Search

Background: HER2-targeted treatments have improved outcomes in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic settings; however, some patients remain at risk of relapse or death for many years after treatment of early-stage disease. Therefore, new strategies are needed. We did a phase 3 trial to assess a neoadjuvant regimen for HER2-positive breast cancer that replaces traditional systemic chemotherapy with targeted treatment.Methods: We did a randomised, open-label phase 3 KRISTINE trial in 68 Translational Research In Oncology centres (hospitals and specialty cancer centres in Asia, Europe, USA, and Canada). Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with centrally confirmed HER2-positive stage II-III operable breast cancer (>2 cm tumour size), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and a baseline left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55% (by echocardiogram or multiple-gated acquisition scan). We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive either trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab. We did the randomisation via an interactive response system under a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size of four), stratified by hormone receptor status, stage at diagnosis, and geographical location. Patients received six cycles (every 3 weeks) of neoadjuvant trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab (trastuzumab emtansine 3·6 mg/kg; pertuzumab 840 mg loading dose, 420 mg maintenance doses) or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab (docetaxel 75 mg/m2; carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve 6 mg/mL × min; trastuzumab 8 mg/kg loading dose, 6 mg/kg maintenance doses) plus pertuzumab [same dosing as in the other group]). All treatments were administered intravenously. The primary objective was to compare the number of patients who achieved a pathological complete response (ypT0/is, ypN0), between groups in the intention-to-treat population (two-sided assessment), based on local evaluation of tumour samples taken at breast cancer surgery done between 14 days and 6 weeks after completion of neoadjuvant therapy. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02131064, and follow-up of the adjuvant phase is ongoing.Findings: Between June 25, 2014, and June 15, 2015, we randomly assigned 444 patients to neoadjuvant treatment with trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab (n=223) or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab (n=221). A pathological complete response was achieved by 99 (44·4%) of 223 patients in the trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab group and 123 (55·7%) of 221 patients in the docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab group (absolute difference -11·3 percentage points, 95% CI -20·5 to -2·0; p=0·016). During neoadjuvant treatment, compared with patients receiving docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab, fewer patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab had a grade 3-4 adverse event (29 [13%] of 223 vs 141 [64%] of 219) or a serious adverse event (11 [5%] of 223 vs 63 [29%] of 219). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab group were decreased platelet count (three [1%] of 223 patients vs 11 [5%] of 219 with docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab), fatigue (three [1%] vs seven [3%]), alanine aminotransferase increase (three [1%] vs four [2%]), and hypokalaemia (three [1%] vs five [2%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab group were neutropenia (55 [25%] of 219 vs one [<1%] of 223 with trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab), diarrhoea (33 [15%] vs 2 [<1%]), and febrile neutropenia (33 [15%] vs 0). No deaths were reported during neoadjuvant treatment.Interpretation: Traditional neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy plus dual HER2-targeted blockade (docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab) resulted in significantly more patients achieving a pathological complete response than HER2-targeted chemotherapy plus HER2-targeted blockade (trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab); however, numerically more grade 3-4 and serious adverse events occurred in the chemotherapy plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab group. Further efforts to improve the efficacy of chemotherapy without imparting more toxicity are warranted.Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose.—: To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline., Methods.—: A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature., Recommendations.—: The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

In the past 5 years, a number of commercialized multigene prognostic and predictive tests have entered the complex and expanding landscape of breast cancer companion diagnostics. These tests have used a variety of formats ranging from the familiar slide-based assays of immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization to the nonmorphology-driven molecular platforms of quantitative multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction and genomic microarray profiling. In this review, 14 multigene assays are evaluated as to their scientific validation, current clinical utility, regulatory approval status, and estimated cost-benefit ratio. Emphasis is placed on two tests: oncotype DX and MammaPrint. Current evidence indicates that the oncotype DX test has the advantages of earlier commercial launch, wide acceptance for payment by third-party payors in the U.S., ease of use of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues, recent listing by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Tumor Markers Update Committee as recommended for use, continuous scoring system algorithm, ability to serve as both a prognostic test and predictive test for certain hormonal and chemotherapeutic agents, demonstrated cost-effectiveness in one published study, and a high accrual rate for the prospective validation clinical trial (Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment). The MammaPrint assay has the advantages of a 510(k) clearance by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a larger gene number, which may enhance further utility, and a potentially wider patient eligibility, including lymph node-positive, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, and younger patients being accrued into the prospective trial (Microarray in Node-Negative Disease May Avoid Chemotherapy). A number of other assays have specific predictive goals that are most often focused on the efficacy of tamoxifen in ER-positive patients, such as the two-gene ratio test and the cytochrome P450 CYP2D6 genotyping assay.