarrhea, or nausea/vomiting) were observed between arms. Results in ITT patients were similar. Conclusions A + nP as first-line treatment for mTNBC delayed progression without compromising patients' day-to-day functioning or HRQoL or worsening treatment symptoms. ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier NCT02425891

Detection of BRCA germline mutations (gBRCAm) impacts breast cancer medical treatment—according to differential sensitivity to cytotoxic chemotherapy and the activity of PARP inhibitors—and not only familial prevention. Guidelines for genetic testing—initially mainly based on familial history, age, and triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtype—currently are expanding in order to offer new therapeutic options. In the early setting, gBRCAm patients present a similar outcome as the non-carrier population with standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and the role of platinum chemotherapy is still a matter of debate. In metastatic setting, international guidelines recommend the use of platinum-based chemotherapy in gBRCAm patients and more broadly in TNBC patients. Olaparib and talazoparib monotherapy are approved in metastatic gBRCAm breast cancer. To date, it remains unclear how the combination of platinum-based regimen and PARP inhibitors should be sequenced.

Background In PALOMA-2, palbociclib + letrozole significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo + letrozole in patients with estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2−) advanced breast cancer (ABC). We investigated clinical outcomes of patients who achieved or did not achieve a confirmed objective response (OR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 (data cutoff: May 31, 2017). Patients and Methods Postmenopausal patients untreated for ER+/HER2− ABC were randomized 2:1 to palbociclib + letrozole or placebo + letrozole. Median PFS, median duration of OR, baseline characteristics, and palbociclib exposure were compared in patients with or without OR by treatment arm. Results In the intent-to-treat population, OR was achieved by 194 (44%) of 444 and 77 (35%) of 222 patients in the palbociclib and placebo arms, respectively (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-2.1; P = .0156). Regardless of treatment, more OR than non-OR patients had de novo metastatic disease (47%-50% and 28%-31%, respectively) and no prior endocrine therapy (55% and 35%-37%, respectively). Rates of palbociclib dose reduction owing to adverse events were similar regardless of OR (41% and 38%, respectively). Among the patients with OR during the study, approximately 50% achieved OR within the first 3 months regardless of treatment. The median PFS was significantly prolonged with palbociclib + letrozole versus placebo + letrozole in patients with measurable disease in both OR (37.2 months; 95% CI, 28.1 months to not estimable vs. 27.4 months; 95% CI, 22.2-31.1 months; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94; P = .009) and non-OR groups (10.9 months; 95% CI, 8.2-11.2 months vs. 5.6 months; 95% CI, 5.3-8.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97; P = .016). Conclusions Palbociclib + letrozole provided significant clinical benefit versus placebo + letrozole to patients with ER+/HER2− ABC regardless of achieving RECIST-defined OR. Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT01740427

Purpose In the absence of head-to-head trial data, network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to compare trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with other approved treatments for previously treated patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer (BC). Methods Systematic reviews were conducted of published controlled trials of treatments for unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive BC with early relapse (≤ 6 months) following adjuvant therapy or progression after trastuzumab (Tras) + taxane published from January 1998 to January 2018. Random-effects NMA was conducted for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety endpoints. Results The NMA included regimens from seven randomized controlled trials: T-DM1 and combinations of Tras, capecitabine (Cap), lapatinib (Lap), neratinib, or pertuzumab (Per; unapproved). OS results favored T-DM1 over approved comparators: hazard ratio (HR) (95% credible interval [95% CrI]) vs Cap 0.68 (0.39, 1.10), LapCap 0.76 (0.51, 1.07), TrasCap 0.78 (0.44, 1.19). PFS trends favored T-DM1 over all other treatments: HR (95% CrI) vs Cap 0.38 (0.19, 0.74), LapCap 0.65 (0.40, 1.10), TrasCap 0.62 (0.34, 1.18); ORR with T-DM1 was more favorable than with all approved treatments. In surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analysis T-DM1 ranked highest for all efficacy outcomes. Discontinuation due to adverse events was less likely with T-DM1 than with all comparators except neratinib. In general, gastrointestinal side effects were less likely and elevated liver transaminases and thrombocytopenia more likely with T-DM1 than with comparators. Conclusions The efficacy and tolerability profiles of T-DM1 are generally favorable compared with other treatments for unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive BC.

Background Palbociclib (PAL) in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) was shown to be tolerable in a previous pooled analysis of the 3 PALOMA clinical trials. This new pooled, post hoc analysis examines the safety profile of PAL + ET using data from more recent data cutoff dates with longer drug exposure. Methods Data were pooled from 3 randomized phase 2 and 3 studies of patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer (HR+/HER2- ABC). Postmenopausal first-line patients were randomized to receive letrozole (2.5 mg/d, continuously) +/- PAL (125 mg/d, 3/1 schedule) in PALOMA-1 or letrozole (2.5 mg/d, continuously) + PAL (125 mg/d, 3/1 schedule)/placebo in PALOMA-2. In PALOMA-3, pre/peri- and postmenopausal patients with prior endocrine resistance received intramuscular fulvestrant (500 mg every 14 days for the first 3 injections, then every 28 days) + PAL (125 mg/d, 3/1 schedule)/placebo. The cumulative rates of adverse events (AEs) were assessed over time. Results Updated data cutoff dates used for this analysis were December 21, 2017 (PALOMA-1), May 31, 2017 (PALOMA-2), and April 13, 2018 (PALOMA-3). The total number of person-years of exposure was 1950 (1422 PAL + ET, 528 ET). In the ET arm (n=471), 20.2% of patients were treated for ≥24 months and 10.2% were treated for ≥36 months. In the PAL + ET arm (n=872), 36% of patients were treated for ≥24 months and 22.4% for ≥36 months. The majority of patients treated for ≥24 and ≥36 months in the PAL + ET arm were from PALOMA-2. As expected, neutropenia and infections (any grade) were more frequent with PAL + ET (82.1% and 59.2%, respectively) than in the ET arm (5.1% and 39.5%). Febrile neutropenia was reported in 1.4% of patients in the PAL + ET arm. The incidence of hematologic AEs in the PAL + ET arm peaked during the first year of treatment and then plateaued over the subsequent 5 years. Serious AEs were reported in 22.8% of patients in the PAL + ET arm and 15.5% in the ET arm. Selected cumulative grade 3/4 event rates through 5 years were neutropenia (68.3% in PAL + ET; 0.8% in ET), leukopenia (29.9%; 0.2%), infections (6.4%; 2.8%), anemia (5.3%; 2.1%), fatigue (2.9%; 1.3%), alanine aminotransferase increased (2.2%; 0.2%), aspartate aminotransferase increased (2.9%; 1.3%), diarrhea (1%; 1.1%), nausea (0.6%; 1.3%), vomiting (0.7%; 1.1%), and QTc prolongation (0.3%; 0.2%). After adjusting for treatment exposure, incidence rates of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism were 0.0225 (PAL + ET) and 0.0246 (ET) per person-year and 0.0127 (PAL + ET) and 0.0132 (ET) per person-year, respectively. Conclusion This 5-year, long-term safety analysis of PAL + ET showed a consistent profile with no new safety signals, and no cumulative/delayed toxicities. PAL + ET remains a safe and manageable treatment for patients with HR+/HER2- ABC. Pfizer (NCT00721409, NCT01740427, NCT01942135) Citation Format: Richard S Finn, Hope S Rugo, Karen Gelmon, Massimo Cristofanilli, Marco Colleoni, Sherene Loi, Patrick Schnell, Dongrui R Lu, Kathy P Theall, Ave Mori, Eric Gauthier, Eustratios Bananis, Nicholas C Turner, Véronique Diéras. Long-term pooled safety analysis of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer: An updated analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-19-16.

Background: In the Phase 3 IMpassion130 (NCT02425891) trial in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC), first-line atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel (A+nP) significantly improved PFS vs placebo + nab-paclitaxel (P+nP) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1+ (PD-L1-stained immune cells [IC] ≥ 1% of the tumor area by VENTANA PD-L1 SP142 assay) populations. SP142 is currently the only validated assay for selecting patients who may derive benefit with A+nP. In post-hoc analyses of IMpassion130 (Rugo, ESMO 2019, submitted), PD-L1 status was also evaluated by Dako 22C3 and VENTANA SP263 assays. The SP142+ population (IC ≥ 1%; 46% prevalence) was captured within the 22C3 (CPS ≥ 1, 81% prevalence) and SP263 (IC ≥ 1%, 75% prevalence) subgroups, which identified more patients (pts) with PD-L1+ tumors. A+nP clinical activity was highest in pts identified as PD-L1+ by both SP142 and 22C3/SP263. HRs for clinical activity were lower in pts identified as PD-L1+ by 22C3/SP163, but PD-L1- by SP142. There was no suggestion of clinical benefit in pts identified as PD-L1- by both SP142 and 22C3/SP263. In the current retrospective exploratory analysis, we attempted to harmonize the PD-L1 assays by identifying cutoffs for 22C3 or SP263 that replicate the SP142 IC ≥ 1% population. Methods: Samples from IMpassion130 were assessed by a central laboratory for PD-L1 expression using VENTANA SP142 or SP263 IHC assays or Dako 22C3 IHC assay. Optimal cutoffs for 22C3 and SP263 were identified as those that maximize the analytical concordance (defined as overall percentage agreement; OPA) with the clinically validated SP142 IC 1% cutoff as the reference standard. Association with clinical activity was analyzed in the biomarker-evaluable population (BEP) in tumor samples from pts evaluated by the three PD-L1 assays. Results: In the BEP (n = 614; 68% of ITT), the intraclass correlation index (Spearman r) between SP142 IC and 22C3 CPS or SP263 IC was 0.57 and 0.69, respectively. The model-derived cutoffs with highest OPA (75%) for SP142 IC ≥ 1% were CPS 10 for 22C3 and IC 4% for SP263. Compared with our previous analyses at standard cutoffs (22C3 CPS 1; SP263 IC 1%), model-derived cutoffs resulted in negative percentage agreement increases from 45% to 74% (22C3) and from 34% to 77% (SP263), accompanied by positive percentage agreement reductions from 98% to 74% (22C3) and to 73% (SP263). These data suggest that the SP142 assay may identify a different population from the 22C3 or SP263 assays. For 22C3 at CPS 10, 36% of pts were SP142+/22C3+, but 10% were SP142+/22C3-, and 17% SP142-/22C3+. For SP263 at IC 4%, 34% of pts were SP142+/SP263+, but 12% were SP142+/SP263-, and 12% SP142-/SP263+. See table for prevalences, medians and HR point estimates for PFS and OS with the model-derived cutoffs. Conclusions: The suboptimal OPAs achieved with the model-derived cutoffs indicate that the assays could not be harmonized. Differences in SP142+ vs 22C3+ or SP263+ populations at model-derived cutoffs suggest that SP142, 22C3 and SP263 may not identify the same tumor biology. Additional data are required to understand these differences. Findings from these hypothesis-generating, post-hoc exploratory analyses based on mathematical modeling should be interpreted with caution. Currently, the VENTANA PD-L1 SP142 IHC assay (IC ≥ 1%) is the only clinically validated companion assay to select pts with mTNBC for A+nP treatment. Populationn (%)Median PFS, moPFS HRMedian OS, moOS HRA+nPP+nP(95% CI)A+nPP+nP(95% CI)BEP614 (100)7.45.40.7221.119.20.84(0.61, 0.86)(0.68, 1.03)SP142IC ≥ 1%285 (46)8.34.10.627.317.90.74(0.47, 0.78)(0.54, 1.01)IC < 1%329 (54)5.75.60.8620.820.70.95(0.68, 1.09)(0.72, 1.27)22C3CPS ≥ 10325 (53)7.55.50.712218.70.77(0.56, 0.91)(0.57, 1.03)CPS < 10289 (47)5.85.40.7320.219.40.94(0.57, 0.93)(0.69, 1.26)SP263IC ≥ 4%286 (47)8.75.50.6428.919.60.71(0.49, 0.83)(0.51, 0.98) Citation Format: Hope Rugo, Sherene Loi, Sylvia Adams, Peter Schmid, Andreas Schneeweiss, Carlos H Barrios, Hiroji Iwata, Véronique Diéras, Eric P Winer, Mark M Kockx, Dieter Peeters, Stephen Y Chui, Jennifer C Lin, Anh Nguyen Duc, Guiseppe Viale, Luciana Molinero, Leisha A Emens. Exploratory analytical harmonization of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays in advanced triple-negative breast cancer: A retrospective substudy of IMpassion130 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD1-07.

Background: Chemotherapy treatments with robust efficacy that preserve quality of life are needed. Tesetaxel is a novel, oral taxane that has potential advantages over currently available taxanes, including: oral administration with a low pill burden and once every 3 week (Q3W) dosing; no observed hypersensitivity reactions; preclinical evidence of central nervous system (CNS) penetration; and improved activity against chemotherapy-resistant tumors. More than 600 patients have been treated with tesetaxel in clinical studies. Tesetaxel had robust monotherapy activity in a Phase 2 study in 38 patients with HER2-, HR+ MBC, with a confirmed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1 of 45% and median PFS of 5.4 months. The confirmed ORR in taxane-pretreated patients also was 45%. Preclinical and clinical studies suggest that reducing the dose of capecitabine in combination with a taxane may result in reduced toxicity without a reduction in efficacy. CONTESSA investigates tesetaxel plus a reduced dose of capecitabine as an all-oral regimen in patients with HER2-, HR+ MBC. Trial design: CONTESSA is a 600-patient, multinational, multicenter, randomized (1:1), Phase 3 registration study comparing tesetaxel (27 mg/m2 on Day 1 of a 21-day cycle) plus a reduced dose of capecitabine (1,650 mg/m2/day on Days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle) to the approved dose of capecitabine alone (2,500 mg/m2/day on Days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle) in patients with HER2-, HR+ MBC who have received no more than one chemotherapy regimen for advanced disease and have received a taxane in the (neo)adjuvant setting. Patients with known CNS metastases are eligible. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an Independent Radiologic Review Committee (IRC). CONTESSA is 90% powered to detect a 42% improvement in PFS (HR = 0.71). Secondary endpoints are overall survival, ORR and disease control rate. Enrollment began in December 2017. In June 2019, the Independent Data Monitoring Committee for CONTESSA recommended that the study continue with no modifications following a planned interim efficacy futility analysis. The interim efficacy futility analysis was based on a pre-specified analysis of the first approximate 100 PFS events that occurred in the study. For further information on this trial, email joconnell@odonate.com or visit clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03326674). Citation Format: Joyce O'Shaughnessy, Martine Piccart, Lee Schwartzberg, Javier Cortes, Nadia Harbeck, Seock-Ah Im, Hope Rugo, Michael Untch, Denise Yardley, Igor Bondarenko, Veronique Dieras, Mark Pegram, Stew Kroll, Joseph O'Connell, Jeff Vacirca, Thomas Wei, Kevin Tang, Andrew Seidman. CONTESSA: A multinational, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 registration study of tesetaxel plus a reduced dose of capecitabine in patients with HER2-, hormone receptor + (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who have previously received a taxane [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-08-09.

Purpose: Preclinical data identified the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor palbociclib as synergistic with antiestrogens in inhibiting growth of hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2−) human breast cancer models. This observation was validated clinically in the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III PALOMA-2 study. Experimental Design: To determine markers of sensitivity and resistance to palbociclib plus letrozole, we performed comprehensive biomarker analyses, investigating the correlation with progression-free survival (PFS), on baseline tumor tissues from PALOMA-2. Results: Despite a broad biomarker search, palbociclib plus letrozole demonstrated consistent PFS gains versus placebo plus letrozole, with no single biomarker or cassette of markers associated with lack of benefit from combination treatment. Palbociclib plus letrozole confers efficacy on both luminal A and B patients. Higher CDK4 levels were associated with endocrine resistance which was mitigated by the addition of palbociclib, whereas lower PD-1 levels were associated with greater palbociclib plus letrozole benefit. Tumors with more active growth factor signaling, as exemplified by increased expression of FGFR2 and ERBB3 mRNA, appeared to be associated with greater PFS gain from the addition of palbociclib. Conclusions: These data underscore the importance of CDK4/6 signaling in HR+/HER2− breast cancer and suggest that the interplay between steroid hormone and peptide growth factor signaling could drive dependence on CDK4/6 signaling. See related commentary by Anurag et al., p. 3

Summary 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 ( 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.

Background Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) behaviour differs depending on hormone receptors (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) statuses. Methods The kinetics of central nervous system (CNS) metastases (CNS metastasis-free survival, CNSM-FS) and subsequent patient’s prognosis (overall survival, OS) according to the molecular subtype were retrospectively assessed in 16703 MBC patients of the ESME nationwide multicentre MBC database (Kaplan–Meier method). Results CNS metastases occurred in 4118 patients (24.6%) (7.2% at MBC diagnosis and 17.5% later during follow-up). Tumours were HER2−/HR+ (45.3%), HER2+/HR+ (14.5%), HER2+/HR− (14.9%) and triple negative (25.4%). Median age at CNS metastasis diagnosis was 58.1 years (range: 22.8–92.0). The median CNSM-FS was 10.8 months (95% CI: 16.5–17.9) among patients who developed CNS metastases. Molecular subtype was independently associated with CNSM-FS (HR = 3.45, 95% CI: 3.18–3.75, triple-negative and HER2−/HR+ tumours). After a 30-month follow-up, median OS after CNS metastasis diagnosis was 7.9 months (95% CI: 7.2–8.4). OS was independently associated with subtypes: median OS was 18.9 months (HR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.50–0.64) for HER2+/HR+ , 13.1 months (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.65–0.81) for HER2+/HR−, 4.4 months (HR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.42–1.69) for triple-negative and 7.1 months for HER2−/HR+ patients (p Conclusions Tumour molecular subtypes strongly impact incidence, kinetics and prognosis of CNS metastases in MBC patients. Clinical trial registration NCT03275311.

Background: Veliparib (Vel) is a potent PARP1/2 inhibitor with demonstrated antitumor activity when administered alone or combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel (C/P). The phase 3 randomized, double-blind, multicenter BROCADE3 study (NCT02163694) evaluated the efficacy and safety of Vel + C/P treatment compared with placebo (Pbo) + C/P treatment in patients (pts) with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and HER2-negative metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer (BC). Vel + C/P significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with Pbo + C/P treatment (14.5 months [mo] vs 12.6 mo, hazard ratio [HR]=0.71 [95% CI: 0.57, 0.88]; P=0.002). Previous studies have identified increased acute hematologic toxicity in response to chemotherapy in pts with BC carrying BRCA1 mutations compared with BRCA2 mutations or wildtype BRCA1/2. Herein we report a subgroup analysis of the efficacy and safety of Vel + C/P treatment in pts with BRCA1- or BRCA2-positive BC. Methods: Pts ≥18 years of age who received ≤2 prior lines of cytotoxic chemotherapy for metastatic disease were randomized 2:1 to receive Vel + C/P or Pbo + C/P: Vel (120 mg PO BID) or Pbo on days -2 to 5, C (AUC 6 IV) on day 1, and P (80 mg/m2 IV) on days 1, 8, and 15 in 21-day cycles. Pts who discontinued C/P in the absence of disease progression could continue receiving Vel or Pbo monotherapy (300-400 mg BID continuous). Subgroup analysis of PFS stratified by BRCA1/2 status was preplanned. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to NCI CTCAE version 4.0. Ten pts with both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were excluded from the analyses presented here. Results: In the intent-to-treat population, 256 pts had BRCA1 mutations and 243 pts had BRCA2 mutations. The proportion of as-treated pts with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations was comparable between the Vel + C/P (51.4% BRCA1, 48.6% BRCA2) and Pbo + C/P (50.9% BRCA1, 49.1% BRCA2) study arms. Investigator-assessed PFS for the Vel + C/P and Pbo + C/P arms was 14.2 mo vs 12.6 mo, respectively, in the BRCA1 subgroup (HR=0.75 [95% CI: 0.55, 1.03]; P=0.073) and 14.6 mo vs 12.6 mo, respectively, in the BRCA2 subgroup (HR=0.69 [95% CI: 0.50, 0.95]; P=0.021). Safety data in the as-treated population are presented in the Table. Regarding any grade AEs, thrombocytopenia and anemia were slightly more frequent in pts in the BRCA1 subgroup compared with the BRCA2 subgroup, whereas pts in the BRCA2 subgroup experienced slightly more frequent nausea, fatigue, and neuropathy. Conclusions: Globally, there was no clinically relevant difference in toxicity between BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroups. Comparisons between treatment arms were generally consistent with findings in the overall study population, with more frequent thrombocytopenia and anemia of any grade reported in the Vel + C/P arm within both the BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroups. Vel + C/P treatment improved PFS similarly in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroups over C/P alone. BRCA1-Positive Subgroup (n=253)BRCA2-Positive Subgroup (n=241)Vel + C/P (n=168)Pbo + C/P (n=85)Vel + C/P (n=159)Pbo + C/P (n=82)Any grade AE [≥50% of pts], n (%)Any event167 (99.4)85 (100)158 (99.4)82 (100)Neutropenia151 (89.9)78 (91.8)140 (88.1)74 (90.2)Thrombocytopenia140 (83.3)66 (77.6)124 (78.0)54 (65.9)Anemia139 (82.7)64 (75.3)122 (76.7)52 (63.4)Nausea118 (70.2)49 (57.6)119 (74.8)58 (70.7)Alopecia89 (53.0)43 (50.6)89 (56.0)41 (50.0)Fatigue79 (47.0)37 (43.5)87 (54.7)48 (58.5)Peripheral sensory neuropathy69 (41.1)37 (43.5)82 (51.6)49 (59.8)Any grade ≥3 AE [≥30% of pts], n (%)Any event164 (97.6)82 (96.5)152 (95.6)77 (93.9)Anemia73 (43.5)31 (36.5)67 (42.1)35 (42.7)Leukopenia54 (32.1)20 (23.5)44 (27.7)25 (30.5)Neutropenia136 (81.0)72 (84.7)131 (82.4)67 (81.7)Thrombocytopenia72 (42.9)30 (35.3)59 (37.1)18 (22.0)Serious AEs, n (%)58 (34.5)26 (30.6)56 (35.2)22 (26.8)AEs of special interest, n (%)Infections within 14 days of neutropenia64 (38.1)34 (40.0)59 (37.1)25 (30.5)Hemorrhages within 14 days of thrombocytopenia14 (8.3)5 (5.9)17 (10.7)7 (8.5)Any AE leading to study drug discontinuation not due to disease progression, n (%)16 (9.5)5 (5.9)15 (9.4)4 (4.9)Any AE leading to study drug interruption, n (%)153 (91.1)77 (90.6)139 (87.4)67 (81.7)Any AE leading to study drug reduction, n (%)28 (16.7)6 (7.1)27 (17.0)7 (8.5)Any AE leading to death with reasonable possibility related to study drug, n (%)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)AE, adverse event; BRCA, breast cancer susceptibility gene; C/P, carboplatin plus paclitaxel; Pbo, placebo; pts, patients; Vel, veliparib. Citation Format: Hans Wildiers, Jean-Pierre Ayoub, Michael Friedlander, Bella Kaufman, Banu K. Arun, Hyo S. Han, Shannon L. Puhalla, David Maag, Dai Feng, Christine K. Ratajczak, Bruce A. Bach, Véronique Diéras. Safety and efficacy of veliparib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with HER2-negative metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer: A subgroup analysis of germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations from the phase 3 BROCADE3 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS11-03.

With the approval of new therapies targeting the PI3K pathway, the detection of PIK3CA mutations has become a key factor in treatment management for HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We developed multiplex digital PCR (dPCR) assays to detect and quantify PIK3CA mutations. A first screening assay allows the detection of 21 mutations, with a drop-off system targeting the 542–546 hotspot mutations combined with the simultaneous detection of N345K, C420R, H1047L and H1047R mutations. In the case of a positive result, a sequential strategy based on other assays that we have developped allows for precise mutation identification. Clinical validity was determined by analyzing plasma circulating free DNA (cfDNA) from 213 HR+/HER2− MBC samples, as well as DNA extracted from 97 available matched tumors from 89 patients. Our assays have shown reliable specificity, accuracy and reproducibility, with limits of blank of three and four droplets for the screening assay. Sixty-eight patients (32%) had at least one PIK3CA mutation detectable in their plasma, and we obtained 83.1% agreement between the cfDNA analysis and the corresponding tumors. The high sensitivity and robustness of these new dPCR assays make them well-suited for rapid and cost-effective detection of PIK3CA mutations in the plasma of MBC patients.

Background: The pivotal phase III ASCENT trial demonstrated improved survival outcomes associated with sacituzumab govitecan (SG), an anti-trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (anti-Trop-2) antibody-drug conjugate linked with the topoisomerase-inhibitor SN-38, over single-agent chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). This prespecified, exploratory biomarker analysis from the ASCENT trial evaluates the association between tumor Trop-2 expression and germline BRCA1/2 mutation status with clinical outcomes. Patients and methods: Patients with mTNBC refractory to or progressing after two or more prior chemotherapies, with one or more in the metastatic setting, were randomized to receive SG (10 mg/kg intravenously days 1 and 8, every 21 days) or TPC (capecitabine, eribulin, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine) until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. Biopsy or surgical specimens were collected at study entry to determine Trop-2 expression level using a validated immunohistochemistry assay and histochemical scoring. Germline BRCA1/2 mutation status was collected at baseline. Results: Of 468 assessable patients, 290 had Trop-2 expression data [64% (n = 151 SG) versus 60% (n = 139 TPC)] and 292 had known BRCA1/2 mutation status [63% (n = 149 SG) versus 61% (n = 143 TPC)]. Median progression-free survival in SG- versus TPC-treated patients was 6.9, 5.6, and 2.7 months versus 2.5, 2.2, and 1.6 months for high, medium, and low Trop-2 expression, respectively. Median overall survival (14.2, 14.9, and 9.3 months versus 6.9, 6.9, and 7.6 months) and objective response rates (44%, 38%, and 22% versus 1%, 11%, and 6%) were numerically higher with SG versus TPC in patients with high, medium, and low Trop-2 expression, respectively. Efficacy outcomes were numerically higher with SG versus TPC in patients with and without germline BRCA1/2 mutations. Conclusions: SG benefits patients with previously treated mTNBC expressing high/medium Trop-2 compared with standard-of-care chemotherapy and regardless of germline BRCA1/2 mutation status. The small number of patients with low Trop-2 expression precludes definitive conclusions on the benefit of SG in this subgroup., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Purpose: Genomic signatures, such as EndoPredict®, may help clinicians to decide which adjuvant treatment is the most appropriate. Methods: We propose the EndoPredict® assay for unclear cases of adjuvant treatment in patients treated in our comprehensive cancer center. We prospectively and retrospectively report the decision of adjuvant treatment before and after the EndoPredict® assay, respectively, compared to the PREDICT’s tool scores. Results: From November 2016 to March 2019, 159 breast cancer tumors were analyzed and presented before and after the EndoPredict® assay. Before the EndoPredict® results, clinicians recommended chemotherapy for 57 patients (57/159, 36%). A total of 108 patients (108/159, 68%) were classified as EPclin high-risk score. There was only a slight agreement between clinicians’ decisions and EPclin risk score. The EPclin score led to 37% changes in treatment (59/159); chemotherapy was favored in 80% of cases (47/59). The PREDICT tool recommended chemotherapy for 16 high-risk patients (16/159, 10%). Conclusion: Although genomic tests were developed in order to de-escalate adjuvant treatment, in our comprehensive cancer center the use of the EndoPredict® assay led to an increase in prescribed chemotherapy.

Introduction Resistance to trastuzumab in breast cancer is an ongoing challenge. Clinical and biological effects of co-targeting HER2 and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) in patients with HER2-positive early operable breast cancer via the addition of everolimus to preoperative trastuzumab were evaluated in a phase II randomised study. Methods Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive trastuzumab (4 mg/kg initial dose then 2 mg/kg weekly for 5 weeks) alone or combined with everolimus (10 mg/day for 6 weeks) and then underwent surgery. Tumours were assessed by clinical examination and echography at the baseline and on treatment. The primary end-point was the clinical response rate at 6 weeks. Pathological response and safety were also evaluated. Baseline and surgery tumour samples were assessed by immunohistochemistry and multiplex immunoanalysis for predictive downstream effectors of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR and MAP kinase (MAPK) pathways. Results Eighty-two patients were enrolled, 41 per arm. The clinical response rates were 34.1% and 43.9% with trastuzumab alone and combined with everolimus, respectively. Pathological response rates were 43.6% and 47.5%, respectively. Addition of everolimus increased toxicity, notably mucositis (82.5% versus 5.0%) and rash (57.5% versus 10.0%), but grade III/IV events were rare. No correlation between response to treatments and baseline candidate biomarkers was identified, except for PIK3CA mutations which were found to predict trastuzumab resistance. Significant changes were seen in several MAPK pathway effectors after combination therapy. Conclusions The addition of everolimus did not improve the efficacy, but induced MAPK signalling. Combination therapy to overcome pathway cross-talk should be considered to maximise the effectiveness of trastuzumab in this setting. ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier NCT00674414.

Regenerative nodular hyperplasia (RNH) is an uncommon side effect of trastuzumab entamsine (T-DM1). To our knowledge, 11 cases of histologically proven RNH have been described, most of the time aft...

Background Outcome of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients has improved since the use of trastuzumab. However, most HER2-positive MBC patients will progress within 1 year of trastuzumab-based therapy. Only limited data are available concerning long-term responders. Methods The primary objective of this study was to compare overall survival (OS) of HER2+ MBC patients with long-term response to first-line trastuzumab with overall survival of those with non-long-term response, based on two institutional databases: the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics program and the Breast Database. Long-term responders (LTR) were defined as patients with non-progressive disease for ≥ 2 years on first-line trastuzumab. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), and predictive factors for LTR status. Results From 2004 to 2014, 422 HER2-positive MBC patients received first-line trastuzumab. With a median follow-up of 48 months, median OS and PFS were 63 months (CI95%, 50-71), and 18 months (CI95%, 15-21) respectively. In 111 patients (26.3%) classified as LTR, median OS was 110 months (CI95%, 95-not reached) versus 56 months in non-LTR patients (CI95%, 47-68). In multivariate logistic regressions, the following factors were independently associated with LTR status: number of metastatic sites (≤ 2 versus > 2, p = 0.01); endocrine therapy for metastatic disease (p = 0.001) and taxane-based first-line chemotherapy (p = 0.003). Conclusion Several features are associated with long-term response to trastuzumab: few metastatic sites, taxane-based chemotherapy and maintenance endocrine therapy in HR+ patients. Further studies are needed to identify patients in whom trastuzumab can be stopped after several years of sustained response.

Background: In ER+ HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients, the clinical choice between 1st line hormone therapy (HT, the recommended option) or chemotherapy (CT) is based on the absence of “visceral crisis” or adverse prognostic factors, with no proven/objective criteria. In that context, STIC CTC (NCT01710605) was set up as a strategy trial to test whether circulating tumor cells (CTC) count could help customize the choice between 1st line HT or CT. Methods: For this multicenter phase 3 non-inferiority trial, the main inclusion criteria were: ER+ HER2- MBC with no prior therapy, PS≤2, no contra-indication to HT or CT and informed consent. The a priori treatment choice (HT or CT) and CTC count (CellSearch®) were obtained in all patients prior to randomization. Patients were randomized 1:1 between clinically-driven choice (CTC count not disclosed, HT or CT administered as decided a priori), or a CTC-driven choice (HT if Results: 761 MBC patients were randomized between 02/2012 and 08/2016. Baseline characteristics: 7.8% of patients had a PS=2, 24.1% had a de novo metastatic disease; 63.3% received prior adjuvant HT and 49.9% prior adjuvant CT; 31.3% had ≥3 metastatic sites. A priori treatments (HT or CT) and CTC count (< or ≥5 CTC/7.5ml) were well balanced between the two arms. After randomization, in the clinically-driven arm, N=267 (72.4%) patients received HT and N=102 (27.6%) CT (as decided a priori). In the CTC-driven arm: (1) the a priori choice of HT was confirmed by a low CTC count in N=181 (67.5%) of patients, while N=87 (32.5%) were switched to CT due to a high CTC count; (2) the a priori choice of CT was confirmed by high CTC count in only N=48 (48%) patients, while N=52 (52%) were switched to HT. The primary endpoint was met, PFS being not inferior in the CTC-driven arm (HR=0.98, 90%CI=[0.84–1.13]). Analyses focusing on discordant subgroups showed that for patients with a priori choice of HT but with high CTC count (leading to a switch to CT in the CTC-arm), PFS was significantly longer in the CTC-driven arm than in the standard arm (HR=0.67, 95%CI=[0.49–0.92]; p=0.01), with a non-significant trend toward longer OS (HR=0.68, 95%CI=[0.44–1.07]; p=0.09). Inversely, for patients with a priori choice of CT but with low CTC count (i.e. de-escalation to HT in the CTC arm), PFS was not statistically different between the two arms. Conclusion: This trial demonstrates the clinical utility of CTC count as an objective decision tool when considering 1st line therapy in ER+ HER2- MBC. In most patients, CTC count did confirm the a priori clinical choice; however, trial results show that in discrepant cases, CTC count may be trusted for either escalating (i.e. considering CT in patients if high CTC count) or de-escalating (i.e. considering HT in patients if low CTC count) 1st line therapy. Funding: French National Cancer Institute; Menarini Silicon Biosystems. Citation Format: Bidard F-C, Jacot W, Dureau S, Brain E, Bachelot T, Bourgeois H, Goncalves A, Ladoire S, Naman H, Dalenc F, Gligorov J, Espie M, Levy C, Ferrero J-M, Loirat D, Cottu P, Dieras V, Simondi C, Berger F, Alix-Panabieres C, Pierga J-Y. Clinical utility of circulating tumor cell count as a tool to chose between first line hormone therapy and chemotherapy for ER+ HER2- metastatic breast cancer: Results of the phase III STIC CTC trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS3-07.

Background: Palbociclib (PAL) in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) is a preferred treatment option for untreated and previously treated patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative ABC. Patients with bone only disease could derive prolong disease control with single agent ET. Further understanding the predictive markers for sensitivity to ET alone and P+ET in both endocrine sensitive and resistant settings could help guide clinical treatment sequencing decision. We performed biomarker (BM) analysis of baseline tumor tissues in both PALOMA-2 (P2) and PALOMA-3 (P3) in bone only (BO) vs non-bone (NBO) only patients. Methods: Postmenopausal women (N=666) with no prior systemic therapy for ER+/HER2-ABC were randomized 2:1 to receive PAL+LET or matching placebo (PBO)+LET in P2. In P3 women (N=521) who progressed on prior endocrine therapy were randomized 2:1 to receive PAL+ FUL vs matching PBO+FUL. All pts including those with BO disease had to consent to provide tumor tissues to participate the current study. EdgeSeq Oncology Biomarker Panel (HTG Molecular Diagnostics; Tucson, AZ) was used for mRNA profiling. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the association of BO disease with treatment effect as well as the association of gene expression with treatment effect in BO vs NBO pts. Results: Treatment effect in the BM population from each study was consistent with that observed in the respective ITT population. In ITT population, BO disease was reported in 151 (23%) pts of P2 with mPFS 36.2mo PAL+LET arm (n=103) vs 11.2mo LET arm (n=48), HR=0.40 (0.26-0.62) and in 124 (24%) pts of P3 with mPFS 14.3mo PAL+FUL arm (n=86) vs 9.2mo FUL arm (n=38), HR=0.64(0.38-1.06). BO disease was reported in 107 (24%) pts in P2 and 81 (27%) pts in P3 BM population. In P2, longer mPFS was seen with PAL+ LET vs PBO+LET in BO vs NBO disease (30.6 mo vs 11.2 mo; HR=0.42 (0.25-0.69) in BO pts and 22.1 mo vs 13.8 mo HR=0.67 (0.52-0.88) in NBO pts) although the interaction effect was not statistically significant. Similar results were also observed in P3 with longer mPFS in PAL+FUL vs PBO+FUL in BO vs NBO disease (16.6 mo vs 11.2 mo HR=0.79 (0.40-1.56) in BO pts and 11.1mo vs 3.5 mo HR=0.47 (0.34-0.66) in NBO pts) with insignificant interaction effect. In both studies, BO pts had higher incidence of luminal A disease (BO vs NBO: P2=62% vs 47%; P3=54% vs 40%) and lower rate of luminal B disease (P2=19% vs 33%; P3: 26% vs 33%). In both studies, baseline ESR1, Cyclin E and CDK 4 gene expression level were comparable between BO vs NBO pts. Elevated CDK4 gene expression level was associated with resistance to LET in P2 and lower Cyclin E gene expression predicts the effect of PAL in P3. Conclusion: mPFS was significantly prolonged in BO pts with the addition of PAL to ET. BO disease was more frequently associated with luminal A subtype in ABC setting. CDK4 expression level was similar to NBO disease pts but associated with resistance to single agent LET. Citation Format: Finn RS, Turner NC, Liu Y, Rugo HS, Loibl S, Diéras V, Slamon DJ, André F, Gelmon K, DeMichele A, Loi S, Zhang Z, Giorgetti C, Gauthier E, Huang Bartlett C, Cristofanilli M. Biomarker analysis of CDK 4/6 and endocrine pathways in hormone-receptor positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer (ABC) bone only disease patients: A joint analysis of PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 studies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-18-03.

Background In MONARCH 1 (NCT02102490), abemaciclib demonstrated promising single-agent activity and tolerability in a population of heavily pretreated women with refractory HR+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC).1 Confirmed objective response rate (ORR) was 19.7% (95% CI: 13.3, 27.5) and at 18 months minimum follow-up median overall survival (OS) was 22.3 months. Due to the single-arm trial design of MONARCH 1, there is a need to view these results in clinical context relative to available treatment options. This study compared the OS results of abemaciclib in MONARCH 1 vs that in a real-world single-agent chemotherapy cohort with similar patient and disease characteristics. Methods MONARCH 1 study design and key eligibility criteria were previously described.1 The real-world cohort was based on Flatiron Health electronic health records-derived, nationally representative (USA-based) database comprising patient-level structured and unstructured data, curated via technology-enabled abstraction, for patients with MBC between January 1, 2011 through February 28, 2018. A real-world single-agent chemotherapy cohort was created based on the key eligibility criteria of MONARCH 1 and included patients diagnosed with HR+, HER2- MBC who received single-agent chemotherapy (eribulin, capecitabine, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine) following 1-2 prior chemotherapy regimens in the metastatic setting, had an ECOG PS of 0-1, and no prior CDK4 & 6 therapy. The index date was the start of the eligible single-agent chemotherapy, and patients were followed from the index date until date of death, loss to follow-up, or end of the database, whichever occurred earlier. OS results were adjusted using 2 methods (Mahalanobis distance matching and entropy balancing with bootstrapping) to account for baseline demographic and clinical differences between the real-world and trial cohorts. Results A real-world cohort (n=281) with eligibility criteria similar to the MONARCH 1 population (n=132) was identified. A subsequent matching based on Mahalanobis distance was performed to match MONARCH 1 population (n=108) with the real-world cohort (n=108). The matched cohorts demonstrated similar patient and disease characteristics. Median OS was 22.3 months in the abemaciclib arm vs 13.6 months in the matched cohort with an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.37, 0.77). Results of a sensitivity analysis performed using entropy balancing were consistent with an adjusted median OS of 12.7 months in the real-world cohort (n=281)with HR of 0.57 (95% CI from bootstrapping: 0.44, 0.78). Conclusion Methodological advances to adjust for potential biases, and improvements in data quality, have evolved enabling the ability to leverage a real-world cohort as an external comparator arm. This study demonstrates the ability to create a real-world chemotherapy cohort suitable to serve as a comparator for MONARCH 1. These exploratory results suggest a survival advantage and adequately place the clinical benefit of abemaciclib monotherapy in clinical context. References Dickler et al, CCR 2017 Citation Format: Rugo H, Dieras V, Cortes J, Patt D, Wildiers H, O'Shaughnessy J, Zamora E, Yardley DY, Carter GC, Sheffield KM, Li L, Andre VA, Derbyshire RE, Li XI, Frenzel M, Huang Y-J, Dickler MN, Tolaney SM. Real-world survival of heavily pretreated patients with refractory HR+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer receiving single-agent chemotherapy - A comparison with MONARCH 1 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-18-19.

Background Abemaciclib is a selective CDK4 & 6 inhibitor approved on a continuous dosing schedule for HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC) as monotherapy (MONARCH 1) and in combination with endocrine therapy (ET). A previous Phase 1b (NCT01394016) cohort of HR+ ABC patients (pts) demonstrated efficacy of abemaciclib monotherapy (150mg and 200mg Q12H starting dose); given the small sample size and nonrandomized design the impact of the starting dose was unclear. nextMONARCH 1 (NCT02747004) evaluated abemaciclib in 2 monotherapy arms, in a randomized setting. Abemaciclib has been associated with dose-dependent early onset diarrhea that is well managed with antidiarrheal therapy. nextMONARCH 1 also explored the 200mg Q12H abemaciclib dose in combination with prophylactic loperamide to reduce incidence/severity of diarrhea and dose adjustments. A third arm evaluated abemaciclib + tamoxifen as a strategy to overcome endocrine resistance. Methods nextMONARCH 1 is a multicenter, randomized, open-label, Phase 2 study of abemaciclib or abemaciclib + tamoxifen in women with HR+, HER2- ABC who have progressed on or after prior ET and previously received chemotherapy. Pts were stratified by presence of liver metastases and prior use of tamoxifen in the advanced setting. Randomization was 1:1:1 to abemaciclib 150mg Q12H + daily tamoxifen 20mg (Arm A) or abemaciclib 150mg Q12H (Arm B); or abemaciclib 200mg Q12H + prophylactic loperamide (Arm C). Key eligibilities were ≥2 chemotherapy regimens (1-2 administered in metastatic setting), measurable disease and no prior treatment with CDK4 & 6 inhibitors. Primary objective was progression free survival (PFS). Key secondary objectives included objective response rate (ORR), dclinical benefit rate (CBR), and safety. PFS analysis tested superiority of Arm A to C at ∼110 events across the 2 arms assuming a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.667 to achieve ∼80% power. Arm B would be considered non-inferior to Arm C if the observed PFS HR is Results 234 pts were randomized to Arms A (n=78), B (n=79) and C (n=77). 166 PFS events have been observed (A: 57; B: 54; C: 55). Median PFS was 9.1 months in Arm A, 6.5 in Arm B and 7.4 in Arm C (A vs C: HR=.815, 95% CI, .556-1.193, p=.293; B vs C: HR=1.045, 95% CI, .711-1.535 p=.811). Investigator-assessed ORR was 34.6%, 24.1% and 32.5% (confirmed ORR: 25.6%, 19.0%, 28.6%) and CBR was 61.5%, 49.4% and 51.9% in Arms A, B and C, respectively. Prophylactic loperamide reduced the incidence and severity of diarrhea (C: 62.3%, Gr 3: 7.8%) compared to MONARCH 1 (90.2%, Gr 3: 19.7%, Dickler et al. 2017) resulting in similar rates of diarrhea with 150mg abemaciclib without prophylaxis (A: 53.8%, Gr 3: 1.3%; B: 67.1%, Gr 3: 3.8%). The adverse event profile across arms was generally consistent with other breast studies of abemaciclib. Conclusions nextMONARCH 1 confirmed single-agent activity of abemaciclib in heavily pretreated pts with HR+, HER2- ABC. Efficacy of abemaciclib monotherapy at 150mg was similar to 200mg. Combining tamoxifen with abemaciclib did not demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in PFS compared to abemaciclib monotherapy. Addition of prophylactic loperamide to abemaciclib 200mg resulted in diarrhea similar to 150mg without prophylaxis. Citation Format: Hamilton E, Cortes J, Dieras V, Ozyilkan O, Chen S-C, Petrakova K, Manikhas A, Jerusalem G, Hegg R, Lu Y, Bear MM, Johnston EL, Martin M. nextMONARCH 1: Phase 2 study of abemaciclib plus tamoxifen or abemaciclib alone in HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD1-11.

Background: The Phase III IMpassion130 study (NCT02425891) evaluated atezolizumab (anti–PD-L1) + nab-paclitaxel (nabPx) vs placebo + nabPx as first-line treatment for pts with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The study met its co-primary PFS endpoint in ITT pts and in pts with PD-L1 ≥1% on tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC+). Clinically meaningful OS benefit was seen at interim OS analysis, notably in pts with PD-L1 IC+ tumors (Table). Here we report exploratory efficacy data in immunologically and clinically relevant, biomarker-defined subgroups. Methods: Pts had histologically documented metastatic or unresectable locally advanced TNBC (evaluated locally per ASCO-CAP). Pts were randomized 1:1 to nabPx 100 mg/m2 IV (d1, 8 and 15 of a 28-d cycle) + atezolizumab 840 mg IV q2w or placebo (A-nabPx or P-nabPx) until progression or toxicity. Exploratory biomarkers were centrally analyzed: PD-L1 on tumor cells (TC) by VENTANA SP142 IHC assay, intratumoral CD8 by IHC, stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs), BRCA1/2 mutational status and ER/PR/HER2 status. Results: PD-L1 IC was highly predictive of A-nabPx efficacy (Table). The majority of PD-L1 TC+ tumors were also PD-L1 IC+. Intratumoral CD8, but not sTILs, were well correlated with PD-L1 IC. Consequently, CD8 was predictive of A-nabPx efficacy for PFS/OS, while sTILs only predicted PFS benefit. Local vs central TNBC assessment was concordant in most pts. Local vs central lab–defined TNBC populations derived similar benefit from A-nabPx. Efficacy by BRCA status will be presented to evaluate the benefits of immunotherapy for this subgroup. Conclusions: Exploratory efficacy analyses from IMpassion130 suggest consistency between local and central ER/PR/HER2 testing and that PD-L1 IC is the most robust predictive biomarker for selecting untreated mTNBC pts who benefit from A-nabPx. PopulationA-nabPxP-nabPxPrimary data, stratifiedITT, n451451mPFS (95% CI), mo7.2 (5.6-7.5)5.5 (5.3-5.6)PFS HR (95% CI)0.80 (0.69-0.92); P=0.0025mOS (95% CI), mo21.3 (17.3-23.4)17.6 (15.9-20.0)OS HR (95% CI)0.84 (0.69-1.02); P=0.0840PD-L1 IC+, n (%)185 (41%)184 (41%)mPFS (95% CI), mo7.5 (6.7-9.2)5.0 (3.8-5.6)PFS HR (95% CI)0.62 (0.49-0.78); P Citation Format: Emens LA, Loi S, Rugo HS, Schneeweiss A, Diéras V, Iwata H, Barrios CH, Nechaeva M, Molinero L, Nguyen Duc A, Funke R, Chui SY, Husain A, Winer EP, Adams S, Schmid P. IMpassion130: Efficacy in immune biomarker subgroups from the global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study of atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel in patients with treatment-naïve, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS1-04.

Unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative (hormone-receptor-negative and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]-negative) breast cancer is an aggressive disease with poor outcomes. Nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel may enhance the anticancer activity of atezolizumab.In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) patients with untreated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer to receive atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel or placebo plus nab-paclitaxel; patients continued the intervention until disease progression or an unacceptable level of toxic effects occurred. Stratification factors were the receipt or nonreceipt of neoadjuvant or adjuvant taxane therapy, the presence or absence of liver metastases at baseline, and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression at baseline (positive vs. negative). The two primary end points were progression-free survival (in the intention-to-treat population and PD-L1-positive subgroup) and overall survival (tested in the intention-to-treat population; if the finding was significant, then it would be tested in the PD-L1-positive subgroup).Each group included 451 patients (median follow-up, 12.9 months). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the median progression-free survival was 7.2 months with atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel, as compared with 5.5 months with placebo plus nab-paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 0.92; P=0.002); among patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, the median progression-free survival was 7.5 months and 5.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.78; P0.001). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the median overall survival was 21.3 months with atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel and 17.6 months with placebo plus nab-paclitaxel (hazard ratio for death, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.02; P=0.08); among patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, the median overall survival was 25.0 months and 15.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.86). No new adverse effects were identified. Adverse events that led to the discontinuation of any agent occurred in 15.9% of the patients who received atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel and in 8.2% of those who received placebo plus nab-paclitaxel.Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel prolonged progression-free survival among patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in both the intention-to-treat population and the PD-L1-positive subgroup. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of each agent. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; IMpassion130 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02425891 .).

Patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer have a poor prognosis. Sacituzumab govitecan is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an antibody targeting the human trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (Trop-2), which is expressed in the majority of breast cancers, coupled to SN-38 (topoisomerase I inhibitor) through a proprietary hydrolyzable linker.In this randomized, phase 3 trial, we evaluated sacituzumab govitecan as compared with single-agent chemotherapy of the physician's choice (eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine) in patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. The primary end point was progression-free survival (as determined by blinded independent central review) among patients without brain metastases.A total of 468 patients without brain metastases were randomly assigned to receive sacituzumab govitecan (235 patients) or chemotherapy (233 patients). The median age was 54 years; all the patients had previous use of taxanes. The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3 to 6.3; 166 events) with sacituzumab govitecan and 1.7 months (95% CI, 1.5 to 2.6; 150 events) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.52; P0.001). The median overall survival was 12.1 months (95% CI, 10.7 to 14.0) with sacituzumab govitecan and 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.8 to 7.7) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.59; P0.001). The percentage of patients with an objective response was 35% with sacituzumab govitecan and 5% with chemotherapy. The incidences of key treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (51% with sacituzumab govitecan and 33% with chemotherapy), leukopenia (10% and 5%), diarrhea (10% and1%), anemia (8% and 5%), and febrile neutropenia (6% and 2%). There were three deaths owing to adverse events in each group; no deaths were considered to be related to sacituzumab govitecan treatment.Progression-free and overall survival were significantly longer with sacituzumab govitecan than with single-agent chemotherapy among patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Myelosuppression and diarrhea were more frequent with sacituzumab govitecan. (Funded by Immunomedics; ASCENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02574455; EudraCT number, 2017-003019-21.).

The introduction of trastuzumab and other subsequent human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted therapies dramatically shifted the treatment landscape of HER2+ breast cancer, changing the natural history of the disease. There is no standard-of-care for patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in third and later lines of treatment; however, continued use of anti-HER2 therapies is recommended. Small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that target HER2 and other HER family receptors play a central role in this setting. TKIs have demonstrated various degrees of efficacy against central nervous system (CNS) metastases, which are a major clinical challenge for patients with HER2+ MBC. The TKIs lapatinib, neratinib, and tucatinib have received regulatory approval for the treatment of HER2+ MBC, while pyrotinib and afatinib have been evaluated in this setting. These TKIs vary by molecular weight, HER protein specificity and reversibility of binding and in turn have unique safety profiles. Toxicities reported in clinical trials of TKIs in HER2+ MBC that may require specific management strategies include diarrhoea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome and rash. Here, we review the efficacy data, including CNS activity, and the safety profiles of the TKIs, and we provide guidance on adverse event management. Finally, we discuss how to incorporate the TKIs into the HER2+ MBC treatment algorithm.

Background High Body mass index (BMI) is a risk factor for breast cancer among postmenopausal women and an adverse prognostic factor in early-stage. Little is known about its impact on clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods The National ESME-MBC observational cohort includes all consecutive patients newly diagnosed with MBC between Jan 2008 and Dec 2016 in the 18 French comprehensive cancer centers. Results Of 22 463 patients in ESME-MBC, 12 999 women had BMI data available at MBC diagnosis. Median BMI was 24.9 kg/m2 (range 12.1–66.5); 20% of women were obese and 5% underweight. Obesity was associated with more de novo MBC, while underweight patients had more aggressive cancer features. Median overall survival (OS) of the BMI cohort was 47.4 months (95% CI [46.2–48.5]) (median follow-up: 48.6 months). Underweight was independently associated with a worse OS (median OS 33 months; HR 1.14, 95%CI, 1.02–1.27) and first line progression-free survival (HR, 1.11; 95%CI, 1.01; 1.22), while overweight or obesity had no effect. Conclusion Overweight and obesity are not associated with poorer outcomes in women with metastatic disease, while underweight appears as an independent adverse prognostic factor., Highlights • This is the first large multicenter cohort reporting BMI’s effect on outcomes among patients with metastatic breast cancer. • Overweight or obese status does not negatively influence outcome of metastatic breast cancer patients, whatever the subtype. • Underweight is a strong negative independent prognostic factor on outcomes, whatever the subtype.

Background Treatment strategies for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have made great strides over the past 10 years. Real-world data allow us to evaluate the actual benefit of new treatments. ESME (Epidemio-Strategy-Medico-Economical)-MBC, a nationwide observational cohort (NCT03275311), gathers data of all consecutive MBC patients who initiated their treatment in 18 French Cancer Centres since 2008. Patients and methods We evaluated overall survival (OS) in the whole cohort (N = 20 446) and among subtypes: hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor 2 negative (HR+/HER2−; N = 13 590), HER2+ (N = 3919), and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC; N = 2937). We performed multivariable analyses including year of MBC diagnosis as one of the covariates, to assess the potential OS improvement over time, and we described exposure to newly released drugs at any time during MBC history by year of diagnosis (YOD). Results The median follow-up of the whole cohort was 65.5 months (95% CI 64.6-66.7). Year of metastatic diagnosis appears as a strong independent prognostic factor for OS [Year 2016 HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.82-0.97); P = 0.009, using 2008 as reference]. This effect is driven by the HER2+ subcohort, where it is dramatic [Year 2016 HR 0.52 (95% CI 0.42-0.66); P < 0.001, using 2008 as reference]. YOD had, however, no sustained impact on OS among patients with TNBC [Year 2016 HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.77-1.11); P = 0.41, using 2008 as reference] nor among those with HR+/HER2– MBC [Year 2016 HR 1.02 (95% CI 0.91-1.13); P = 0.41, using 2008 as reference]. While exposure to newly released anti-HER2 therapies appeared very high (e.g. >70% of patients received pertuzumab from 2016 onwards), use of everolimus or eribulin was recorded in less than one-third of HR+/HER2– and TNBC cohorts, respectively, whatever YOD. Conclusion OS has dramatically improved among HER2+ MBC patients, probably in association with the release of several major HER2-directed therapies, whose penetrance was high. This trend was not observed in the other subtypes, but the impact of CDK4/6 inhibitors cannot yet be assessed., Highlights • OS of HER2+ MBC patients keeps improving over time [Year 2016 HR 0.52 (95% CI 0.42-0.66); P < 0.001, using 2008 as reference]. • This effect seems timely related to the release of drugs demonstrated to improve survival in clinical trials. • OS gains observed in real life among HER2+ MBC patients are at least equivalent to those observed in clinical trials. • YOD had no sustained impact on OS among patients with TNBC and luminal MBC. • The impact of CDK4/6 inhibitors cannot yet be assessed in this cohort.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1 or BRCA2-mutated breast cancers are sensitive to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and platinum agents owing to deficiency in homologous recombination repair of DNA damage. In this trial, we compared veliparib versus placebo in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel, and continued as monotherapy if carboplatin and paclitaxel were discontinued before progression, in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.METHODS: BROCADE3 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 147 hospitals in 36 countries. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had deleterious germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation-associated, histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced HER2-negative breast cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had received up to two previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) by interactive response technology by means of permuted blocks within strata (block size of 3 or 6) to carboplatin (area under the concentration curve 6 mg/mL per min intravenously) on day 1 and paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 intravenously) on days 1, 8, and 15 of 21-day cycles combined with either veliparib (120 mg orally twice daily, on days -2 to 5) or matching placebo. If patients discontinued carboplatin and paclitaxel before progression, they could continue veliparib or placebo at an intensified dose (300 mg twice daily continuously, escalating to 400 mg twice daily if tolerated) until disease progression. Patients in the control group could receive open-label veliparib monotherapy after disease progression. Randomisation was stratified by previous platinum use, history of CNS metastases, and oestrogen and progesterone receptor status. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat, which included all randomly assigned patients with a centrally confirmed BRCA mutation, and safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of velilparib or placebo. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02163694.FINDINGS: Between July 30, 2014, and Jan 17, 2018, 2202 patients were screened, of whom 513 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. In the intention-to-treat population (n=509), 337 patients were assigned to receive veliparib plus carboplatin-paclitaxel (veliparib group) and 172 were assigned to receive placebo plus carboplatin-paclitaxel (control group). Median follow-up at data cutoff (April 5, 2019) was 35·7 months (IQR 24·9-43·6) in the veliparib group and 35·5 months (23·1-45·9) in the control group. Median progression-free survival was 14·5 months (95% CI 12·5-17·7) in the veliparib group versus 12·6 months (10·6-14·4) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·71 [95% CI 0·57-0·88], p=0·0016). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (272 [81%] of 336 patients in the veliparib group vs 143 [84%] of 171 patients in the control group), anaemia (142 [42%] vs 68 [40%]), and thrombocytopenia (134 [40%] vs 48 [28%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 115 (34%) patients in the veliparib group versus 49 (29%) patients in the control group. There were no study drug-related deaths.INTERPRETATION: The addition of veliparib to a highly active platinum doublet, with continuation as monotherapy if the doublet were discontinued, resulted in significant and durable improvement in progression-free survival in patients with germline BRCA mutation-associated advanced breast cancer. These data indicate the utility of combining platinum and PARP inhibitors in this patient population.FUNDING: AbbVie.

Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) often require inpatient palliative care (IPC). However, mounting evidence suggests age-related disparities in palliative care delivery. This study aimed to assess the cumulative incidence function (CIF) of IPC delivery, as well as the influence of age.The national ESME (Epidemio-Strategy-Medical-Economical)-MBC cohort includes consecutive MBC patients treated in 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centres. ICD-10 palliative care coding was used for IPC identification.Our analysis included 12,375 patients, 5093 (41.2%) of whom were aged 65 or over. The median follow-up was 41.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 40.5-42.5). The CIF of IPC was 10.3% (95% CI, 10.2-10.4) and 24.8% (95% CI, 24.7-24.8) at 2 and 8 years, respectively. At 2 years, among triple-negative patients, young patients (65 yo) had a higher CIF of IPC than older patients after adjusting for cancer characteristics, centre and period (65+/65: β = -0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.01). Among other tumour sub-types, older patients received short-term IPC more frequently than young patients (65+/65: β = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03). At 8 years, outside large centres, IPC was delivered less frequently to older patients adjusted to cancer characteristics and period (65+/65: β = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.06 to -0.01).We found a relatively low CIF of IPC and that age influenced IPC delivery. Young triple-negative and older non-triple-negative patients needed more short-term IPCs. Older patients diagnosed outside large centres received less long-term IPC. These findings highlight the need for a wider implementation of IPC facilities and for more age-specific interventions.