Search

In this study, overall survival of patients with metastatic lobular breast cancer was compared with overall survival in those with ductal breast cancer. The Epidemiological Strategy and Medico Economics (ESME) data platform was used to extract a cohort of 13,111 patients who met inclusion criteria. A multivariable analysis and matching with a propensity score were used to adjust the main prognostic factors. Comparison of first-line PFS was a secondary objective. Overall survival was worse for patients with metastatic lobular breast cancer (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.20-1.42; P<0.0001) as was PFS1 (HR 1.15; 95% CI 1.07-1.22; P<0.0001) compared to those with ductal breast cancer. Overall survival was similar in patients with hormone receptor-positive lobular and ductal cancers (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.67-1.15; P=0.3455) compared with patients with invasive ductal carcinoma. Overall survival was worse (HR 1.17; 95% CI 1.08-1.27; P=0.0001) in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The APHINITY trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01358877) previously demonstrated that pertuzumab added to adjuvant trastuzumab and chemotherapy improved invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) for patients with early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC). Here, we report the preplanned third interim analysis of overall survival (OS) and a descriptive updated iDFS analysis with 8.4 years of median follow-up of 4,804 patients in the intent-to-treat population. The 8-year OS was 92.7% in the pertuzumab versus 92.0% in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.02]; P = .078, above the 0.006 significance threshold). The HR was 0.80 [95% CI 0.63 to 1.00] in the node-positive cohort and 0.99 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.55] in the node-negative cohort. Updated results of 8-year iDFS in the node-positive cohort showed an absolute improvement of 4.9% favoring pertuzumab (86.1% v 81.2%; HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.87]). The node-negative cohort did well without adding pertuzumab (8-year iDFS and OS in the placebo group were 93.3% and 96.4%, respectively). The iDFS benefit was seen in the hormone receptor-negative (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.06]) and HR+ cohorts (HR of 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.92]). Despite improvement in overall iDFS, the addition of pertuzumab did not improve OS at this third interim analysis.

What Is This Summary About?: This is a summary of the article discussing the results of the CAPItello-291 study. In the study, participants had advanced breast cancer that could not be completely removed with surgery, and that was diagnosed as a type of breast cancer where tumor cells had hormone receptors (HR-positive) but did not have HER2 receptors (HER2-negative). All participants were also required to have previously received treatment with a type of therapy called an aromatase inhibitor (with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor), but over time their cancer cells had still grown or spread. The CAPItello-291 study researchers wanted to find out if a treatment combination of the medications capivasertib plus fulvestrant worked better than placebo plus fulvestrant. Capivasertib is a drug that blocks the activity of a protein called AKT, which is found inside breast cancer cells., What Are the Key Takeaways?: The main finding was that participants who took capivasertib plus fulvestrant lived longer without their disease getting worse (progressing) compared with those treated with placebo plus fulvestrant. This is called progression-free survival. This result was seen across all participants (median progression-free survival of 7.2 months with capivasertib plus fulvestrant vs 3.6 months with placebo plus fulvestrant). It was also seen in participants whose tumors had detectable genetic alterations in genes called PIK3CA, AKT1, and/ or PTEN (median progression-free survival of 7.3 months with capivasertib plus fulvestrant vs 3.1 months with placebo plus fulvestrant). The most common side effects experienced by participants included diarrhea and different types of rash. These were as expected (given how capivasertib works). The CAPItello-291 study is still ongoing, and more results are expected to be released in the future., What Were the Main Conclusions Reported by the Researchers?: Results from the CAPItello-291 study showed that capivasertib plus fulvestrant compared with placebo plus fulvestrant improved progression-free survival in participants with HR-positive/ HER2-negative advanced breast cancer whose cancer had grown or spread despite hormone therapy (with/without a CDK4/6 inhibitor). Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04305496 (CAPItello-291) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Background: Fatigue, cognitive impairment, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbance are cancer-related behavioral symptoms (CRBS) that may persist years after early-stage breast cancer (BC), affecting quality of life. We aimed at generating a predictive model of long-term CRBS clusters among BC survivors four years post-diagnosis., Methods: Patients with early-stage BC were included from the CANcer TOxicity (NCT01993498). Our outcome was the proportion of patients reporting CRBS clusters four years post-diagnosis (≥3 severe CRBS). Predictors, including clinical, behavioral, and treatment-related characteristics, Behavioral Symptoms Score (BSS; 1 point per severe CRBS at diagnosis) and a pro-inflammatory cytokine (IL-1b, IL-6, TNFα)-genetic risk score, were tested using multivariable logistic regression, implementing bootstrapped Augmented Backwards Elimination. A two-sided p-value < 0.05 defined statistical significance., Results: In the development cohort (N = 3555), 642 patients (19.0%) reported a cluster of CRBS at diagnosis and 755 (21.2%) did so four years post-diagnosis. Younger age (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] for 1-year decrement: 1.012; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.003-1.020); previous psychiatric disorders (aOR vs no: 1.27; 95% CI 1.01-1.60); and BSS (aOR ranged from 2.17 [1.66-2.85] for BSS = 1 vs 0 to 12.3 [7.33-20.87] for BSS = 5 vs 0) were predictors of reporting a cluster of CRBS (AUC 0.73 [95%CI 0.71-0.75]). Genetic risk score was not predictive of CRBS. Results were confirmed in the validation cohort (N = 1533)., Conclusion: Younger patients with previous psychiatric disorders and higher baseline symptom burden have greater risk of long-term clusters of CRBS. Our model might be implemented in clinical pathways to improve management and test the effectiveness of risk mitigation interventions among breast cancer survivors., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The TROPiCS-02 study (NCT03901339) demonstrated that sacituzumab govitecan (SG) has superior clinical outcomes over treatment of physician's choice (TPC) chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2 receptor-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Here, we present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) patient-reported outcome (PRO) findings from this study., Patients and Methods: Eligible adults with HR+/HER2- mBC who previously received a taxane, endocrine-based therapy, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and 2-4 lines of chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to receive SG or TPC until progression or unacceptable toxicity. PROs were assessed at baseline and on day 1 of each cycle, using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), EQ-5D-5L, and PRO Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)., Results: Compared to TPC, overall least square mean change from baseline was significantly better for SG for physical functioning and dyspnea, but worse for diarrhea. Time to first clinically meaningful worsening or death was significantly longer for SG in global health status/quality of life, physical functioning, fatigue, emotional functioning, dyspnea, insomnia, and financial difficulties of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EQ-VAS, but longer for TPC in diarrhea. Few patients in both arms reported experiencing any worsening to level 3 or 4 treatment-related symptomatic events during treatment, as assessed by 16 PRO-CTCAE items, except for diarrhea frequency and amount of hair loss, which favored TPC., Conclusions: SG was associated with an HRQoL benefit in most symptoms and functioning, compared with TPC. This supports the favorable profile of SG as a treatment option for patients with pretreated HR+/HER2- mBC., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Capivasertib is a potent, selective pan-AKT inhibitor. In CAPItello-291, the addition of capivasertib to fulvestrant resulted in a statistically significant (P < 0.001) improvement in progression-free survival over fulvestrant monotherapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer and disease progression on or after aromatase inhibitor-based therapy. Characterization of the capivasertib-fulvestrant adverse event (AE) profile as managed in CAPItello-291 can inform future management guidance and optimize clinical benefit., Patients and Methods: Seven hundred and eight patients were randomized 1 : 1 to capivasertib (400 mg twice daily; 4 days on, 3 days off) or placebo, plus fulvestrant, on a 4-week cycle. Dose reductions/interruptions for capivasertib/placebo were permitted (up to two dose reductions). Safety analyses included exposure, AE, and clinical laboratory data and were conducted in patients who received at least one dose of capivasertib, fulvestrant, or placebo. Frequent AEs associated with phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase (AKT) pathway inhibition (diarrhea, rash, hyperglycemia) were characterized using group terms. AEs were summarized using descriptive statistics; time-to-event analyses were conducted., Results: Safety analyses included 705 patients: capivasertib-fulvestrant (n = 355) and placebo-fulvestrant (n = 350). Frequent any-grade AEs with capivasertib-fulvestrant were diarrhea (72.4%), rash (38.0%), and nausea (34.6%); frequent grade ≥3 AEs were rash (12.1%), diarrhea (9.3%), and hyperglycemia (2.3%). Diarrhea, rash, and hyperglycemia occurred shortly after starting capivasertib-fulvestrant [median days to onset (interquartile range) of any grade: 8 (2-22), 12 (10-15), and 15 (1-51), respectively], and were managed with supportive medications, dose reductions, interruptions, and/or discontinuation. Discontinuation rates were 2.0%, 4.5%, and 0.3%, respectively. Overall, 13.0% discontinued capivasertib due to AEs., Conclusions: Frequent AEs associated with PI3K/AKT pathway inhibition occurred early and were manageable. The low rate of treatment discontinuations suggests that, when appropriately managed, these AEs do not pose a challenge to clinical benefit., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

For patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) progressed on first-line endocrine therapy plus a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i), fulvestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) administered intramuscularly, represented the only monotherapy option until the approval of elacestrant. This oral SERD has been approved for patients with ESR1-mutant HR+/HER2- mBC by the European Medicines Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, according to the results of the randomized phase III EMERALD trial, which demonstrated elacestrant superiority over standard endocrine monotherapy. Consequently, elacestrant has been incorporated in the European Society for Medical Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines. However, in Europe, the access to this recommended drug depends on the decision of the National Health Authorities of each state. In this communication, we describe the main results and implications of the EMERALD trial, in the context of the biomarker-driven algorithm for patients with HR+/HER2- mBC progressed on CDK4/6i, and conclude that a subgroup of patients with ESR1-mutant tumors and specific clinical features can really derive a clinically meaningful benefit from elacestrant, sparing access to more toxic combination approaches and preserving the quality of life., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: CAPItello-291 is an ongoing phase 3 trial in which capivasertib-fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo-fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after aromatase inhibitor treatment, in both the overall population and in patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. This study further explored patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functioning, symptoms, and symptom tolerability in CAPItello-291., Methods: This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, which was conducted across 193 hospitals and cancer centres in 19 countries, enrolled women with any menopausal status or men, aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Japan), with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4 or 6 inhibitor therapy. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/WHO performance score of 0 or 1 and could have received up to two previous lines of endocrine therapy and up to one previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using block randomisation (stratified according to the presence or absence of liver metastases, previous use of a CDK4/6 inhibitor [yes vs no], and geographical region) to receive oral capivasertib 400 mg (twice daily for 4 days, followed by 3 days off) plus intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (every 14 days for the first three injections, then every 28 days) or placebo with matching fulvestrant dosing. The dual primary endpoint of the trial was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module (QLQ-C30) and breast module (QLQ-BR23), Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Patient Global Impression of Treatment Tolerability (PGI-TT) questionnaires were used to assess patient-reported outcomes. Evaluation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 were secondary endpoints and evaluation of PRO-CTCAE and PGI-TT were pre-defined exploratory endpoints, and these endpoints are the subject of analysis in this Article. Data were collected at baseline and prespecified timepoints. Patient-reported outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients with an evaluable baseline assessment and at least one evaluable post-baseline assessment. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed model with repeated measures for EORTC QLQ-C30 and summarised for QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration was described using the Kaplan-Meier method. PGI-TT and PRO-CTCAE responses were summarised at each treatment cycle. Patient-reported outcomes were not prospectively powered for statistical comparison. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04305496., Findings: Between June 2, 2020, and Oct 13, 2021, 901 patients were enrolled, of whom 708 patients were randomly assigned to receive capivasertib-fulvestrant (n=355) or placebo-fulvestrant (n=353). The median age of the patients was 59 years (IQR 51-67) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 58 years (IQR 49-66) in the placebo-fulvestrant group. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2022), the median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival in censored patients was 13·0 months (IQR 9·1-16·7) for capivasertib-fulvestrant and 12·7 months (IQR 2·0-16·4) for placebo-fulvestrant in the overall population. EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL) scores were maintained from baseline and were similar between treatment groups throughout the study period (difference in mean change from baseline of -2·5 [95% CI -4·5 to -0·6] with capivasertib-fulvestrant vs -5·6 [-7·9 to -3·4] with placebo-fulvestrant; treatment difference 3·1 [95% CI 0·2 to 6·0]). Median time to deterioration in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL was 24·9 months (95% CI 13·8 to not reached) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 12·0 months (10·2 to 15·7) in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·53 to 0·92). Time to deterioration HRs for all EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 subscale scores showed little difference between the treatment groups, except for diarrhoea, which was worse in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group (HR 2·75, 95% CI 2·01-3·81). In PRO-CTCAE symptom assessment, the proportion of patients reporting loose and watery stools "frequently" or "almost constantly" was 29% higher at cycle 1, day 15 in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group, decreasing at subsequent cycles. Other PRO-CTCAE-reported symptoms (rash, mouth or throat sores, itchy skin, and numbness or tingling in hands or feet) were absent or mild in most patients in both groups throughout treatment. According to the PGI-TT, most patients in both groups reported "not at all" or "a little bit" of bother from treatment side-effects., Interpretation: Patient-reported outcomes from CAPItello-291 demonstrated that capivasertib-fulvestrant delayed time to deterioration of GHS/QOL and maintained other dimensions of HRQOL (except symptoms of diarrhoea) similarly to fulvestrant. With the clinical efficacy and manageable safety profile, these exploratory results further support the positive benefit-risk profile of capivasertib-fulvestrant in this population., Funding: AstraZeneca., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MOl has received honoraria from Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Libbs, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, AstraZeneca Taiwan, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Seagen, Zenith Epigenetics, Gilead Sciences, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, and Genentech; has received travel grants from Eisai and Gilead Sciences; has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, ITeos Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Relay Therapeutics, Roche, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre; and serves as the head on the board of directors for the SOLTI Breast Cancer Research Group. HSR has served as a consultant or advisor for Napo Pharmaceuticals, Puma Biotechnology, Mylan, Eisai, and Daiichi Sankyo, and has received research funding from OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Astellas Pharma, Taiho Oncology, Veru, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, and Stemline Therapeutics. SJH has received institutional grants from Eli Lilly; has served as a consultant for Pfizer; has received payments to their institution per patient from AstraZeneca (study sponsor); has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Eli Lilly; has received honoraria from Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and AstraZeneca; and has received support for attending meetings and travel from Novartis. FD has received honoraria from Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, and AstraZeneca and has received travel grants from Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Gilead Sciences, and Pfizer. JC has served as a consultant or advisor for Celgene, Cellestia Biotech, AstraZeneca, Roche, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, ERYTECH Pharma, Polyphor, Athenex Oncology, Eli Lilly, SERVIER, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, Leuko, Clovis Oncology, Bioasis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, HiberCell, Bioinvent, GEMoaB Monoclonals, Gilead Sciences, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal Genomics, Expres2ion Biotechnologies, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Bridgebio, and BioNTech; has received travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Stemline Therapeutics; holds stock in Leuko and MAJ3 Capital; holds two patents, WO 2014/199294 A and US 2019/ 0338368 A1; has received honoraria from Novartis, Eisai, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, and Stemline Therapeutics; and has received research funding from ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Baxalta, Bayer, Eisai, Guardant Health, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Queen Mary University of London, Roche, and Piqur. HLG has served as a consultant or advisor for AstraZeneca; has received research funding from Merck Sharp & Dohme; and has served on speakers’ bureaus for Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Technofarma, and Novartis. MT has served on advisory boards for Athenex Oncology, Bertis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Kansai Medical Net, and Terumo; has received compensation as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Bertis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Devicore Medical Japan, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exact Science, Kyowa-Kirin, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nippon-Kayaku, Novartis, Pfizer, Shimadzu, Sysmex, Taiho, Takeda, and Yakult; has received research funding from AFI Technology, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, GL Science, Kansai Medical Net, Luxonus, Pfizer, Sanwa Shurui, Shimadzu, Takeda, The Japan Breast Cancer Research Group association, The Kyoto Breast Cancer Research Network association, and Yakult; has served on steering committees for AstraZeneca, Chugai, and Daiichi Sankyo; and serves as a member of the board of directors for the Organisation for Oncology and Translational Research, The Japan Breast Cancer Research Group association, The Japanese Onco-Cardiology Society, The Kyoto Breast Cancer Research Network association, and The Japanese Breast Cancer Society. KJ has served on advisory boards for Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Jounce Therapeutics, Synthon, Intellisphere, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, BluePrint Medicines, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, Biotheranostics, Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company, Taiho Oncology, Sanofi, Gilead Sciences, and Scorpion Therapeutics; has received research funding from Novartis, Genentech, Debiopharm Group, ADC Therapeutics, Pfizer, Novita Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Zymeworks, Immunomedics, Puma Biotechnology, VelosBio/Merck, AstraZeneca, Context Therapeutics, Scorpion Therapeutics, and Blueprint Medicines; and has received travel grants from Taiho Pharmaceutical, Jounce Therapeutics, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Intellisphere, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, and Genentech/Roche. SL has served as a consult or on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, EirGenix, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Olema, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Relay Therapeutics, Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, and AGO (German Gynecological Oncology Group) Kommission Mamma; has served as an invited speaker at AstraZeneca, DSI, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Stemline-Menarini, and Medscape; is a full or part-time employee at GBG Forschungs GmbH; has received licensing or royalties from VMscope GmbH, and research funding from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Greenwich Life Sciences, Immunomedics/Gilead Sciences, Molecular Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; and has served as a principal investigator at PI Aphinity. YHP has received research funding from MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gencurix, and Genome Insight; has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, MSD, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Gilead Sciences; has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, MSD, Eisai, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Menarini, Everest, and Novartis; has received travel grants from Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca; has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Menarini, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo; and has received equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from Dong-A ST, Sanofi, Roche, and Pfizer. JHS has received research funding from MSD, Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Seagen, Qurient, Dragonfly Therapeutics, Eikon Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Celcuity, Bristol Myers Squibb, HLB Pharmaceutical, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Olema Oncology, Hanmi, Ildong Pharmaceutical, and Samyang Holdings. ET has received honoraria from Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Chugai. NCT has served on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Repare Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Inivata, Guardant Health, and Exact Sciences and received research funding from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, MSD, Invitae, Inivata, Personalis, and Natera. CD’C, HA, MF, and IW are employees of AstraZeneca, and may hold AstraZeneca stocks or shares. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Tamoxifen is widely used in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. The polymorphic enzyme CYP2D6 is primarily responsible for metabolic activation of tamoxifen, resulting in substantial interindividual variability of plasma concentrations of its most important metabolite, Z-endoxifen. The Z-endoxifen concentration thresholds below which tamoxifen treatment is less efficacious have been proposed but not validated, and prospective trials of individualized tamoxifen treatment to achieve Z-endoxifen concentration thresholds are considered infeasible. Therefore, we aim to validate the association between Z-endoxifen concentration and tamoxifen treatment outcomes, and identify a Z-endoxifen concentration threshold of tamoxifen efficacy, using pharmacometric modeling and simulation. As a first step, the CYP2D6 Endoxifen Percentage Activity Model (CEPAM) cohort was created by pooling data from 28 clinical studies (> 7,000 patients) with measured endoxifen plasma concentrations. After cleaning, data from 6,083 patients were used to develop a nonlinear mixed-effect (NLME) model for tamoxifen and Z-endoxifen pharmacokinetics that includes a conversion factor to allow inclusion of studies that measured total endoxifen but not Z-endoxifen. The final parent-metabolite NLME model confirmed the primary role of CYP2D6, and contributions from body weight, CYP2C9 phenotype, and co-medication with CYP2D6 inhibitors, on Z-endoxifen pharmacokinetics. Future work will use the model to simulate Z-endoxifen concentrations in patients receiving single agent tamoxifen treatment within large prospective clinical trials with long-term survival to identify the Z-endoxifen concentration threshold below which tamoxifen is less efficacious. Identification of this concentration threshold would allow personalized tamoxifen treatment to improve outcomes in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer., (© 2024 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Endocrine therapy plays a crucial role in the treatment of women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. However, non-adherence remains a frequent issue known to negatively impact survival. Based on a comprehensive literature review, this article explores the terminologies employed to describe adherence and methods used for its assessment, the adherence data reported with adjuvant endocrine therapy with targeted therapies, the determinants of adherence or non-adherence, and finally, tested solutions to address it. The results show that a better understanding of the causes of non-adherence would help to better identify patients at risk, and to develop personalized intervention programs capable of improving adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy. In light of the literature, interventions are likely to require a multimodal approach and integration into our future healthcare pathways., (Copyright © 2024 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Current guidelines recommend that patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receive sequentially two antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs): Sacituzumab Govitecan (SG) and Trastuzumab Deruxtecan (T-DXd), despite a similar payload. However, the effectiveness of one after another is unknown., Methods: ADC-Low is a multicentre, retrospective study evaluating the efficacy of SG and T-DXd, one after another, with or without intermediary lines of chemotherapy, in patients with HER2-low MBC., Results: One hundred and seventy-nine patients were included: the majority with HR-negative tumours received SG first (ADC1) (n = 100/108) while most with HR-positive tumours received T-DXd first (n = 56/71). Median progression-free survival 2 was short: 2.7 months (95% CI: 2.4-3.3) in the whole population, respectively, 3.1 (95% CI: 2.6-3.6) and 2.2 months (95% CI: 1.9-2.7) for patients receiving T-DXd or SG second (ADC2). Intermediary lines of chemotherapy between ADC1 and ADC2 had no impact. Primary resistance to ADC2 occurred in 54.4% of patients. Certain patients showed initial response to ADC2., Conclusions: Clinical benefit of sequentially administered SG and T-DXd is limited for most patients. Nevertheless, a subset of patients might benefit-on the short term-from a second ADC. Additional studies are needed to identify patients who could benefit from two ADCs with similar payloads., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: The capsule formulation of CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib has reduced solubility at gastric pH > 4.5 and may have decreased activity when used with proton-pump inhibitors (PPI). Herein, we report the effect of PPI on palbociclib capsule activity and safety in the PARSIFAL study., Methods: First-line endocrine-sensitive, hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients received palbociclib capsules plus fulvestrant or letrozole. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). This post-hoc analysis compared PPI use. Patients were PPI-naïve (N-PPI) if not on PPI during the study, and either early (E-PPI) or long-term PPI (LT-PPI) if on PPI at study entry or for at least ≥⅔ of treatment, respectively. PPI groups were not mutually exclusive., Results: Among 486 patients, 66.9 % were N-PPI, 13.2 % E-PPI, 18.7 % LT-PPI, and 11.5 % of the PPI users were defined as neither. Median PFS (mPFS) was 29.6 months in the study population, 28.7 months in N-PPI, 23.0 months in E-PPI (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.5; 95%Confidence Interval [CI] 1.1-2.2; p = 0.024), and 23.0 months in LT-PPI (HR 1.4; 95%CI 1.0-1.9; p = 0.035). By landmark analysis, PPI use was associated with poorer mPFS at 3 and 12 months. Grade ≥3 hematological adverse events occurred in 71.7 % of N-PPI, 57.8 % of E-PPI (p = 0.021), and 54.9 % of LT-PPI (p = 0.003). Dose reductions and dosing delays due to hematological toxicity occurred in 70.8 % of N-PPI, 56.3 % of E-PPI (p = 0.018), and 52.7 % of LT-PPI (p = 0.002)., Conclusions: PPI use may reduce palbociclib capsule toxicity, dose modifications, and clinical activity in HR+/HER2- ABC., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest SDC reports consulting for MEDSIR and IQVIA and honoraria from Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. JMPG reports consulting for Roche, Eiasi, Daichii Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead, MSD and Seagen and travel expenses from Roche. MB reports consulting fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and Steamline-Menarini; honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly; and trave support from Pfizer. FD reports travel grants for Daichii, Novartis, and Pfizer, and participation in monitor/advisory boards for Daiichi, Seagen, Novartis, Gilead, Lilly, and MSD. MGG reports honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, and AstraZeneca, travel grants from Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Pfizer, and participation in monitoring/advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Seagen, and Gilead. MRB reports honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZenca, and Daiichi Sankyo. JG reports consulting fees from Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca; honoraria from Novartis; and travel support from Roche and AstraZeneca. EAO reports consulting for AstraZeneca, Daichii, Gilead, MSD, and Seagen; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daichii, Lilly, MSD, and Seagen; travel support from Daichii, Lilly, Gilead, and AstraZeneca; and participation in monitor/advisory boards for Gilead, AstraZeneca, Seagen, and Dachii. PS reports honoraria from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim; a consulting role for Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, and Puma; and institutional grants from Roche, Genentech, Oncogenex, and Novartis. FM reports grants from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, Clovis, Vaccibody, Gilead Sciences, and Esai; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Roche; honoraria from AstraZeneca, MSD, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, GSK, Clovis, Myriad, Daiich Sankyo, Seagen, Pierre-Fabre, and Agendia; travel support from AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, and Roche; and participation in advisory boards for Palleos and Amgen. JG reports grant/research support from Roche, Eiasi, and Exact Science; honoraria or consultation fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Eisai, Exact Science, Evapharm, GE Healthcare, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen, Sothema and participation in company sponsored speaker's bureaus for Exact Science, Lilly, and Novartis. AS reports grants from Celgene, Roche, Abbvie; travel grants from Celgene, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, GSK, Bayer, Amgen, Pierre Fabre. JA reports trial funding from MEDSIR and consulting for Pfizer, Lilly, and Novartis. PZ reports honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and Pierre Fabre; and travel support from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and Lilly. DW reports honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca and travel grants from Roche, and Novartis. JC reports consulting for Roche, Celgene, Cellestia, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Erytech, Athenex, Polyphor, Lilly, Merck Sharp&Dohme, GSK, Leuko, Bioasis, Clovis Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses, Hibercell, BioInvent, Gemoab, Gilead, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal Genomics, Expres2ion Biotechnologies; honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Eisai, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Lilly, Merck Sharp&Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo.; research funding to the Institution from Roche, Ariad pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Baxalta GMBH/Servier Affaires, Bayer healthcare, Eisai, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Guardanth health, Merck Sharp&Dohme, Pfizer, Piqur Therapeutics, Puma C, Queen Mary University of London; stock shares for MEDSIR, Nektar Pharmaceuticals, Leuko (relative); Travel, accommodation, expenses from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Astrazeneca, Gilead; and Patents: Pharmaceutical Combinations of A Pi3k Inhibitor And A Microtubule Destabilizing Agent. Javier Cortés Castán, Alejandro Piris Giménez, Violeta Serra Elizalde. WO 2014/199294 A. ISSUED Her2 as a predictor of response to dual HER2 blockade in the absence of cytotoxic therapy. Aleix Prat, Antonio Llombart, Javier Cortés. US 2019/0338368 A1. LICENSED. ALC reports research support from Roche, Agendia, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Gilead, and Daichii-Sanyo; consulting for Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; participation in speakers' bureaus for Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme; travel support from Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca; and stock or other ownership in MEDSIR and Initia-Research. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor metabolised via CYP2A6 and CYP3A4/5 enzymes, is used as adjuvant therapy for women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive early breast cancer. The objective of this study was to quantify the impact of CYP2A6 genotype on letrozole pharmacokinetics (PK), to identify non-adherent patients using a population approach and explore the possibility of a relationship between non-adherence and early relapse., Methods: Breast cancer patients enrolled in the prospective PHACS study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01127295) and treated with adjuvant letrozole 2.5 mg/day were included. Trough letrozole concentrations (C ss,trough ) were measured every 6 months for 3 years by a validated LC-MS/MS method. Concentration-time data were analysed using non-linear mixed effects modelling. Three methods were evaluated for identification of non-adherent subjects using the base PK model., Results: 617 patients contributing 2534 plasma concentrations were included and led to a one-compartment PK model with linear absorption and elimination. Model-based methods identified 28 % of patients as non-adherent based on high fluctuations of their C ss,trough compared to 3 % based on patient declarations. The covariate analysis performed in adherent subjects revealed that CYP2A6 intermediate (IM) and slow metabolisers (SM) had 21 % (CI95 % = 12 - 30 %) and 46 % (CI95 % = 41 - 51 %) lower apparent clearance, respectively, compared to normal and ultrarapid metabolisers (NM+UM). Early relapse (19 patients) was not associated with model-estimated, concentration-based or declared adherence in the total population (p = 0.41, p = 0.37 and p = 0.45, respectively)., Conclusions: These findings will help future investigations focusing on the exposure-efficacy relationship for letrozole in adjuvant setting., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Circadian rhythms regulate cellular physiology and could influence the efficacy of endocrine therapy (ET) in breast cancer (BC). We prospectively tested this hypothesis within the UNIRAD adjuvant phase III trial (NCT01805271)., Methods: 1278 patients with high-risk hormonal receptor positive (HR+)/HER2 negative (HER2-) primary BC were randomly assigned to adjuvant ET with placebo or everolimus. Patients prospectively reported in a diary the daily timing of ET intake among four 6-h slots (06:00-11:59 (morning), 12:00-17:59 (afternoon), 18:00-23:59 (evening), or 24:00-05:59 (nighttime). The association between ET timing and disease-free survival (DFS) was a prespecified secondary endpoint of the trial and the results of this observational study are reported here., Findings: ET timing was recorded by 855 patients (67.2%). Patients declaring morning (n = 465, 54.4%) or afternoon (n = 45, 5.4%) ET intake were older than those declaring evening (n = 339, 39.6%) or nighttime (n = 5, 0.6%) intake. With a median follow-up of 46.7 months, 118 patients had a local (n = 30) or metastasis relapse (n = 84), and 41 patients died. ET intake timing was not associated with DFS in the whole population (HR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.53-1.12]). The association between ET intake timing and DFS according to the stratification factors revealed interactions with ET agent (tamoxifen versus Aromatase inhibitors (AI) with an increased DFS in the group of evening/nighttime versus morning/afternoon tamoxifen intake (HR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.22-0.85]), while no association was found for AI intake (HR = 1.07, 95% CI [0.68-1.69]). The interaction between ET intake timing and ET agent remained in multivariable analysis (HR = 0.38 [0.16-0.91])., Interpretation: Tamoxifen intake in the evening/nighttime could be recommended in patients with high-risk HR+/HER2- BC while awaiting for results from further ET timing studies., Funding: UNIRAD was Supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health PHRC 2012 and received funding from La Ligue contre le Cancer, Cancer Research-UK, Myriad Genetics, and Novartis., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The authors declared no competing interest with this study. Dr Giacchetti declared travel expenses from MSD and Novartis to SABCS 2022 meeting and ASCO 2023 meeting where these data were presented (SABCS 2022 Abstract 1,305,036; ASCO 2023 Abstract 412,092)., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The PHERGain trial investigated the potential of metabolic imaging to identify candidates for chemotherapy deescalation in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive, invasive, operable breast cancer with at least 1 breast lesion evaluable by [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT. [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT responders were defined as patients with an SUV max reduction (ΔSUV max ) of at least 40% in all of their target lesions after 2 cycles of trastuzumab and pertuzumab (HP) (with or without endocrine therapy). In total, 227 of 285 patients (80%) included in the HP arm showed a predefined metabolic response and received a total of 8 cycles of HP (with or without endocrine therapy). Pathologic complete response (pCR), defined as ypT0/isN0, was achieved in 37.9% of the patients. Here, we describe the secondary preplanned analysis of the best cutoff of ΔSUV max for pCR prediction. Methods: Receiver-operating-characteristic analysis was applied to look for the most appropriate ΔSUV max cutoff in HER2-positive early breast cancer patients treated exclusively with neoadjuvant HP (with or without endocrine therapy). Results: The ΔSUV max capability of predicting pCR in terms of the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve was 72.1% (95% CI, 65.1-79.2%). The optimal ΔSUV max cutoff was found to be 77.0%, with a 51.2% sensitivity and a 78.7% specificity. With this cutoff, 74 of 285 patients (26%) would be classified as metabolic responders, increasing the pCR rate from 37.9% (cutoff ≥ 40%) to 59.5% (44/74 patients) ( P < 0.01). With this optimized cutoff, 44 of 285 patients (15.4%) would avoid chemotherapy in either the neoadjuvant or the adjuvant setting compared with 86 of 285 patients (30.2%) using the original cutoff ( P < 0.001). Conclusion: In the PHERGain trial, an increased SUV max cutoff (≥77%) after 2 cycles of exclusive HP (with or without endocrine therapy) achieves a pCR in the range of the control arm with chemotherapy plus HP (59.5% vs. 57.7%, respectively), further identifying a subgroup of patients with HER2-addicted tumors. However, the original cutoff (≥40%) maximizes the number of patients who could avoid chemotherapy., (© 2024 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of the multigene EndoPredict test in prospectively collected data of patients screened for the randomized, double-blind, phase III UNIRAD trial, which evaluated the addition of everolimus to adjuvant endocrine therapy in high-risk, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients were classified into low or high risk according to the EPclin score, consisting of a 12-gene molecular score combined with tumor size and nodal status. Association of the EPclin score with disease-free survival (DFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. The independent prognostic added value of EPclin score was tested in a multivariate Cox model after adjusting on tumor characteristics., Results: EndoPredict test results were available for 768 patients: 663 patients classified as EPclin high risk (EPCH) and 105 patients as EPclin low risk (EPCL). Median follow-up was 70 months (range 1-172 months). For the 429 EPCH randomized patients, there was no significant difference in DFS between treatment arms. The 60-month relapse rate for patients in the EPCL and EPCH groups was 0% and 7%, respectively. Hazard ratio (HR) supposing continuous EPclin score was 1.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-2.5, P < 0.0001]. This prognostic effect remained significant when assessed in a Cox model adjusting on tumor size, number of positive nodes and tumor grade (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.09-2.13, P = 0.0141). The 60-month DMFS for patients in the EPCL and EPCH groups was 100% and 94%, respectively (adjusted HR 8.10, 95% CI 1.1-59.1, P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: The results confirm the value of EPclin score as an independent prognostic parameter in node-positive, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer patients receiving standard adjuvant treatment. EPclin score can be used to identify patients at higher risk of recurrence who may warrant additional systemic treatments., Competing Interests: Disclosure FPL: advisor for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Genomic Health, GILEAD, GSK, Lilly, Menarini/Stemline, MSD, Myriad, Nanostring, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche; funding: MSD, Myriad, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo; travel/expenses: AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer. FD: advisor for Daichi, Seagen, Novartis, Gilead, Lilly, MSD; travel/expenses: Daichi, Novartis, Pfizer. PC: advisor for Pfizer, Lilly; travel/expenses: Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, BMS. JG: advisor for Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Pfizer; travel/expenses: Eisai Europe. MC: advisor for Novartis, Sandoz, Accord, Sanofi, Lilly, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo; consulting fees: Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Novartis, Servier, Daiichi Sankyo; travel//expenses: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche. ACHB: advisor for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Clovis Onco, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, MSD. SG: advisor for Eisai, Lilly; funding: Merck, AstraZeneca; travel/expenses: Lilly. PB: advisor for Ipsen, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Merck KGaA, Astellas, Novartis, Gilead, Bayer; travel/expenses: BMS, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, Astellas, MSD, Ipsen, Merck. AM: advisor for Pfizer; travel/expenses: AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, Lilly. MS: travel/expenses: Eisai Europe. MLT: consulting fees: Myriad Genetics. JB: funding: AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Puma Biotech, Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Clovis Onco; travel/expenses: Pfizer. FA: stock and other ownership interests: PEGASCY; funding: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Roche, Daiichi; travel/expenses: Novartis, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca. TB: advisor for Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, MSD; funding: Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer; travel/expenses: Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: PHERGain was designed to assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a chemotherapy-free treatment based on a dual human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC). It used an 18 fluorine-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET-based, pathological complete response (pCR)-adapted strategy., Methods: PHERGain was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial that took place in 45 hospitals in seven European countries. It randomly allocated patients in a 1:4 ratio with centrally confirmed, HER2-positive, stage I-IIIA invasive, operable breast cancer with at least one PET-evaluable lesion to either group A, where patients received docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 , intravenous), carboplatin (area under the curve 6 mg/mL per min, intravenous), trastuzumab (600 mg fixed dose, subcutaneous), and pertuzumab (840 mg loading dose followed by 420 mg maintenance doses, intravenous; TCHP), or group B, where patients received trastuzumab and pertuzumab with or without endocrine therapy, every 3 weeks. Random allocation was stratified by hormone receptor status. Centrally reviewed PET was conducted at baseline and after two treatment cycles. Patients in group B were treated according to on-treatment PET results. Patients in group B who were PET-responders continued with trastuzumab and pertuzumab with or without endocrine therapy for six cycles, while PET-non-responders were switched to receive six cycles of TCHP. After surgery, patients in group B who were PET-responders who did not achieve a pCR received six cycles of TCHP, and all patients completed up to 18 cycles of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. The primary endpoints were pCR in patients who were group B PET-responders after two treatment cycles (the results for which have been reported previously) and 3-year invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in patients in group B. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03161353) and is ongoing., Findings: Between June 26, 2017, and April 24, 2019, a total of 356 patients were randomly allocated (71 patients in group A and 285 patients in group B), and 63 (89%) and 267 (94%) patients proceeded to surgery in groups A and B, respectively. At this second analysis (data cutoff: Nov 4, 2022), the median duration of follow-up was 43·3 months (range 0·0-63·0). In group B, the 3-year iDFS rate was 94·8% (95% CI 91·4-97·1; p=0·001), meeting the primary endpoint. No new safety signals were identified. Treatment-related adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs) were numerically higher in patients allocated to group A than to group B (grade ≥3 62% vs 33%; SAEs 28% vs 14%). Group B PET-responders with pCR presented the lowest incidence of treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (1%) without any SAEs., Interpretation: Among HER2-positive EBC patients, a PET-based, pCR-adapted strategy was associated with an excellent 3-year iDFS. This strategy identified about a third of patients who had HER2-positive EBC who could safely omit chemotherapy., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JMP-G reports consulting roles for Roche, Lilly, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead, MSD, and Seattle Genetics and travel expenses from Roche. JC reports consulting roles for Roche, Celgene, Cellestia, AstraZeneca, Biothera Phgroupaceutical, Merus, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Erytech, Athenex, Polyphor, Lilly, Servier, MSD, GSK, Leuko, Bioasis, and Clovis Oncology; honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Eisai, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Lilly, MSD, and Daiichi Sankyo; research funding to their institution from Roche, Ariad pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Baxalta GMBH/Servier Affaires, Bayer healthcare, Eisai, F Hoffman-La Roche, Guardanth health, MSD, Pfizer, Piqur Therapeutics, Puma C, and Queen Mary University of London; and intellectual property for Medica Scientia Innovation Research (MEDSIR). MR-B reports membership of a speaker bureau and advisory board for Novartis. MC reports a research grant to their institution from Roche and the role of co-chair of the scientific committee of the International Breast Cancer Study Group. AS reports consulting roles for Roche, AstraZeneca, Seagen, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim; to be part of a speaker bureau for Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, and Novartis; and travel expenses from Pfizer, Novartis, and Eisai. BB reports receiving fees for medical education in a consulting or advisory role with MSD, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Seagen; participating in a speakers bureau for Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Palex, Eisai, Daichii Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Seagen. SE-d-R reports consulting roles for Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre; to be part of a speaker bureau for Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen; to have received research funding from Roche, Synthon, Byondis, MEDSIR, SOLTI, Zymeworks, and Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca; and travel, accommodation, or expenses from Pfizer, Kern Pharma, and Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca. NR reports research funding from Pfizer; and to be part of speaker bureau for Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, and Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca. FM reports grants from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, Clovis, Vaccibody, Gilead Sciences, and Esai; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Roche; honoraria from AstraZeneca, MSD, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, GSK, Clovis, Myriad, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Pierre Fabre, and Agendia; travel support from AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, and Roche; and participation in advisory boards for Palleos and Amgen. AC reports consulting or advisory roles for Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre; being part of a speakers bureau for Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and Seagen; institutional research funding from Roche, Synthon, Byondis, MEDSIR, SOLTI, Zymeworks, and Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca; and expert testimony and travel or accommodations expenses from Pfizer, Kern Pharma, and Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca. AP reports honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, MSD Oncology, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, and Amgen; to have consulting roles for Roche, AstraZeneca, Peptomyc, Novartis, and Daiichi Sankyo; research funding to their institution from Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Reveal Genomics; to have intellectual property (ERBB2 and HER2DX patents); travel expenses from Daiichi Sankyo; and a share in ownership at Reveal Genomics. PS reports honoraria from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim; a consulting role in Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, and Puma; and grants to their institution from Roche, Genentech, Oncogenex, and Novartis. SB reports a consulting or advisory board role at Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche; speaker or conference fees from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche; and travel fees from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche. SDC reports receiving fees for medical education from Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and IQVIA; institutional grant IG 20774 of Fondazione AIRC per la Ricerca sul Cancro; Cancer Can.Heal European EU4 Health Programme 101080009–European Commission; and serving as an ad hoc medical advisor for MEDSIR. MG reports honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Gilead, and AstraZeneca; travel grants and accommodation from Roche, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca; and an advisory role at Gilead. GA reports honoraria from MEDSIR. AL-C reports leadership roles at Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, and MSD; intellectual property for MEDSIR and Initia Research; to have consulting roles for Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, GenomicHealth, and GSK; to be part of a speakers bureau for Lilly, AstraZeneca, and MSD; research funding from Roche, Foundation Medicine, Pierre Fabre, and Agendia; and travel expenses from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. CP, ES, DA-L, PG, JR-M, LM, and MS-C are employees of MEDSIR. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Little is known regarding the outcomes associated with tucatinib combined with trastuzumab and capecitabine (TTC) after trastuzumab-deruxtecan exposure among patients with ERBB2 (previously HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC)., Objective: To investigate outcomes following TTC treatment in patients with ERBB2-positive MBC who had previously received trastuzumab-deruxtecan., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included all patients with MBC who were treated in 12 French comprehensive cancer centers between August 1, 2020, and December 31, 2022., Exposure: Tucatinib combined with trastuzumab and capecitabine administered at the recommended dose., Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical end points included progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), overall survival (OS), and overall response rate (ORR)., Results: A total of 101 patients with MBC were included (median age, 56 [range, 31-85] years). The median number of prior treatment lines for metastatic disease at TTC treatment initiation was 4 (range, 2-15), including 82 patients (81.2%) with previous trastuzumab and/or pertuzumab and 94 (93.1%) with previous ado-trastuzumab-emtansine) exposure. The median duration of trastuzumab-deruxtecan treatment was 8.9 (range, 1.4-25.8) months, and 82 patients (81.2%) had disease progression during trastuzumab-deruxtecan treatment, whereas 18 (17.8%) had stopped trastuzumab-deruxtecan for toxic effects and 1 (1.0%) for other reasons. Tucatinib combined with trastuzumab and capecitabine was provided as a third- or fourth-line treatment in 37 patients (36.6%) and was the immediate treatment after trastuzumab-deruxtecan in 86 (85.1%). With a median follow-up of 11.6 (95% CI, 10.5-13.4) months, 76 of 101 patients (75.2%) stopped TTC treatment due to disease progression. The median PFS was 4.7 (95% CI, 3.9-5.6) months; median TTNT, 5.2 (95% CI, 4.5-7.0) months; and median OS, 13.4 (95% CI, 11.1 to not reached [NR]) months. Patients who received TTC immediately after trastuzumab-deruxtecan had a median PFS of 5.0 (95% CI, 4.2-6.0) months; median TTNT of 5.5 (95% CI, 4.8-7.2) months, and median OS of 13.4 (95% CI, 11.9-NR) months. Those who received TTC due to trastuzumab-deruxtecan toxicity-related discontinuation had a median PFS of 7.3 (95% CI, 3.0-NR) months. Best ORR was 29 of 89 patients (32.6%). Sixteen patients with active brain metastasis had a median PFS of 4.7 (95% CI, 3.0-7.3) months, median TTNT of 5.6 (95% CI, 4.4 to NR), and median OS of 12.4 (95% CI, 8.3-NR) months., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, TTC therapy was associated with clinically meaningful outcomes in patients with ERBB2-positive MBC after previous trastuzumab-deruxtecan treatment, including those with brain metastases. Prospective data on optimal drug sequencing in this rapidly changing therapeutic landscape are needed.

Background: To identify patients most likely to respond to everolimus, a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, a prospective biomarker study was conducted in hormone receptor-positive endocrine-resistant metastatic breast cancer patients treated with exemestane-everolimus therapy., Methods: Metastatic tumor biopsies were processed for immunohistochemical staining (p4EBP1, PTEN, pAKT, LKB1, and pS6K). ESR1, PIK3CA and AKT1 gene mutations were detected by NGS. The primary endpoint was the association between the p4EBP1 expression and clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 6 months of everolimus plus exemestane treatment., Results: Of 150 patients included, 107 were evaluable for the primary endpoint. p4EBP1 staining above the median (Allred score ≥6) was associated with a higher CBR at 6 months (62% versus 40% in high-p4EBP1 versus low-p4EBP1, χ2 test, p = 0.026) and a longer progression-free survival (PFS) (median PFS of 9.2 versus 5.8 months in high-p4EBP1 versus low-p4EBP1; p = 0.02). When tested with other biomarkers, only p4EBP1 remained a significant predictive marker of PFS in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.591; p = 0.01)., Conclusions: This study identified a subset of patients with hormone receptor-positive endocrine-resistant metastatic breast cancer and poor outcome who would derive less benefit from everolimus and exemestane. p4EBP1 may be a useful predictive biomarker in routine clinical practice., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02444390., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported .In patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer, the STIC CTC trial established that, for choosing between endocrine therapy (ET) or chemotherapy, the use of circulating tumor cell (CTC) count is noninferior to the investigator's choice in terms of progression-free survival. Here, we report overall survival (OS) results, a secondary end point. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to have their first-line treatment (ET or chemotherapy) determined by investigators or CTC count (chemotherapy if ≥ 5 CTCs/7.5 mL; ET if low CTC count; CellSearch). OS was assessed at the discontinuation of follow-up. After a median follow-up of 4.7 years, 382 deaths (50.6%) had occurred among 755 patients. Median OS was 51.3 months (95% CI, 46.8 to 55.1) in the CTC arm and 45.5 months (95% CI, 40.9 to 51.1) in the standard arm (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.03; P = .11). Among 189 patients (25.0%) with ET recommended by clinicians and high CTC count, chemotherapy was superior to ET (HR for death, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.78; P = .001). In case of a discordant estimate, OS data demonstrate the clinical utility of CTC count.

Purpose: Eftilagimod alpha (efti), a soluble lymphocyte activation gene (LAG-3) protein and MHC class II agonist, enhances innate and adaptive immunity. Active Immunotherapy PAClitaxel (AIPAC) evaluated safety and efficacy of efti plus paclitaxel in patients with predominantly endocrine-resistant, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (ET-resistant HR+ HER2- MBC)., Patients and Methods: Women with HR+ HER2- MBC were randomized 1:1 to weekly intravenous paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) and subcutaneous efti (30 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks for six 4-week cycles, then monthly subcutaneous efti (30 mg) or placebo maintenance. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, and quality of life. Exploratory endpoints included cellular biomarkers., Results: 114 patients received efti and 112 patients received placebo. Median age was 60 years (91.6% visceral disease, 84.1% ET-resistant, 44.2% with previous CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment). Median PFS at 7.3 months was similar for efti and placebo. Median OS was not significantly improved for efti (20.4 vs. 17.5 months; HR, 0.88; P = 0.197) but became significant for predefined exploratory subgroups. EORTC QLQC30-B23 global health status was sustained for efti but deteriorated for placebo. Efti increased absolute lymphocyte, monocyte and secondary target cell (CD4, CD8) counts, plasma IFNγ and CXCL10 levels., Conclusions: Although the primary endpoint, PFS, was not met, AIPAC confirmed expected pharmacodynamic effects and demonstrated excellent safety profile for efti. OS was not significantly improved globally (2.9-month difference), but was significantly improved in exploratory biomarker subgroups, warranting further studies to clarify efti's role in patients with ET-resistant HER2- MBC., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Aim: To describe first-line treatment patterns, overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) in young women (<40) with metastatic breast cancer (mBC), as compared to women aged 40-69., Materials and Methods: Data on adult women diagnosed with mBC (2008-2017) were extracted from the ESME mBC database (NCT03275311) which includes consecutive patients starting first-line metastatic treatment in one of the 18 French Comprehensive cancer centers. We reported first-line therapeutic strategy and prognostic factors of OS and rwPFS for women aged < 40 and 40-69., Results: In total, 14,897 mBC women were included (1512 aged <40). HR+ /HER2- mBC was the most frequent subtype. First-line treatment differed between young patients and older ones for HR+ /HER2- and Triple Negative (TN) mBC. Median OS for women aged < 40 and 40-69, respectively, was 46.9 and 46.2 months for HR+ /HER2- mBC; 13.5 and 15.2 for TN mBC; and, 60.7 and 55.1 for HER2 + mBC. Median rwPFS under first line treatment was 11.6 and 11.9 months for HR+ /HER2- in women aged < 40 and 40-69, respectively; 5.5 and 5.9 for TN, and, 13.3 and 12.9 for HER2 + . Factors associated with shorter OS and rwPFS were similar for both women aged < 40 and 40-69 and included ≥ 3 metastatic sites, visceral metastases, and longer MFI, with time-varying effects observed for several prognostic factors., Conclusion: Young women presented more frequently with TN and HER2 + subtypes and aggressive mBC than women aged 40-69 did. Prognostic factors of OS and rwPFS were quite similar between age groups and mBC subtypes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Younger survivors of breast cancer frequently report more treatment-related symptoms, mostly related to the menopausal transition., Objective: To assess factors associated with chemotherapy-related amenorrhea (CRA) and to evaluate its association with long-term quality of life (QOL)., Design, Setting, and Participants: The prospective, longitudinal Cancer Toxicities Study, a multicenter French cohort study, includes women with a diagnosis of stage I to III breast cancer and collects data approximately yearly after diagnosis. The current study reports outcomes up to 4 years after diagnosis for participants enrolled from 2012 to 2017. Participants included premenopausal women younger than 50 years treated with chemotherapy and not receiving adjuvant ovarian function suppression. Data analysis was performed from September 2021 to June 2023., Exposures: Clinical, socioeconomic, tumor, and treatment characteristics assessed at diagnosis (for the analysis of factors associated with CRA) and persistent CRA (for the QOL analysis)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome of interest was CRA at year 1 (Y1), year 2 (Y2), and year 4 (Y4) after diagnosis. Generalized estimating equations assessed associations of exposure variables with CRA. In the QOL analysis, QOL at Y4 (assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 and BR23) was the outcome of interest. Multivariable random-effect mixed models assessed the association of persistent CRA (ie, never recovering menses after treatment) with QOL., Results: Among 1636 women, the mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 42.2 (5.6) years. Overall, 1242 of 1497 women (83.0%) reported CRA at Y1, 959 of 1323 women (72.5%) reported it at Y2, and 599 of 906 women (66.1%) reported it at Y4. Older age vs 18 to 34 years (adjusted odds ratio [OR] for 35 to 39 years, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.32 to 2.56]; adjusted OR for 40 to 44 years, 5.90 [95% CI, 4.23 to 8.24]; and adjusted OR for ≥45 years, 21.29 [95% CI, 14.34 to 31.61]) and receipt of adjuvant tamoxifen (adjusted OR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.53 to 2.53]) were associated with higher likelihood of CRA. In the QOL analysis, 416 of 729 women (57.1%) had persistent CRA. However, late menses recovery among women aged 18 to 34 years with no menses at Y2 were reported by 11 of 21 women (52.4%) between Y2 and Y4. Persistent CRA was associated with worse insomnia (mean difference vs recovery at any time, 9.9 points [95% CI, 3.2 to 16.5 points]; P = .004), systemic therapy-related adverse effects (mean difference, 3.0 points [95% CI, 0.2 to 5.8 points]; P = .04), and sexual functioning (mean difference, -9.2 points [95% CI, -14.3 to -4.1 points]; P < .001) at Y4., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of premenopausal women with breast cancer, persistent CRA was common, although some women recovered menses late, and was associated with worse long-term QOL. This study can help inform risk communication, personalized counseling, and early supportive care referrals for such patients.

Background: Sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated significant progression-free survival benefit over chemotherapy in the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 trial in patients with pretreated, endocrine-resistant hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+ and HER2-) metastatic breast cancer with limited treatment options. Here, we report the protocol-specified final analysis of overall survival and endpoints by trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (Trop-2) expression and other variables., Methods: In this randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial, which took place in 91 centres across North America (the USA and Canada) and Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK), patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sacituzumab govitecan or chemotherapy (eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine). Patients had confirmed HR+ and HER2- locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic breast cancer and had received at least one previous endocrine therapy, a taxane, and a CDK4/6 inhibitor in any setting and two to four previous chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (previously reported and not included in this analysis), and secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and patient-reported outcomes. Overall survival was assessed using stratified log-rank tests and Cox regression. Trop-2 expression was assessed in tumour tissue by immunohistochemistry. In the statistical testing hierarchy, ORR and patient-reported outcomes were tested sequentially if overall survival was significant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03901339., Findings: At the data cutoff date of July 1, 2022, 543 of 776 screened patients were randomly assigned between May 30, 2019, and April 5, 2021, with 272 patients in the sacituzumab govitecan group and 271 patients in the chemotherapy group. With a 12·5-month (IQR 6·4-18·8) median follow-up, 390 deaths occurred among 543 patients. Overall survival was significantly improved with sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy (median 14·4 months [95% CI 13·0-15·7] vs 11·2 months [10·1-12·7]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·65-0·96; p=0·020); survival benefit was consistent across Trop-2 expression-level subgroups. ORR was significantly improved with sacituzumab govitecan compared with chemotherapy (57 [21%] patients vs 38 [14%]; odds ratio 1·63 [95% CI 1·03-2·56]; p=0·035), as was time to deterioration of global health status and quality of life (median 4·3 months vs 3·0 months; HR 0·75 [0·61-0·92]; p=0·0059) and fatigue (median 2·2 months vs 1·4 months; HR 0·73 [0·60-0·89]; p=0·0021). The safety profile of sacituzumab govitecan was consistent with previous studies (including the TROPiCS-02 primary analysis and the ASCENT trial). One fatal adverse event (septic shock caused by neutropenic colitis) was determined to be related to sacituzumab govitecan treatment., Interpretation: Sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit over chemotherapy, with a 3·2-month median overall survival improvement and a manageable safety profile. These data support sacituzumab govitecan as a new treatment option for patients with pretreated, endocrine-resistant HR+ and HER2- metastatic breast cancer., Funding: Gilead Sciences., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests HSR reports honoraria from Puma Biotechnology, Mylan, and Samsung Bioepis, and institutional research funding from Macrogenics, OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Genentech, Merck, Odonate Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Seattle Genetics, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, and Ayala Pharmaceuticals. AB reports institutional research funding from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Radius Health and Menarini, Immunomedics and Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly, and consulting fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech, Merck, Radius Health and Menarini, Immunomedics and Gilead Sciences, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Phillips, Eli Lilly, and Foundation Medicine. FM reports institutional research funding from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK and Tesaro, MED, Clovis, Vaccibody, Gilead Sciences, and Eisai; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK and Tesaro, Pfizer, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Vaccibody, and GenomicHealth; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK and Tesaro, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Myriad Genetics, PharmaMar, Eisai, MSD, Immunomedics and Gilead Sciences, Pierre-Fabre, Agendia, Genomic Health, and Seattle Genetics; support for meeting attendance and travel from Pfizer, Roche, and AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Palleos and Amgen. JC reports institutional research funding from Roche, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Baxalta, Servier Affaires, Bayer Healthcare, Eisai, F Hoffman-La Roche, Guardant Health, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Piqur Therapeutics, Puma Biotechnology, and Queen Mary University of London; consulting fees from Roche, Celgene, Cellestia, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Erytech, Athenex, Polyphor, Lilly, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, GSK, Leuko, Bioasis, Clovis Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses, Hibercell, BioInvent, GEMoaB, Gilead Sciences, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal Genomics, and Expres2ion Biotechnologies; honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Eisai, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Lilly, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, and Daiichi Sankyo; travel and accommodations from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Gilead Sciences; stock ownership from MedSIR and Nektar Pharmaceuticals; and several patents. PS reports institutional research funding from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Novartis, Oncogenex, Roche, and Medivation; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, Roche, Eisai, and Celgene; and spouse's employment at Roche. DL reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Lilly, Amgen, Eisai, and Gilead Sciences; consulting fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Immunomedics, Pharma4D, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Amgen, and Eisai; and travel and accommodations from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Gilead Sciences, and Amgen. OT reports institutional research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and MSD; honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis-Sandoz, Lilly, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Eisai, and Stemline; travel and accommodations from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis-Sandoz, Lilly, MSD, AstraZeneca, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, and Gilead Sciences; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Roche, Pfizer, Novartis-Sandoz, Lilly, MSD, AstraZeneca, Seagen, and Daiichi Sankyo. EC reports consulting fees from Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo; speaker's bureau from Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo; and travel and accommodations from Pfizer and Roche. KLJ reports consulting fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Taiho Oncology, Genentech, Synthon, AbbVie, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicine, Daiichi Sankyo, Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company, Gilead Sciences, Seattle Genetics, and Lilly Pharmaceuticals and Loxo Oncology; and institutional research funding from Novartis, Clovis Oncology, Genentech, AstraZeneca, ADC Therapeutics, Novita Pharmaceuticals, Debio Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Lilly Pharmaceuticals and Loxo Oncology, Zymeworks, Immunomedics and Gilead Sciences, Puma Biotechnology, and Merck Pharmaceuticals. RD, TV, HW, MM, and OKY report employment by and stock ownership in Gilead Sciences. WV reports previous employment by and stock ownership in Genentech and employment by Gilead Sciences. SMT reports institutional research funding from Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech and Roche, Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Nanostring, Cyclacel, Sanofi, Odonate, and Seagen; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech and Roche, Gilead Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Nanostring, Sanofi, Odonate, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, CytomX, Blueprint Medicines, Zentalis, Zymeworks, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec, Infinity Therapeutics, BeyondSpring Pharma, OncXerna, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Kyowa Kirin Pharma, G1 Therapeutics, Silverback Therapeutics, Certara, Mersana Therapeutics, and OncoPep; and honoraria from Chugai, Genentech and Roche, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Importance: In ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC), combining trastuzumab and pertuzumab with taxane-based chemotherapy is the first line of standard care. Given that trastuzumab plus pertuzumab was proven effective in ERBB2-positive MBC, even without chemotherapy, whether the optimal first-line strategy could be trastuzumab plus pertuzumab alone instead of with chemotherapy is unresolved., Objective: To assess overall survival (OS) at 2 years and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients randomly assigned to receive first-line pertuzumab plus trastuzumab alone or with chemotherapy followed by trastuzumab and emtansine at progression; PFS of second-line trastuzumab and emtansine treatment following trastuzumab plus pertuzumab; and OS and PFS in the ERBB2-enriched and ERBB2-nonenriched subtypes., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter, open-label, phase 2 randomized clinical trial conducted at 27 sites in France, 20 sites in Switzerland, 9 sites in the Netherlands, and 1 site in Germany. Overall, 210 patients with centrally confirmed ERBB2-positive MBC were randomized between May 3, 2013, and January 4, 2016, with termination of the trial May 26, 2020. Data were analyzed from December 18, 2020, to May 10, 2022., Interventions: Patients randomly received pertuzumab (840 mg intravenously [IV], then 420 mg IV every 3 weeks) plus trastuzumab (8 mg/kg IV, then 6 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks) without chemotherapy (group A) or pertuzumab plus trastuzumab (same doses) with either paclitaxel (90 mg/m2 for days 1, 8, and 15, then every 4 weeks for ≥4 months) or vinorelbine tartrate (25 mg/m2 for first administration followed by 30 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and every 3 weeks for ≥4 months) followed by pertuzumab plus trastuzumab maintenance after chemotherapy discontinuation (group B)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival at 24 months by treatment group, PFS for first-line treatment, PFS for second-line treatment, and patient-reported quality of life (QOL)., Results: A total of 210 patients were included in the analysis, with a median age of 58 (range, 26-85) years. For group A, 24-month OS was 79.0% (90% CI, 71.4%-85.4%); for group B, 78.1% (90% CI, 70.4%-84.5%). Median PFS with first-line treatment was 8.4 (95% CI, 7.9-12.0) months in group A and 23.3 (95% CI, 18.9-33.1) months in group B. Unlike expectations, OS and PFS did not markedly differ between populations with ERBB2-enriched and ERBB2-nonenriched cancer. Adverse events were less common without chemotherapy, with small QOL improvements from baseline in group A and stable QOL in group B., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial suggest that the chemotherapy-free anti-ERBB2 strategy is feasible without being detrimental in terms of OS. The 50-gene prediction analysis of microarray signature could not help to identify the most appropriate patient population for this approach., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01835236.

Background: Genomic tests are a useful tool for adjuvant chemotherapy decision-making in the case of hormone receptor-positive (HR+), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer with intermediate prognostic factors. Real-life data on the use of tests can help identify the target population for testing., Methods: French multicentric study (8 centers) including patients, all candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. We describe the percentage of tests performed outside recommendations, according to the year of testing. We calculated a ratio defined as the number of tests required to avoid chemotherapy for one patient, and according to patient and cancer characteristics. We then performed a cost-saving analysis using medical cost data over a period of 1 year from diagnosis, calculated from a previous study. Finally, we calculated the threshold of the ratio (number of tests required to avoid chemotherapy for one patient) below which the use of genomic tests was cost-saving., Results: A total of 2331 patients underwent a Prosigna test. The ratio (performed test/avoided chemotherapy) was 2.8 [95% CI: 2.7-2.9] in the whole population. In the group following recommendations for test indication, the ratio was 2.3 [95% CI: 2.2-2.4]. In the case of non-abidance by recommendations, the ratio was 3 [95% CI: 2.8-3.2]. Chemotherapy was avoided in 841 patients (36%) following the results of the Prosigna test. The direct medical costs saved over 1 year of care were 3,878,798€ and 1,718,472€ in the group of patients following test recommendations. We calculated that the ratio (performed test/avoided chemotherapy) needed to be under 6.9 for testing to prove cost-saving., Conclusion: The use of genomic testing proved cost-saving in this large multicentric real-life analysis, even in certain cases when the test was performed outside recommendations., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. Over the past few decades, advances in cancer detection and treatment have significantly improved survival rate of breast cancer patients. However, due to the cardiovascular toxicity of cancer treatments (chemotherapy, anti-HER2 antibodies and radiotherapy), cardiovascular diseases (CVD) have become an increasingly important cause of long-term morbidity and mortality in breast cancer survivors. Endocrine therapies are prescribed to reduce the risk of recurrence and specific death in estrogen receptor-positive (ER +) early breast cancer patients, but their impact on CVD is a matter of debate. Whereas aromatase inhibitors and luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogs inhibit estrogen synthesis, tamoxifen acts as a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM), opposing estrogen action in the breast but mimicking their actions in other tissues, including arteries. This review aims to summarize the main clinical and experimental studies reporting the effects of tamoxifen on CVD. In addition, we will discuss how recent findings on the mechanisms of action of these therapies may contribute to a better understanding and anticipation of CVD risk in breast cancer patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Dose-banding (DB) consists in approximating the theoretical dose of anticancer drugs calculated according to the body surface area (Dose-BSA) of patients. This concept is supported by pharmacokinetic but not by clinical data. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcome of DB defined as dose-fitting up to ±10%., Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted in patients receiving weekly paclitaxel in neoadjuvant (NAT) and metastatic (M+) settings. Three groups of patients were considered according to type of paclitaxel dosing: Dose-BSA, DB approximated down (DB-Low) and DB approximated up (DB-High). Efficacy was evaluated by the rate of pathological complete response for patients in NAT setting and by the median of progression-free survival plus overall survival for those in M+ setting. Toxicity and efficacy were compared in the 3 groups., Results: A total of 224 and 209 patients were assessable in the M+ and NAT settings, respectively. A toxic event was observed for 31.7 and 27.3% in M+ and NAT, respectively. The rate of pathological complete response was 41.6% in NAT. The median progression-free survival was 5.2 (4.1-5.8) months and overall survival was 16.3 (14.6-18.4) months for patients in M+. Efficacy and toxicity were not different in DB-Low and DB-High groups compared to Dose-BSA group., Conclusion: DB with approximated doses up to ±10% does not seem to influence clinical outcome of patients treated with weekly paclitaxel. This is the first study to include clinical observations, which lends support to DB as a safe and effective dosing method., (© 2023 British Pharmacological Society.)

Purpose: We aimed to determine the pattern of isolated local recurrences (ILR) in women with stage II-III hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 breast cancer (HR + /HER2-BC) after 10-year follow-up., Methods: UNICANCER-PACS 01 and PACS 04 trials included 5,008 women with T1-T3 and N1-N3 to evaluate the efficacy of different anthracycline ± taxanes-containing regimens after modified mastectomy or lumpectomy plus axillary lymph node dissection. We analyzed the data from 2,932 women with HR + /HER2- BC to evaluate the cumulative incidence of ILR and describe the factors associated with ILR., Results: After a median follow-up of 9.1 years (95% CI 9.0-9.2 years), the cumulative incidence of ILR increased steadily between 1 and 10 years from 0.2% to 2.5%. The multivariable analysis showed that older age (subhazard ratios [sHR] = 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.99) and mastectomy (sHR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.86) were associated with lower risk of ILR, and no adjuvant endocrine therapy (sHR = 2.73, 95% CI 1.32 7-5.67) with increased risk of ILR., Conclusion: In this population of high-risk patients with localized HR + /HER2- BC, the risk of ILR was low but remained constant over 10 years. Younger age at diagnosis, breast-conserving surgery, and adjuvant endocrine therapy were independent risk factors of ILR., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: AKT pathway activation is implicated in endocrine-therapy resistance. Data on the efficacy and safety of the AKT inhibitor capivasertib, as an addition to fulvestrant therapy, in patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer are limited., Methods: In a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial, we enrolled eligible pre-, peri-, and postmenopausal women and men with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer who had had a relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive capivasertib plus fulvestrant or placebo plus fulvestrant. The dual primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with AKT pathway-altered ( PIK3CA , AKT1 , or PTEN ) tumors. Safety was assessed., Results: Overall, 708 patients underwent randomization; 289 patients (40.8%) had AKT pathway alterations, and 489 (69.1%) had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously for advanced breast cancer. In the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 7.2 months in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 3.6 months in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.71; P<0.001). In the AKT pathway-altered population, the median progression-free survival was 7.3 months in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 3.1 months in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.65; P<0.001). The most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in patients receiving capivasertib-fulvestrant were rash (in 12.1% of patients, vs. in 0.3% of those receiving placebo-fulvestrant) and diarrhea (in 9.3% vs. 0.3%). Adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported in 13.0% of the patients receiving capivasertib and in 2.3% of those receiving placebo., Conclusions: Capivasertib-fulvestrant therapy resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with fulvestrant alone among patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer whose disease had progressed during or after previous aromatase inhibitor therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor. (Funded by AstraZeneca and the National Cancer Institute; CAPItello-291 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04305496.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Women with a high family risk of breast cancer are those with an identified genetic predisposition or those who have a suggestive family history without an identified germinal mutation, particularly for BRCA1 and BRCA2. Among these women with a very high risk of breast cancer, the fear of a potentially increased risk of breast cancer linked to some hormonal contraceptives and to the use of hormone replacement therapy, in connection with the general population data collected in literature, has led to certain reluctance to prescribe them to these women. Moreover, confusion often sets due to poor knowledge of the literature. Furthermore, the monitoring procedures consist of breast screening and strategies of risk reduction, based on recent recommendations. In order to improve the gynaecological monitoring throughout their lives, we offer here a review based on an analysis of recent literature and of the recommendations concerning personalized screening, contraception and hormone replacement therapy among women with a very high risk of breast cancer free from this illness., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: The authors used the French breast cancer Cancer and Toxicities (CANTO) cohort to study the associations between baseline quality of life and chemotherapy dose-reductions (CDRs) or postchemotherapy-toxicities (PCTs)., Methods: In total, 3079 patients with breast cancer who received chemotherapy were included in this analysis. The associations between baseline physical functioning (PF) and fatigue measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Core 30, and two endpoints-CDRs during adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy; and selected PCTs were estimated with odds ratios (ORs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using logistic regression models., Results: Among the 3079 patients from the CANTO cohort who were included, 718 (33.0%) received chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting, and 2361 (67.0%) received chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment. The chemotherapy included taxanes in 94.2% of patients and anthracyclines in 90.5% of patients. Overall, 15.5% of patients experienced CDRs and, 31.0% developed PCTs. Women with low baseline PF scores (<83) had higher multivariate odds of developing CDRs compared with those who had PF scores ≥83 (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.13-2.09). The corresponding OR for PCTs was 1.50 (95% CI, 1.13-2.00). Women with high baseline fatigue scores had higher odds of CDRs (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13-1.76) and PCTs (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59)., Conclusions: By using the national CANTO cohort, baseline PF and fatigue were independently associated with CDRs and PCTs., (© 2023 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: Data about incidence, biological, and clinical characteristics of oligometastatic breast cancer (OMBC) are scarce. However, these data are essential in determining optimal treatment strategy. Gaining knowledge of these elements means observing and describing large, recent, and consecutive series of OMBC in their natural history., Methods: We collected data retrospectively at our institution from 998 consecutive patients diagnosed and treated with synchronous or metachronous metastatic breast cancer (MBC) between January 2014 and December 2018. The only criterion used to define OMBC was the presence of one to five metastases at diagnosis., Results: Of 998 MBC, 15.8% were classified OMBC. Among these, 88% had one to three metastases, and 86.7% had only one organ involved. Bone metastases were present in 52.5% of cases, 20.9% had progression to lymph nodes, 14.6% to the liver, 13.3% to the brain, 8.2% to the lungs, and 3.8% had other metastases. 55.7% had HR+/HER2- OMBC, 25.3% had HER2+OMBC, and 19% had HR-/HER2- OMBC. The HR+/HER2- subtype statistically correlated with bone metastases (p = 0.001), the HER2+subtype with brain lesions (p = 0.001), and the HR-/HER2- subtype with lymph node metastases (p = 0.008). Visceral metastases were not statistically associated with any OMBC subtypes (p = 0.186). OMBC-SBR grade III was proportionally higher than in the ESME series of 22,109 MBC (49.4% vs. 35.1%, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: OMBC is a heterogeneous entity whose incidence is higher than has commonly been published. Not an indolent disease, each subgroup, with its biological and anatomical characteristics, merits specific management., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Too few women with invasive breast cancer are informed of the risk of hypofertility after chemotherapy. However, this risk can be prevented by offering gamete preservation by a specialized team. We believe that if more women were informed about gamete preservation, more of them would accept it., Objectives: The primary objective is to describe each step of the oncofertility care pathway from provision of information to gamete preservation. The secondary objective is to estimate the impact of not receiving information by determining the proportion of women who would have undergone gamete preservation if they had been informed., Method: 575 women aged 18-40 years treated with chemotherapy for breast cancer between 2012 and 2017 in the Ouest-Occitanie region (~3 million inhabitants) were included. We first constructed a multivariate predictive model to determine the parameters influencing the uptake of the offer of gamete preservation among women who were informed and then applied it to the population of uninformed women., Results: Only 39% of women were informed of the risks of hypofertility related to chemotherapy and 11% ultimately received gamete preservation. If all had been informed of the risk, our model predicted an increase in gamete preservation of 15.35% in the youngest women (<30 years), 22.88% in women aged between 30 and 35 years and zero in those aged ≥36 years. We did not find any association with the European Deprivation Index (EDI)., Conclusion: Oncologists should be aware of the need to inform patients aged ≤ 35 years about gamete preservation. If all received such information, the impact in terms of gamete preservation would likely be major., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Martinet-Kosinski, Lamy, Bauvin, Dalenc, Vaysse and Grosclaude.)

Background: More than 10% of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) will develop Central Nervous System (CNS) metastases as first and isolated site of relapse on trastuzumab and pertuzumab first-line therapy. However, few clinical data are available to guide the best strategy in this setting., Methods: Patients experiencing isolated CNS progression on trastuzumab and pertuzumab first-line therapy were retrospectively identified from the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) real-life database between 2008 and 2016., Results: Among 995 patients treated with first-line trastuzumab and pertuzumab for HER2-positive mBC, 132 patients (13%) experienced isolated CNS progression with a median time of 12 months after mBC diagnosis. Twelves patients did not receive any treatment and were excluded from the analysis. Among the 120 patients considered, 76 (63%) received CNS-directed local therapy, 73 (60%) continued trastuzumab and pertuzumab, whereas 47 (39%) started another systemic treatment. After a median follow-up of 21 months, there was no difference in progression-free survival for patient who continued trastuzumab-pertuzumab or switched to another systemic treatment. In multivariate analysis, trastuzumab-pertuzumab continuation was associated with longer OS (HR 0,28 IC 95%: 0,14-0,54 p < 0,001). mOS was not reached (95% 37.6-NE) and was 23.2 months (95% CI 15.5-53.6) in patients who continued trastuzumab and pertuzumab therapy and in patients who switched for another systemic therapy, respectively., Conclusion: In this real-life cohort, trastuzumab-pertuzumab continuation after local treatment for isolated CNS progression did not negatively impact PFS and OS. Prospective trials and assessment of new strategies are warranted in this specific situation., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Japanese Breast Cancer Society.)

Non-menopausal women with breast cancer treated with chemotherapy are at intermediate risk of post-treatment amenorrhea and decreased fertility. Although they should receive appropriate information, studies until now show that this is inadequate. We investigated the proportion of women who received information about this risk during the pre-treatment consultation, and those who received an oncofertility consultation to preserve their gametes. We also analysed the medical and non-medical factors influencing the transmission of information to patients and their uptake of oncofertility consultations. We included women aged 18-40 years treated with chemotherapy for breast cancer between 2012 and 2017 in the Midi-Pyrénées region (ca. 3 million inhabitants), France. Studied variables were included in a multilevel model. Among the 575 women, 41% of the women received information and 28% received an oncofertility consultation. These two steps on the care pathway were significantly influenced by the type of care structure, the woman's age, her parity at the time of diagnosis, and the metastatic status of the cancer. Female oncologist gender was significantly associated with higher transmission rate. We found no association between neoadjuvant chemotherapy status, level of deprivation (EDI), triple-negative status, marital status, and first-degree family history of cancer and information transmission or uptake of oncofertility consultation. Our study shows that not enough women are informed and have recourse to an oncofertility consultation. Despite a legal obligation, the health care system does not offer the necessary conditions for access to oncofertility care., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Local ablative treatment (LAT) is increasingly combined with systemic therapy in oligometastatic breast cancer (OMBC), without a high-level evidence to support this strategy. We evaluated the addition of LAT to systemic treatment in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were local control (LC) and toxicity. We sought to identify prognostic factors associated with longer OS and PFS., Methods and Materials: We identified consecutive patients treated between 2014 and 2018 for synchronous or metachronous OMBC (defined as ≤ 5 metastases). LAT included stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), surgery, cryotherapy and percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRA). PFS and OS were calculated, and Cox regression models analyzed for potential predictors of survival., Results: One hundred two patients were included (no-LAT, n = 62; LAT, n = 40). Sixty-four metastases received LAT. Median follow-up was 50.4 months (95% CI [44.4; 53.4]). One patient experienced grade 3 toxicity in the LAT group. Five-year PFS and OS were 34.75% (95% CI [24.42-45.26]) and 63.21% (95% CI [50.69-73.37]) respectively. Patients receiving both LAT and systemic therapy had longer PFS and OS than those with no-LAT ([HR 0.39, p = 0.002]) and ([HR 0.31, p = 0.01]). The use of LAT, HER2-positive status and hormone-receptor positivity were associated with longer PFS and OS whereas liver metastases led to worse PFS., Conclusions: LAT was associated with improved outcomes in OMBC when added to systemic treatment, without significantly increasing toxicity. The prognostic factors identified to extend PFS and OS may help guide clinicians in selecting patients for LAT., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Palbociclib has gained a central role in the treatment of hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Despite its manageable toxicity profile, venous thromboembolism (VTE) or interstitial lung disease (ILD)/pneumonitis may infrequently occur. Therefore, we provide a comprehensive summary of the safety and tolerability of the combination of endocrine therapy and palbociclib among patients included in the randomized phase 2 PARSIFAL study., Materials and Methods: Patients with endocrine-sensitive HR+/HER2- ABC and no prior therapy in an advanced setting (n = 486) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive fulvestrant-palbociclib (FP) or letrozole-palbociclib (LP). Laboratory tests and the incidence of adverse events (AEs) were recorded at baseline and day 1 of each cycle. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated for patients with and without VTE., Results: A total of 483 patients were analyzed. Neutropenia, leukopenia, anemia, asthenia, arthralgia, fatigue, and diarrhea were the most frequent AEs in both groups. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 3 (1.2%) patients of the FP group and in 1 (0.4%) patient in the LP group. Six (2.5%; 0.4% grade 3) patients in the FP group and 6 patients (2.5%; 0.4% grade 3) in the LP group experienced ILD/pneumonitis. Pulmonary embolism was reported in 12 (5.0%) patients in the FP group and 6 (2.5%) patients in the LP group. Advanced age at baseline was the only factor significantly associated with an increased risk of pulmonary embolism (P < .01)., Conclusion: The PARSIFAL data confirmed the favorable safety profile of both palbociclib regimens. VTE and ILD/pneumonitis were occasionally reported, and their early detection allowed patients to continue treatment effectively without detriment to efficacy., Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02491983; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02491983)., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Purpose: Everolimus, an oral inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin, improves progression-free survival in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) in postmenopausal women with aromatase inhibitor-resistant metastatic breast cancer. However, the benefit of adding everolimus to ET in the adjuvant setting in early breast cancer is unknown., Patients and Methods: In this randomized double-blind phase III study, women with high-risk, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative primary breast cancer were randomly assigned to everolimus or placebo for 2 years combined with standard ET. Stratification factors included ET agent, receipt of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy, progesterone receptor status, duration of ET before random assignment, and lymph node involvement. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01805271)., Results: Between June 2013 and March 2020, 1,278 patients were randomly allocated to receive everolimus or placebo. At the first interim analysis, the trial was stopped for futility and a full analysis undertaken once data snapshot complete. One hundred forty-seven patients have had a DFS event reported and at 3 years, DFS did not differ between patients who received ET plus everolimus (88% [95% CI, 85 to 91]) or ET plus placebo (89% [95% CI, 86 to 91; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.32; P = .77]). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were reported in 22.9% of patients (29.9% with everolimus v 15.9% with placebo, P < .001). 53.4% everolimus-treated patients permanently discontinued experimental treatment early compared with placebo-treated 22.3%., Conclusion: Among high-risk patients, everolimus added to adjuvant ET did not improve DFS. Tolerability was a concern, with more than half of patients stopping everolimus before study completion. Everolimus cannot be recommended in the adjuvant setting.

Background: In advanced oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, acquired resistance to aromatase inhibitors frequently stems from ESR1-mutated subclones, which might be sensitive to fulvestrant. The PADA-1 trial aimed to show the efficacy of an early change in therapy on the basis of a rising ESR1 mutation in blood (bESR1 mut ), while assessing the global safety of combination fulvestrant and palbociclib., Methods: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial in 83 hospitals in France. Women aged at least 18 years with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were recruited and monitored for rising bESR1 mut during first-line aromatase inhibitor (2·5 mg letrozole, 1 mg anastrozole, or 25 mg exemestane, orally once per day, taken continuously) and palbociclib (125 mg orally once per day on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) therapy. Patients with newly present or increased bESR1 mut in circulating tumour DNA and no synchronous disease progression were randomly assigned (1:1) to continue with the same therapy or to switch to fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscularly on day 1 of each 28-day cycle and on day 15 of cycle 1) and palbociclib (dosing unchanged). The randomisation sequence was generated within an interactive web response system using a minimisation method (with an 80% random factor); patients were stratified according to visceral involvement (present or absent) and the time from inclusion to bESR1 mut detection (<12 months or ≥12 months). The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival from random assignment, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all randomly assigned patients), and grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events in all patients. The trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03079011), and is now complete., Findings: From March 22, 2017, to Jan 31, 2019, 1017 patients were included, of whom 279 (27%) developed a rising bESR1 mut and 172 (17%) were randomly assigned to treatment: 88 to switching to fulvestrant and palbociclib and 84 patients to continuing aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib. At database lock on July 31, 2021, randomly assigned patients had a median follow-up of 35·3 months (IQR 29·2-41·4) from inclusion and 26·0 months (13·8-34·3) from random assignment. Median progression-free survival from random assignment was 11·9 months (95% CI 9·1-13·6) in the fulvestrant and palbociclib group versus 5·7 months (3·9-7·5) in the aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib group (stratified HR 0·61, 0·43-0·86; p=0·0040). The most frequent grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events were neutropenia (715 [70·3%] of 1017 patients), lymphopenia (66 [6·5%]), and thrombocytopenia (20 [2·0%]). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in step 2 were neutropenia (35 [41·7%] of 84 patients in the aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib group vs 39 [44·3%] of 88 patients in the fulvestrant and palbociclib group) and lymphopenia (three [3·6%] vs four [4·5%]). 31 (3·1%) patients had grade 3 or worse serious adverse events related to treatment in the overall population. Three (1·7%) of 172 patients randomly assigned had one serious adverse event in step 2: one (1·2%) grade 4 neutropenia and one (1·2%) grade 3 fatigue among 84 patients in the aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib group, and one (1·1%) grade 4 neutropenia among 88 patients in the fulvestrant and palbociclib group. One death by pulmonary embolism in step 1 was declared as being treatment related., Interpretation: PADA-1 is the first prospective randomised trial showing that the early therapeutic targeting of bESR1 mut results in significant clinical benefit. Additionally, the original design explored in PADA-1 might help with tackling acquired resistance with new drugs in future trials., Funding: Pfizer., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests F-CB reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi, Radius, Seagen, AstraZeneca, General Electric, Menarini/Stemline, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Merck, Pfizer, Prolynx, Rain Therapeutics, and Roche; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, General Electric, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Menarini/Stemline, Novartis, Pfizer, Rain Therapeutics, and Sanofi; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Lilly, Menarini/Stemline, Pfizer, Rain Therapeutics, and Sanofi; support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and Roche; and applied for an international patent (application number PCT/EP2019/056445), filed on March 14, 2019, named: method for identifying one or more mutations in a hotspot mutation sequence. A-CH-B reports, outside the submitted work, consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Merck Sharpe & Dohme; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, AstraZeneca, Daiichi, GSK, Seagen, and Gilead; support for attending meetings or travel from Novartis, Pfizer, and Daiichi; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MSD, AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Pfizer, Novartis, GSK, Seagen, Gilead, and Eisai. TB reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and SeaGen; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Lilly, SeaGen, Roche, Novartis, and Pfizer. J-YP reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Servier and Menarini; consulting fees from Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and MSD; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, MSD, Seagen, Novartis, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, and Amgen; support for attending meetings or travel from Roche and AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Sanofi and Novartis. TdlMR reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, Pfizer, and Seagen; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Tesaro, GSK, and Seagen; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from GSK. RS reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from AstraZeneca; consulting fees from GSK; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Novartis, GSK, Clovis, and AstraZeneca; and support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, Roche, GSK, and Bristol Myers Squibb. J-SF reports, outside the submitted work, consulting fees from Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seagen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seagen; and support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seagen. SL reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Novartis, Eisai, and BMS; consulting fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Roche, BMS, Daiichi, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Roche, BMS, Daiichi, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre; payment for expert testimony from Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Roche, BMS, Daiichi, and Seagen; support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, BMS, Daiichi, and Seagen; and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from BMS. CL reports, outside the submitted work, consulting fees from MSD, Daiichi, Roche, and AstraZeneca; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Lilly; support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, Pfizer, Sandoz, Lilly, and AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Roche, AstraZeneca, and Lilly. AL reports, outside the submitted work, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, MSD, and Clovis; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, MSD, and Clovis; and leadership or fiduciary role in other board for GINECO group. JG reports, outside the submitted work, support for attending meetings or travel from Lilly and Daiichi; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Daiichi and Pfizer. HV reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Daiichi, and Pfizer; and support for attending meetings or travel from Eisai, GSK, MSD, and Novartis. CG-T reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Pfizer; consulting fees from Pfizer; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astrazeneca, Pfizer and Novartis; and support for attending meetings or travel from MSD, Mylan, and Pfizer. BP reports, outside the submitted work, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Myriad, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Puma; support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, and MSD; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo. FA reports, outside the submitted work, reports grants or contracts from Roche, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly; and consulting fees from Gilead, Guardant Health, MedImmune, and Relay Therapeutics. LA reports, outside the submitted work, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, and BMS; and support for attending meetings or travel from Roche. JL reports a Pfizer grant to his institution for carrying out this study. SD reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche Genentech, Lilly, Puma, Myriad, Orion, Amgen, Sanofi, MSD, BMS, Seagen, and Taiho; consulting fees from Isis/Servier, Cellectis, Pierre Fabre, and General Electric; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Seagen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, Daiichi, and Lilly; support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Roche Genentech; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Orion, and Rappta. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) endocrine-resistant metastatic breast cancer is treated with sequential single-agent chemotherapy with poor outcomes. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate with an SN-38 payload targeting trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2, an epithelial antigen expressed in breast cancer., Methods: In this global, randomized, phase III study, SG was compared with physician's choice chemotherapy (eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine) in endocrine-resistant, chemotherapy-treated HR+/HER2- locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic breast cancer. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review., Results: Patients were randomly assigned to receive SG (n = 272) or chemotherapy (n = 271). The median age was 56 years, 95% had visceral metastases, and 99% had a prior cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, with three median lines of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Primary end point was met with a 34% reduction in risk of progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.83; P = .0003]). The median PFS was 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 7.0) with SG and 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.1 to 4.4) with chemotherapy; the PFS at 6 and 12 months was 46% (95% CI, 39 to 53) v 30% (95% CI, 24 to 37) and 21% (95% CI, 15 to 28) v 7% (95% CI, 3 to 14), respectively. Median overall survival (first planned interim analysis) was not yet mature (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = .14). Key grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (SG v chemotherapy) were neutropenia (51% v 38%) and diarrhea (9% v 1%)., Conclusion: SG demonstrated statistically significant PFS benefit over chemotherapy, with a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pretreated, endocrine-resistant HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer and limited treatment options., Competing Interests: Hope S. RugoHonoraria: Puma Biotechnology, Mylan, Samsung Bioepis, Chugai Pharma, Blueprint Medicines, Napo PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: OBI Pharma (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Merck (Inst), Odonate Therapeutics (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Sermonix Pharmaceuticals (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), Ayala Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), MacroGenics (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Polyphor (Inst)Open Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/summary Aditya BardiaConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis (Inst), Genentech, Pfizer, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, BioTheranostics, Merck, Radius Health (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Innocrin Pharma (Inst), Sanofi, Puma Biotechnology, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Foundation Medicine, Philips HealthcareResearch Funding: Genentech (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Merck (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Radius Health (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo (Inst)Open Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/523675 Frederik MarméHonoraria: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Celgene, Genomic Health, PharmaMar, Amgen, MSD Oncology, Immunomedics (Inst), Settle Genetics, Myriad Genetics, Pierre Fabre, GlaxoSmithKline, AGENDIA, Lilly, Gilead SciencesConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca (Inst), Tesaro, Pfizer, Roche (Inst), Genomic Health, CureVac, Amgen, Vaccibody (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech (Inst), Novartis (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Tesaro (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), Vaccibody (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca Javier CortesStock and Other Ownership Interests: MedSIR, Nektar, Leuko (I)Honoraria: Novartis, Eisai, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi SankyoConsulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Cellestia Biotech, AstraZeneca, Roche, Settle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, ERYTECH Pharma, Polyphor, Athenex, Lilly, Servier, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, Leuko, Clovis Oncology, Bioasis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, HiberCell, BioInvent, GEMoaB, Gilead Sciences, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal GenomicsResearch Funding: ARIAD (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Baxalta (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Guardant Health (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Queen Mary University of London (Inst), Roche (Inst), Piqur (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Pharmaceuticals Combinations of A Pi3k Inhibitor and a Microtubule Destabilizing Agent. Javier Cortes Castan, Alejandro Piris Gimenez, Violeta Srra Elizalde. WO 2014/199294 A, Her2 as a predictor of response to dual HER2 blockade in the absence of cytotoxic therapy, Aleix Prat, Antonio Llombart, Javier Cortes, US 2019/0338368 A1Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences Peter SchmidEmployment: Roche (I)Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Eisai, CelgeneConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche (I), AstraZeneca, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai, Celgene, Puma BiotechnologyResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), OncoGenex (Inst), Genetech (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Roche (Inst), Medivation Delphine LoiratHonoraria: MSD, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Immunomedics, Gilead Sciences, 4D Pharma, LillyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Gilead Sciences Olivier TrédanConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Eisai Europe, Sandoz-Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Pierre Fabre, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: Roche (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Bayer (Inst),Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology Eva CiruelosConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZenecaSpeakers' Bureau: Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Pfizer Komal L. JhaveriConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Jounce Therapeutics, Synthon, IntelliSphere, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, AbbVie, Lilly, Blueprint Medicines, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Biotheranostics, Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company, Taiho Oncology, Sanofi, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Debiopharm Group (Inst), ADC Therapeutics (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novita Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Zymeworks (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), VelosBio/Merck (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Taiho Pharmaceutical, Jounce Therapeutics, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, IntelliSphere, Lilly, Gilead Sciences Rosemary DelaneyEmployment: Gilead SciencesStock and Other Ownership Interests: Immunomedics (I), Gilead Sciences Olivia FuEmployment: Gilead SciencesStock and Other Ownership Interests: Gilead SciencesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Gilead Sciences Lanjia LinEmployment: Gilead SciencesStock and Other Ownership Interests: Gilead SciencesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Gilead Sciences Wendy VerretEmployment: Roche/Genentech, Gilead Sciences Sara M. TolaneyThis author is a member of the Journal of Clinical Oncology Editorial Board. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, NanoString Technologies, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Genentech, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Paxman, Seattle Genetics, Odonate Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, OncoPep, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Samsung Bioepis, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Immunomedics/Gilead, Mersana, Certara Inc, 4D Pharma, Ellipses Pharma, OncoSec, Chugai Pharma, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna Therapeutics, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Zymeworks, Zentalis, BluePrint Medicines, Reveal GenomicsResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche (Inst), Merck (Inst), Exelixis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Eisai (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), NanoString Technologies (Inst), Cyclacel (Inst), Nektar (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Odonate Therapeutics (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Settle Genetics (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Patients with pretreated estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer have poor prognosis. Elacestrant is a novel, oral selective ER degrader that demonstrated activity in early studies., Methods: This randomized, open-label, phase III trial enrolled patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had one-two lines of endocrine therapy, required pretreatment with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, and ≤ 1 chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to elacestrant 400 mg orally once daily or standard-of-care (SOC) endocrine monotherapy. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review in all patients and patients with detectable ESR1 mutations., Results: Patients were randomly assigned to elacestrant (n = 239) or SOC (n = 238). ESR1 mutation was detected in 47.8% of patients, and 43.4% received two prior endocrine therapies. PFS was prolonged in all patients (hazard ratio = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.88; P = .002) and patients with ESR1 mutation (hazard ratio = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.77; P = .0005). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 7.2% receiving elacestrant and 3.1% receiving SOC. Treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuations were 3.4% in the elacestrant arm versus 0.9% in SOC. Nausea of any grade occurred in 35.0% receiving elacestrant and 18.8% receiving SOC (grade 3/4, 2.5% and 0.9%, respectively)., Conclusion: Elacestrant is the first oral selective ER degrader demonstrating a significant PFS improvement versus SOC both in the overall population and in patients with ESR1 mutations with manageable safety in a phase III trial for patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Cancer progression is driven in part by genomic alterations 1 . The genomic characterization of cancers has shown interpatient heterogeneity regarding driver alterations 2 , leading to the concept that generation of genomic profiling in patients with cancer could allow the selection of effective therapies 3,4 . Although DNA sequencing has been implemented in practice, it remains unclear how to use its results. A total of 1,462 patients with HER2-non-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer were enroled to receive genomic profiling in the SAFIR02-BREAST trial. Two hundred and thirty-eight of these patients were randomized in two trials (nos. NCT02299999 and NCT03386162) comparing the efficacy of maintenance treatment 5 with a targeted therapy matched to genomic alteration. Targeted therapies matched to genomics improves progression-free survival when genomic alterations are classified as level I/II according to the ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) 6 (adjusted hazards ratio (HR): 0.41, 90% confidence interval (CI): 0.27-0.61, P < 0.001), but not when alterations are unselected using ESCAT (adjusted HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.56-1.06, P = 0.109). No improvement in progression-free survival was observed in the targeted therapies arm (unadjusted HR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.76-1.75) for patients presenting with ESCAT alteration beyond level I/II. Patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations (n = 49) derived high benefit from olaparib (gBRCA1: HR = 0.36, 90% CI: 0.14-0.89; gBRCA2: HR = 0.37, 90% CI: 0.17-0.78). This trial provides evidence that the treatment decision led by genomics should be driven by a framework of target actionability in patients with metastatic breast cancer., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who relapse early after (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy have more aggressive disease. In the ASCENT trial, sacituzumab govitecan (SG), an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an anti-Trop-2 antibody coupled to SN-38 via a hydrolyzable linker, improved outcomes over single-agent chemotherapy of physician's choice (TPC) in metastatic TNBC (mTNBC). Of 468 patients without known baseline brain metastases, 33/235 vs 32/233 patients (both 14%) in the SG vs TPC arms, respectively, received one line of therapy in the metastatic setting and experienced disease recurrence ≤12 months after (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. SG prolonged progression-free survival (median 5.7 vs 1.5 months [HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.76]) and overall survival (median 10.9 vs 4.9 months [HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.91]) vs TPC, with a manageable safety profile in this subgroup consistent with the overall population. In this second-line setting, as with later-line therapy, SG improved survival over conventional chemotherapy for patients with mTNBC., (© 2022. The Author(s).)