Search

Adjuvant therapy; Breast cancer; Olaparib Terapia adyuvante; Cáncer de mama; Olaparib Teràpia adjuvant; Càncer de mama; Olaparib Background The randomized, double-blind OlympiA trial compared 1 year of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, olaparib, to matching placebo as adjuvant therapy for patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (gBRCA1/2pv) and high-risk, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, early breast cancer (EBC). The first pre-specified interim analysis (IA) previously demonstrated statistically significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS). The olaparib group had fewer deaths than the placebo group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance for overall survival (OS). We now report the pre-specified second IA of OS with updates of IDFS, DDFS, and safety. Patients and methods One thousand eight hundred and thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo following (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy if indicated. Endocrine therapy was given concurrently with study medication for hormone receptor-positive cancers. Statistical significance for OS at this IA required P < 0.015. Results With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the second IA of OS demonstrated significant improvement in the olaparib group relative to the placebo group [hazard ratio 0.68; 98.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.97; P = 0.009]. Four-year OS was 89.8% in the olaparib group and 86.4% in the placebo group (Δ 3.4%, 95% CI −0.1% to 6.8%). Four-year IDFS for the olaparib group versus placebo group was 82.7% versus 75.4% (Δ 7.3%, 95% CI 3.0% to 11.5%) and 4-year DDFS was 86.5% versus 79.1% (Δ 7.4%, 95% CI 3.6% to 11.3%), respectively. Subset analyses for OS, IDFS, and DDFS demonstrated benefit across major subgroups. No new safety signals were identified including no new cases of acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome. Conclusion With 3.5 years of median follow-up, OlympiA demonstrates statistically significant improvement in OS with adjuvant olaparib compared with placebo for gBRCA1/2pv-associated EBC and maintained improvements in the previously reported, statistically significant endpoints of IDFS and DDFS with no new safety signals. Funding for this work, which was conducted as a collaborative partnership among the Breast International Group, NRG Oncology, Frontier Science, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, U.S.A. (MSD), was provided by the National Institutes of Health (grant numbers: U10CA 180868, UG1CA 189867, and U10CA 180822) and by AstraZeneca as part of an alliance between AstraZeneca and MSD. Provision of olaparib and placebo was from AstraZeneca.

In early triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC), platinum-based chemotherapy has been shown to improve pathological complete response, but recommendations to include platinum chemotherapy are not consistent in international guidelines. We performed a systematic review of published randomized control trials to assess to assess survival outcomes and quality of life for people with early TNBC. The results presented in this abstract have not yet been peer-reviewed by Cochrane. If the final version of the review meets the necessary standards, the review is expected to be published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Methods: Randomized controlled trials examining neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum chemotherapy for eTNBC were included. We searched for published and unpublished data using standard Cochrane search strategies. The primary outcomes assessed were disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included rate of pathological complete response (pCR), dose intensity and completion of regimens, grade III or IV toxicity related to chemotherapy, and quality of life. Prespecified subgroups included BRCA mutation status, HRD status, lymph node status, frequency of chemotherapy, type of platinum agent used, and the presence or absence of anthracycline chemotherapy. Results: From 3972 records, 19 published studies were eligible. Twenty six ongoing studies were identified. Risk of bias was judged low for most trials. There were 14 neoadjuvant chemotherapy trials, 4 adjuvant chemotherapy trials, and one trial of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy. Most trials used carboplatin (16 trials) followed by cisplatin (2), and lobaplatin (1). Eight trials had an anthracycline free intervention arm, 5 of which had a carboplatin-taxane intervention compared to an anthracycline-taxane control. All studies reporting DFS and OS used carboplatin. Twelve of 19 studies with a total of 3347 participants reported DFS data. Inclusion of platinum chemotherapy improved DFS in neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting (HR 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.75; HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54-0.88 respectively)). Eleven studies collected OS data, with a total of 3229 participants and 460 deaths reported. Inclusion of platinum chemotherapy in the regimen improved OS (neoadjuvant: HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69, 0.55-0.86; adjuvant: 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96). Median follow up for survival outcomes ranged from 36 – 97.6 months. Our analysis confirmed platinum chemotherapy increased pCR rates (RR 1.46 [1.33-1.61], p< 0.00001). Subgroup analysis revealed that survival outcome benefits were seen regardless of BRCA mutation status, HRD status, lymph node status, or whether the intervention arm contained anthracycline chemotherapy or not. Platinum chemotherapy was associated with reduced dose intensity, with participants more likely to require chemotherapy delays (RR 2.23 [1.70-2.94], 4 studies), dose reductions (RR 1.77 [1.56-2.02], 6 studies) and early cessation of treatment (RR 1.20 [1.04-1.38], 16 studies). Increased hematological toxicity occurred in the platinum group who were more likely to experience grade III/IV neutropenia (RR 1.55 [1.45-1.66]), anemia (RR 10.12 [6.61-15.50]) and thrombocytopenia (RR 7.59 [5.10-11.29]). There was no increase in febrile neutropenia (RR 1.16 [0.89-1.49]). Treatment-related death was very rare (7 events in 3094 patients) and similar across treatment groups (RR 0.58 [0.14-2.33]). Five studies collected quality of life data but did not report it. Conclusion: Platinum-based chemotherapy using carboplatin in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting improves long-term outcomes in eTNBC, regardless of the examined subgroups. This was at the cost of more frequent chemotherapy delays and dose reductions, and greater haematological toxicity. Benefit from platinum was seen both when platinum agents were added to anthracycline containing regimens, as well as in anthracycline-free regimens. Citation Format: Sofia Mason, Melina Willson, Annabel Goodwin, Jane Beith, Sam J. Egger, Rachel F. Dear. Platinum-based chemotherapy for early triple-negative breast cancer: A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-06-01.

Supplementary Data from Determinants of Response to Talazoparib in Patients with HER2-Negative, Germline BRCA1/2-Mutated Breast Cancer

Purpose:PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have demonstrated efficacy in tumors with germline breast cancer susceptibility genes (gBRCA) 1 and 2 mutations, but further factors influencing response to PARPi are poorly understood.Experimental Design:Breast cancer tumor tissue from patients with gBRCA1/2 mutations from the phase III EMBRACA trial of the PARPi talazoparib versus chemotherapy was sequenced using FoundationOne CDx.Results:In the evaluable intent-to-treat population, 96.1% (296/308) had ≥1 tumor BRCA (tBRCA) mutation and there was strong concordance (95.3%) between tBRCA and gBRCA mutational status. Genetic/genomic characteristics including BRCA loss of heterozygosity (LOH; identified in 82.6% of evaluable patients), DNA damage response (DDR) gene mutational burden, and tumor homologous recombination deficiency [assessed by genomic LOH (gLOH)] demonstrated no association with talazoparib efficacy.Conclusions:Overall, BRCA LOH status, DDR gene mutational burden, and gLOH were not associated with talazoparib efficacy; however, these conclusions are qualified by population heterogeneity and low patient numbers in some subgroups. Further investigation in larger patient populations is warranted.

Supplementary Figure from Determinants of Response to Talazoparib in Patients with HER2-Negative, Germline BRCA1/2-Mutated Breast Cancer

Introduction: This cluster-randomized controlled trial aimed to assess the effect of the “Which test is best?” tool on risk-appropriate screening (RAS) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. Methods: General practices in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, and a random sub-sample of 460 patients (aged 25–74 years) per practice were invited by post. Clusters were computer randomized independently of the researchers to an online CRC risk calculator with risk-based recommendations versus usual care. Primary and secondary outcomes were RAS and screening uptake via self-reported 5-year screening behaviour after 12 months follow-up. The usual care group (UCG) also self-reported 5-year CRC screening behaviour at 12 month post-randomization. Results: Fifty-six practices were randomized (27 to the intervention and 29 to the control, 55 practices participated) with 818 intervention and 677 controls completing the primary outcome measure. The intervention significantly increased RAS in high-risk participants compared with UCG (80.0% vs. 64.0%, respectively; OR = 3.14, 95% CI: 1.25–7.96) but not in average-risk (44.9% vs. 49.5%, respectively; OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.99–1.12) or moderate-risk individuals (67.9% vs. 81.1%, respectively; OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.12–1.33). Faecal occult blood testing uptake over 12 months was increased compared with the UCG (24.9% vs. 15.1%; adjusted OR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.24–2.22), and there was a non-significant increase in colonoscopies during the same period (16.6% vs. 12.2%; adjusted OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 0.97–2.08). Conclusion: An online CRC risk calculator with risk-based screening recommendations increased RAS in high-risk participants and improved screening uptake overall within a 12-month follow-up period. Such tools may be useful for facilitating the uptake of risk-based screening guidelines.

Fanconi anaemia due to biallelic loss of BRCA2 (Fanconi anaemia subtype D1) is traditionally diagnosed during childhood with cancer rates historically reported as 97% by 5.2 years. This report describes an adult woman with a history of primary ovarian failure, who was diagnosed with gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma and BRCA2-associated Fanconi anaemia at 23 years of age, only after she suffered severe chemotherapy toxicity. The diagnostic challenges include atypical presentation, initial false-negative chromosome fragility testing and variant classification. It highlights gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma as a consideration for adults with biallelic BRCA2 pathogenic variants with implications for surveillance. After over 4 years, the patient has no evidence of gastrointestinal cancer recurrence although the tumour was initially considered only borderline resectable. The use of platinum-based chemotherapy, to which heterozygous BRCA2 carriers are known to respond, may have had a beneficial anticancer effect, but caution is advised given its extreme immediate toxicity at standard dosing. Fanconi anaemia should be considered as a cause for women with primary ovarian failure of unknown cause and referral to cancer genetic services recommended when there is a family history of cancer in the hereditary breast/ovarian cancer spectrum.

PURPOSE: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) affects 50%-70% of cancer survivors. This multicenter, single-arm study sought to determine the participant-rated usefulness of an oncologist-delivered FCR intervention. METHODS: Women who completed treatment for early breast cancer (could be receiving endocrine therapy) with baseline FCR > 0 were invited to participate. FCR was measured using a validated 42-item FCR Inventory. The brief oncologist-delivered intervention entailed (1) FCR normalization; (2) provision of personalized prognostic information; (3) recurrence symptoms education, (4) advice on managing worry, and (5) referral to psycho-oncologist if FCR was high. FCR, depression, and anxiety were assessed preintervention (T0), at 1 week (T1), and 3 months (T2) postintervention. The primary outcome was participant-rated usefulness. Secondary outcomes included feasibility and efficacy. RESULTS: Five oncologists delivered the intervention to 61/255 women invited. Mean age was 58 ± 12 years. Mean time since breast cancer diagnosis was 2.5 ± 1.3 years. Forty-three women (71%) were on adjuvant endocrine therapy. Of 58 women who completed T1 assessment, 56 (97%) found the intervention to be useful. FCR severity decreased significantly at T1 (F = 18.5, effect size = 0.39, P < .0001) and T2 (F = 24, effect size = 0.68, P < .0001) compared with baseline. There were no changes in unmet need or depression or anxiety. Mean consultation length was 22 minutes (range, 7-47 minutes), and mean intervention length was 8 minutes (range, 2-20 minutes). The intervention was perceived as useful and feasible by oncologists. CONCLUSION: A brief oncologist-delivered intervention to address FCR is useful and feasible, and has preliminary efficacy in reducing FCR. Plans for a cluster randomized trial are underway.

Purpose: PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have demonstrated efficacy in tumors with germline breast cancer susceptibility genes (gBRCA) 1 and 2 mutations, but further factors influencing response to PARPi are poorly understood. Experimental Design: Breast cancer tumor tissue from patients with gBRCA1/2 mutations from the phase III EMBRACA trial of the PARPi talazoparib versus chemotherapy was sequenced using FoundationOne CDx. Results: In the evaluable intent-to-treat population, 96.1% (296/308) had ≥1 tumor BRCA (tBRCA) mutation and there was strong concordance (95.3%) between tBRCA and gBRCA mutational status. Genetic/genomic characteristics including BRCA loss of heterozygosity (LOH; identified in 82.6% of evaluable patients), DNA damage response (DDR) gene mutational burden, and tumor homologous recombination deficiency [assessed by genomic LOH (gLOH)] demonstrated no association with talazoparib efficacy. Conclusions: Overall, BRCA LOH status, DDR gene mutational burden, and gLOH were not associated with talazoparib efficacy; however, these conclusions are qualified by population heterogeneity and low patient numbers in some subgroups. Further investigation in larger patient populations is warranted.

Background In EMBRACA, talazoparib prolonged progression-free survival versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.542 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.413-0.711]; P Patients and methods This randomized phase III trial enrolled patients with gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative ABC. Patients received talazoparib or physician's choice of chemotherapy. OS was analyzed using stratified HR and log-rank test and prespecified rank-preserving structural failure time model to account for subsequent treatments. Results A total of 431 patients were entered in a randomized study (287 talazoparib/144 chemotherapy) with 412 patients treated (286 talazoparib/126 chemotherapy). By 30 September 2019, 216 deaths (75.3%) occurred for talazoparib and 108 (75.0%) chemotherapy; median follow-up was 44.9 and 36.8 months, respectively. HR for OS with talazoparib versus chemotherapy was 0.848 (95% CI 0.670-1.073; P = 0.17); median (95% CI) 19.3 months (16.6-22.5 months) versus 19.5 months (17.4-22.4 months). Kaplan–Meier survival percentages (95% CI) for talazoparib versus chemotherapy: month 12, 71% (66% to 76%)/74% (66% to 81%); month 24, 42% (36% to 47%)/38% (30% to 47%); month 36, 27% (22% to 33%)/21% (14% to 29%). Most patients received subsequent treatments: for talazoparib and chemotherapy, 46.3%/41.7% received platinum and 4.5%/32.6% received a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, respectively. Adjusting for subsequent PARP and/or platinum use, HR for OS was 0.756 (95% bootstrap CI 0.503-1.029). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 69.6% (talazoparib) and 64.3% (chemotherapy) patients, consistent with previous reports. Extended follow-up showed significant overall improvement and delay in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration in global health status/quality of life and breast symptoms favoring talazoparib versus chemotherapy (P Conclusions In gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative ABC, talazoparib did not significantly improve OS over chemotherapy; subsequent treatments may have impacted analysis. Safety was consistent with previous observations. PRO continued to favor talazoparib.

Background: Loss-of-function mutations in genes encoding components of the homologous recombination DNA damage response (DDR) machinery, notably BRCA1/2, are associated with tumor sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). Little is known about the potential contribution of tumor alterations in non-DDR genes to modulating sensitivity to PARP inhibitors in the clinic. In EMBRACA, the PARPi TALA improved progression-free survival (PFS) (HR [95% CI] 0.54 [0.41-0.71], P Methods: Baseline tumor tissue from 308 pts (71%; intent-to-treat) was tested by FoundationOne®. To support exploratory identification of tumor gene alterations associated with best vs worst outcomes, pts were mapped into 2 groups: [1] BEST: Pts in TALA arm with OS ≥ 30 mo and duration of treatment ≥ 24 mo, Pts in CT arm with OS ≥ 30 mo; [2] WORST: Pts in TALA or CT arm with a PFS event (PD by Independent Radiological Facility or death) ≤ 12 wks. 2 pts had short PFS but long OS and were initially mapped to both groups but then assigned to BEST and excluded from WORST. Results: Exploratory heat map visualizations of known/likely pathogenic genetic alterations defined by the FoundationOne® gene panel were used to assess differences in genetic alterations between BEST and WORST in TNBC and non-TNBC subpopulations, leading to the identification of MYC and RAD21 as commonly altered genes of high interest. Based on these results showing imbalances in tumor amplification events between BEST and WORST outcome pts, Cox regression analysis was used to explore potential associations of MYC or RAD21 amplification with OS across the evaluable ITT population. In TNBC pts receiving TALA, OS was shorter with MYC amplification than without [HR (95% CI) 1.877 (1.102, 3.196)]. No such association was evident in TNBC pts receiving CT [HR (95% CI) 0.706 (0.303, 1.643)]. In contrast, for non-TNBC pts receiving TALA, no association with OS was evident for MYC amplification versus without [HR (95% CI) 0.603 (0.310, 1.173)], while for pts receiving CT OS was shorter with MYC amplification than without [HR (95% CI) 1.917 (1.037, 3.544)]. RAD21 amplification status was not associated with OS in either TNBC or non-TNBC patients for either treatment arm, although it should be noted that two RAD21 subgroups were very small (n=7 and 11; others had n ≥ 21). Conclusions: Based on these exploratory, retrospective analyses MYC amplification was associated with shorter OS in TNBC pts receiving TALA. This may reflect the role of MYC in positive regulation of genes involved in homologous recombination such as RAD51 (Carey et al, Cancer Res 2018;78(3):742-757). MYC and RAD21 are both located at 8q24 and frequently coamplified in breast cancer (eg, Annunziato et al, Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):397), hence the lack of association of RAD21 amplification with outcome in TNBC suggests that the association of MYC amplification with shorter OS seen in pts receiving TALA may be gene-specific. Further investigation is warranted. Funding: Pfizer TNBCNon-TNBCTALACTTALACTGene AlterationBest n=10Worst n=15Best n=7Worst n=16Best n=17Worst n=11Best n=20Worst n=11MYC amplification0 (0%)7 (47%)2 (29%)6 (38%)5 (29%)1 (9%)3 (15%)5 (46%)RAD21 amplification1 (10%)2 (13%)3 (43%)5 (31%)5 (29%)1 (9%)7 (35%)4 (36%) Citation Format: Johannes Ettl, A. Douglas Laird, Joanne L. Blum, Hope S. Rugo, Sara A. Hurvitz, Miguel Martín, Henri Roché, Young-Hyuck Im, Annabel Goodwin, Rinat Yerushalmi, Tiziana Usari, Silvana Lanzalone, Akos Czibere, Julia Hopkins, Lee A. Albacker, Lida A. Mina, Jennifer K. Litton. A retrospective analysis of association of MYC and RAD21 amplification with final overall survival (OS) data in the phase 3 EMBRACA study with talazoparib [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS5-07.

Findings 5585 families with Lynch syndrome from 22 countries were eligible for the analysis. Of these, there were insufficient numbers to estimate penetrance for Asia and South America, and for those with EPCAM variants. Therefore, we used data (collected between July 11, 2014, and Dec 31, 2018) from 5255 families (1829 MLH1, 2179 MSH2, 798 MSH6, and 449 PMS2), comprising 79 809 relatives, recruited in 15 countries in North America, Europe, and Australasia. There was strong evidence of the existence of unknown familial risk factors modifying colorectal cancer risk for Lynch syndrome carriers (p 0 center dot 0001 for each of the three three continents). These familial risk factors resulted in a wide within-gene variation in the risk of colorectal cancer for men and women from each continent who all carried pathogenic variants in the same gene or the MSH2 c.942+3A T variant. The variation was especially prominent for MLH1 and MSH2 variant carriers, depending on gene, sex and continent, with 7-56% of carriers having a colorectal cancer penetrance of less than 20%, 9-44% having a penetrance of more than 80%, and onlyBackground Existing clinical practice guidelines for carriers of pathogenic variants of DNA mismatch repair genes (Lynch syndrome) are based on the mean age-specific cumulative risk (penetrance) of colorectal cancer for all carriers of pathogenic variants in the same gene. We aimed to estimate the variation in the penetrance of colorectal cancer between carriers of pathogenic variants in the same gene by sex and continent of residence. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we sourced data from the International Mismatch Repair Consortium, which comprises 273 members from 122 research centres or clinics in 32 countries from six continents who are involved in Lynch syndrome research. Families with at least three members and at least one confirmed carrier of a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a DNA mismatch repair gene (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2) were included. The families of probands with known de-novo pathogenic variants were excluded. Data were collected on the method of ascertainment of the family, sex, carrier status, cancer diagnoses, and ages at the time of pedigree collection and at last contact or death. We used a segregation analysis conditioned on ascertainment to estimate the mean penetrance of colorectal cancer and modelled unmeasured polygenic factors to estimate the variation in penetrance. The existence of unknown familial risk factors modifying colorectal cancer risk for Lynch syndrome carriers was tested by use of a Wald p value for the null hypothesis that the polygenic SD is zero. Findings 5585 families with Lynch syndrome from 22 countries were eligible for the analysis. Of these, there were insufficient numbers to estimate penetrance for Asia and South America, and for those with EPCAM variants. Therefore, we used data (collected between July 11, 2014, and Dec 31, 2018) from 5255 families (1829 MLH1, 2179 MSH2, 798 MSH6, and 449 PMS2), comprising 79 809 relatives, recruited in 15 countries in North America, Europe, and Australasia. There was strong evidence of the existence of unknown familial risk factors modifying colorectal cancer risk for Lynch syndrome carriers (pT variant. The variation was especially prominent for MLH1 and MSH2 variant carriers, depending on gene, sex and continent, with 7-56% of carriers having a colorectal cancer penetrance of less than 20%, 9-44% having a penetrance of more than 80%, and only 10-19% having a penetrance of 40-60%. Interpretation Our study findings highlight the important role of risk modifiers, which could lead to personalised risk assessments for precision prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer for people with Lynch syndrome. Funding National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia. Copyright (c) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we sourced data from the International Mismatch Repair Consortium, which comprises 273 members from 122 research centres or clinics in 32 countries from six continents who are involved in Lynch syndrome research. Families with at least three members and at least one confirmed carrier of a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a DNA mismatch repair gene (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2) were included. The families of probands with known de-novo pathogenic variants were excluded. Data were collected on the method of ascertainment of the family, sex, carrier status, cancer diagnoses, and ages at the time of pedigree collection and at last contact or death. We used a segregation analysis conditioned on ascertainment to estimate the mean penetrance of colorectal cancer and modelled unmeasured polygenic factors to estimate the variation in penetrance. The existence of unknown familial risk factors modifying colorectal cancer risk for Lynch syndrome carriers was tested by use of a Wald p value for the null hypothesis that the polygenic SD is zero.

Fanconi anaemia due to biallelic loss of

Background: Talazoparib (TAL) prevents DNA damage repair by inhibiting poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) enzymes and trapping PARP on DNA, resulting in cell death in BRCA1/2-mutated cells. Methods: EMBRACA is an open-label, randomized, 2-arm phase 3 trial in which efficacy and safety of TAL (1 mg/d) were compared with physician's choice of therapy (PCT; capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, vinorelbine) in patients (pts) with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (ABC) and a germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm). Outcomes were assessed by region of the world (North America [NA]; Europe [EU]; rest of world [ROW]). Progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 24 wks were assessed; safety was also assessed. Results: 431 pts were randomized 2:1. Pt characteristics were well balanced, although a higher percentage of pts in ROW had more severe disease (eg, triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC], Disease-free interval [DFI] Table 1CategoryNA* (N=156)EU* (N=190)ROW* (N=85)Mean age, years49.049.244.2Race, % White76.971.152.9Black5.8-3.5Asian5.8-42.4Not reported-27.4-TNBC, %424447BRCA1**, %414748BRCA2**, %595352DFI Conclusions: In pts with gBRCAm ABC, TAL demonstrated significant improvements in clinical outcomes compared with PCT regardless of the region of the world in which they lived. However, slight differences among the regions in baseline characteristics were noted, possibly due to regional variation in diagnosis and detection of gBRCAm ABC as well as different treatment paradigms for metastatic breast cancer. Funding: Medivation LLC, acquired by Pfizer. Citation Format: Mina L, Lee K-H, Gonçalves A, Woodward N, Hurvitz SA, Diab S, Yerushalmi R, Goodwin A, Moreira Costa Zorzetto M, Kim S-B, Czibere A, Tudor IC, Gauthier E, Litton JK, Ettl J. EMBRACA: Efficacy and safety of talazoparib or physician's choice of therapy in patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation: A regional analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-18-12.

This study aims to determine the attitudes and barriers of Australian oncology health professionals towards using tamoxifen as a breast cancer risk-reducing medication (RRM). Our target group was health professionals involved in breast cancer risk assessment or treatment. Members of relevant medical organizations in Australia and New Zealand were invited to participate in a web-based survey assessing: their attitudes towards tamoxifen as a RRM; which health professionals they felt were responsible for initiating and monitoring women on RRM and their views on workforce issues related to RRM prescription. There were 100 respondents, including 33 genetic health professionals, 32 medical oncologists and 20 surgeons. Respondents perceived tamoxifen to be effective as a RRM (99%). However, only 41% of prescribing health professionals (n = 64) had ever prescribed tamoxifen as a RRM. Overall, survey respondents felt that the initiation of RRM was the role of specialists. Assessing a patient's risk of breast cancer was reported to be the role of cancer geneticists/familial cancer clinicians (74%) and medical oncologists (66%). Discussion about the use of RRM was reported to be the role of these same groups (84% and 85% respectively). Medical oncologists (83%) and breast physicians (70%) were most frequently considered to be responsible for initiating the prescription and monitoring women once commenced on RRM (72% and 71% respectively). Oncology health professionals express confidence in the effectiveness of tamoxifen as a RRM despite reporting low prescription rates. Findings demonstrate that these oncology health professionals felt that initiation of RRM was the role of cancer specialists, despite preventative medicine being seen as a primary care activity. If uptake among at-risk women increases, this will put a significant burden on cancer services and GPs will need to take on a greater role in the delivery of RRM.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of platinum‐based chemotherapy as adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment for patients with early triple negative breast cancer

Purpose We evaluated study outcomes in patients enrolled in Asian regions in the phase III EMBRACA trial of talazoparib vs. chemotherapy. Materials and methods Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative germline BRCA1/2-mutated advanced breast cancer who received prior chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to talazoparib 1 mg/day or chemotherapy (physician's choice). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per independent central review in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. This post-hoc analysis evaluated efficacy/safety endpoints in the ITT population of patients enrolled in Asian regions. Results Thirty-three patients were enrolled at Asian sites (talazoparib, n=23; chemotherapy, n=10). Baseline characteristics were generally comparable with the overall EMBRACA population. In Asian patients, median PFS was 9.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0 to 15.2) for talazoparib and 7.1 months (95% CI, 1.2 to not reached) for chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.22 to 2.44]). Objective response rate was numerically higher for talazoparib vs. chemotherapy (62.5% [95% CI, 35.4 to 84.8] vs. 25.0% [95% CI, 3.2 to 65.1]). Median overall survival was 20.7 months (95% CI, 9.4 to 40.1) versus 21.2 months (95% CI, 2.7 to 35.0) (HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.49 to 4.05]). In Asian patients, fewer grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), grade 3/4 SAEs, and AEs resulting in dose reduction/discontinuation occurred with talazoparib than chemotherapy; for talazoparib, the frequency of these events was lower in Asian patients versus overall EMBRACA population. Conclusion In this subgroup analysis, talazoparib numerically improved efficacy versus chemotherapy and was generally well tolerated in Asian patients, with fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AE (TEAEs), SAEs, and TEAEs leading to dose modification vs. the overall EMBRACA population.

PURPOSE: To identify the approximately 12% with inherited cancer predisposition, all men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) should be offered germline genetic testing. This guides treatment choices and impacts cancer prevention in the family. Limited genetic services globally present a barrier to testing. This study tested a potential solution, “mainstreaming,” where counseling and testing are performed by the patient’s oncologist. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with mPC at three Australian sites were offered germline genetic testing at their medical oncology appointment. Panel testing ( ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CHEK2, EPCAM, FANCA, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, PALB2, PMS2, RAD51D, and TP53) was performed on saliva/blood (Invitae, San Francisco, CA). Primary outcomes were clinician and patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included mutation rates and resource allocation. RESULTS: Of 66 men offered testing, 63 (95%) accepted. Four pathogenic variants were identified (two BRCA2, one NBN, and one MSH6). Fifty patients and nine clinicians completed questionnaires. Satisfaction was high. All patients were pleased to have had testing overall, 98% (46 of 47) to have had testing at their usual oncology appointment, and all to receive results from their usual specialist, rather than a separate genetics appointment. A total of 88% (7 of 8) of clinicians felt confident, and all were satisfied with mainstreaming. Mainstreaming was resource efficient, requiring 87% fewer genetic consultations than traditional genetic counseling. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that mainstreaming of men with mPC is feasible, resource efficient, and satisfactory for clinicians and patients. Widespread implementation as standard of care would facilitate timely access to genetic testing for men with mPC.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 80% of breast cancers amongst premenopausal women are hormone receptor‐positive. Adjuvant endocrine therapy is an integral component of care for hormone receptor‐positive breast cancer and in premenopausal women includes oestrogen receptor blockade with tamoxifen, temporary suppression of ovarian oestrogen synthesis by luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, and permanent interruption of ovarian oestrogen synthesis with oophorectomy or radiotherapy. Recent international consensus statements recommend single‐agent tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors with ovarian function suppression (OFS) as the current standard adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women (often preceded by chemotherapy). This review examined the role of adding OFS to another treatment (i.e. chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or both) or comparing OFS to no further adjuvant treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of OFS for treatment of premenopausal women with hormone receptor‐positive early breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: For this review update, we searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 8), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 26 September 2019. We screened the reference lists of related articles, contacted trial authors, and applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised trials assessing any method of OFS, that is, oophorectomy, radiation‐induced ovarian ablation, or LHRH agonists, as adjuvant treatment for premenopausal women with early‐stage breast cancer. We included studies that compared (1) OFS versus observation, (2) OFS + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, (3) OFS + tamoxifen versus tamoxifen, and (4) OFS + chemotherapy + tamoxifen versus chemotherapy + tamoxifen. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Hazard ratios (HRs) were derived for time‐to‐event outcomes, and meta‐analysis was performed using a fixed‐effect model. The primary outcome measures were overall survival (OS) and disease‐free survival (DFS). Toxicity, contralateral breast cancer, and second malignancy were represented as risk ratios (RRs), and quality of life data were extracted when provided. MAIN RESULTS: This review update included 15 studies involving 11,538 premenopausal women with hormone receptor‐positive early breast cancer; these studies were conducted from 1978 to 2014. Some of these treatments are not current standard of care, and early studies did not assess HER2 receptor status. Studies tested OFS versus observation (one study), OFS plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (six studies), OFS plus tamoxifen versus tamoxifen (six studies), and OFS plus chemotherapy and tamoxifen versus chemotherapy and tamoxifen (two studies). Of those studies that reported the chemotherapy regimen, an estimated 72% of women received an anthracycline. The results described below relate to the overall comparison of OFS versus no OFS. High‐certainty evidence shows that adding OFS to treatment resulted in a reduction in mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.94; 11 studies; 10,374 women; 1933 reported events). This treatment effect was seen when OFS was added to observation, to tamoxifen, or to chemotherapy and tamoxifen. The effect on mortality was not observed when OFS was added to chemotherapy without tamoxifen therapy (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09; 5 studies; 3087 women; median follow‐up: range 7.7 to 12.1 years). The addition of OFS resulted in improved DFS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90; 10 studies; 8899 women; 2757 reported events; high‐certainty evidence). The DFS treatment effect persisted when OFS was added to observation, to tamoxifen, and to chemotherapy and tamoxifen. The effect on DFS was reduced when OFS was added to chemotherapy without tamoxifen therapy (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.01; 5 studies; 2450 women). Heterogeneity was low to moderate across studies for DFS and OS (respectively). Evidence suggests that adding OFS slightly increases the incidence of hot flushes (grade 3/4 or any grade; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 6 studies; 5581 women; low‐certainty evidence, as this may have been under‐reported in these studies). Two other studies that could not be included in the meta‐analysis reported a higher number of hot flushes in the OFS group than in the no‐OFS group. Seven studies involving 5354 women collected information related to mood; however this information was reported as grade 3 or 4 depression, anxiety, or neuropsychiatric symptoms, or symptoms were reported without the grade. Two studies reported an increase in depression, anxiety, and neuropsychiatric symptoms in the OFS group compared to the no‐OFS group, and five studies indicated an increase in anxiety in both treatment groups (but no difference between groups) or no difference overall in symptoms over time or between treatment groups. A single study reported bone health as osteoporosis (defined as T score < ‐2.5); this limited evidence suggests that OFS increases the risk of osteoporosis compared to no‐OFS at median follow‐up of 5.6 years (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.10 to 28.82; 2011 women; low‐certainty evidence). Adding OFS to treatment likely reduces the risk of contralateral breast cancer (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.97; 9 studies; 9138 women; moderate‐certainty evidence). Quality of life was assessed in five studies; four studies used validated tools, and the fifth study provided no information on how data were collected. Two studies reported worse quality of life indicators (i.e. vaginal dryness, day and night sweats) for women receiving OFS compared to those in the no‐OFS group. The other two studies indicated worsening of symptoms (e.g. vasomotor, gynaecological, vaginal dryness, decline in sexual interest, bone and joint pain, weight gain); however these side effects were reported in both OFS and no‐OFS groups. The study that did not use a validated quality of life tool described no considerable differences between groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found evidence that supports adding OFS for premenopausal women with early, hormone receptor‐positive breast cancers. The benefit of OFS persisted when compared to observation, and when added to endocrine therapy (tamoxifen) or chemotherapy and endocrine therapy (tamoxifen). The decision to use OFS may depend on the overall risk assessment based on tumour and patient characteristics, and may follow consideration of all side effects that occur with the addition of OFS.

Background Talazoparib is a poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that causes death in cells with breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 or 2 (BRCA1/2) mutations. Methods EMBRACA (NCT01945775) was a randomized phase III study comparing efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of talazoparib (1 mg) with physician’s choice of chemotherapy (PCT: capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, vinorelbine) in locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer with a germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2) mutation. Prespecified patient subgroups were analyzed for progression-free survival, objective response, clinical benefit, duration of response, and safety. PROs were evaluated in hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subgroups. Results Of 431 patients, 287 were randomly assigned to talazoparib and 144 to PCT. Prespecified subgroup analyses showed prolonged progression-free survival with talazoparib (HR+/HER2−: hazard ratio = 0.47, 95% confidence interval = 0.32 to 0.71; TNBC: hazard ratio = 0.60, 95% confidence interval = 0.41 to 0.87) and greater objective response rate (odds ratio = 1.97 to 11.89), clinical benefit rate (odds ratio = 2.05 to 7.77), and duration of response with talazoparib in all subgroups. PROs in HR+/HER2− and TNBC subgroups showed consistent overall improvement and delay in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration with talazoparib vs PCT. Across subgroups, common adverse events included anemia, fatigue, and nausea with talazoparib and neutropenia, fatigue, and nausea with PCT. Seven patients (2.4%) receiving talazoparib had grade II alopecia and 22.7% had grade I alopecia. Conclusions Across all patient subgroups with gBRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer, talazoparib demonstrated clinically significant superiority in outcomes compared with PCT.

Background The return of research results (RoR) remains a complex and well-debated issue. Despite the debate, actual data related to the experience of giving individual results back, and the impact these results may have on clinical care and health outcomes, is sorely lacking. Through the work of the Australian Pancreatic Cancer Genome Initiative (APGI) we: (1) delineate the pathway back to the patient where actionable research data were identified; and (2) report the clinical utilisation of individual results returned. Using this experience, we discuss barriers and opportunities associated with a comprehensive process of RoR in large-scale genomic research that may be useful for others developing their own policies. Methods We performed whole-genome (n = 184) and exome (n = 208) sequencing of matched tumour-normal DNA pairs from 392 patients with sporadic pancreatic cancer (PC) as part of the APGI. We identified pathogenic germline mutations in candidate genes (n = 130) with established predisposition to PC or medium–high penetrance genes with well-defined cancer associated syndromes or phenotypes. Variants from candidate genes were annotated and classified according to international guidelines. Variants were considered actionable if clinical utility was established, with regard to prevention, diagnosis, prognostication and/or therapy. Results A total of 48,904 germline variants were identified, with 2356 unique variants undergoing annotation and in silico classification. Twenty cases were deemed actionable and were returned via previously described RoR framework, representing an actionable finding rate of 5.1%. Overall, 1.78% of our cohort experienced clinical benefit from RoR. Conclusion Returning research results within the context of large-scale genomics research is a labour-intensive, highly variable, complex operation. Results that warrant action are not infrequent, but the prevalence of those who experience a clinical difference as a result of returning individual results is currently low. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13073-017-0430-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

1090 Background: In the EMBRACA trial (NCT01945775) of pts with germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer (ABC), the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor TALA significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs PCT (8.6 vs 5.6 mo; HR [95% CI] 0.54 [0.41-0.71]; P < 0.0001). Patient-reported outcomes favored TALA, and most common adverse events included anemia, fatigue, and nausea. Previous subgroup analyses found that pts with a history of CNS metastases had improved PFS for TALA vs PCT (HR [95% CI] 0.32 [0.15-0.68]; P = 0.0016) and improved objective response rate (ORR) 63.2% vs 15.8%, respectively (odds ratio [95% CI] 8.95 [1.86-52.26]; P = 0.0013). This retrospective subgroup analysis further explored the clinical characteristics and outcomes in pts with a history of CNS metastases in EMBRACA. Methods: Pts were randomized 2:1 to TALA or PCT. Pts with adequately treated and stable CNS metastases not requiring corticosteroids were included. This analysis assessed intracranial ORR and best overall response (BOR) based on investigator assessment per RECIST 1.1 in pts with intracranial disease at baseline (data cutoff 15-Sep-17), and overall survival (OS; data cutoff 30-Sep-19). Results: In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, 63 pts (43/287 [15.0%] TALA and 20/144 [13.9%] PCT) had a history of CNS metastases, of which 33 (11.5%) pts (TALA) and 15 (10.4%) pts (PCT) had intracranial disease at baseline. Additional baseline characteristics are shown in the table. Intracranial ORR in pts with intracranial disease at baseline and unconfirmed complete or partial response was 18.2% (TALA) vs 20.0% (PCT) (odds ratio [95% CI] 0.78 [0.13-5.80]; P = 0.765). In pts with intracranial disease at baseline, an intracranial BOR of stable disease was 69.7% for TALA vs 33.3% for PCT. Median OS in pts with a history of CNS metastases was 12.9 mo (95% CI 9.4-15.6) for TALA and 13.4 mo (95% CI 8.8-17.6) for PCT (HR [95% CI] 0.67 [0.37-1.2]; P = 0.1936 [stratified log-rank test]). In the safety population ([n = 43, TALA]; [n = 19, PCT]), median treatment duration (range) with TALA was 5.0 (0.1-36.0) mo compared with 2.1 (0.4-6.9) mo for PCT. Conclusions: In this subgroup analysis, baseline characteristics between pts with a history of CNS metastases treated with TALA or PCT were comparable. More pts with intracranial disease at baseline treated with TALA vs PCT experienced stable disease. Intracranial ORR in pts with intracranial disease was 18.2% for TALA vs 20.0% for PCT. Treatment options for pts with a history of CNS metastases are limited and further investigation in larger data sets is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT01945775 .[Table: see text]

1029 Background: In the EMBRACA trial (NCT01945775), the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) TALA significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus PCT in patients (pts) with germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer (BC) (8.6 vs 5.6 months [mo]; hazard ratio [HR, 95% CI] 0.54 [0.41-0.71]; P < 0.0001). Predictive markers for response to PARPi, other than germline BRCA1/2 mutational status, are largely unknown. A previous analysis investigated biomarkers associated with long and short responders in EMBRACA. Here, we report the clinical characteristics of long and short responders. Methods: Pts were randomized 2:1 to TALA or PCT. In this retrospective analysis, pts in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population were mapped into two groups based on response: LONG (pts in TALA arm with overall survival [OS] ≥30 mo and duration of treatment ≥24 mo; pts in PCT arm with OS ≥30 mo); SHORT (pts in either arm with a PFS event [progressive disease by Independent Radiological Facility or death] ≤12 wks). Data cutoff date was Sept 30, 2019. Results: Of 431 pts randomized, 412 pts were treated (286 received TALA; 126 received PCT). In the ITT population, 37 pts receiving TALA and 34 pts receiving PCT were identified as LONG responders; 40 pts receiving TALA and 32 pts receiving PCT were SHORT responders. The Table shows a summary of pt characteristics for LONG and SHORT responders. More pts with HR+ BC and no prior CT for ABC were associated with LONG response; more pts with TNBC and ≥2 prior CT regimens or platinum were associated with SHORT response (Table). Median treatment duration for LONG responders (n = 37, TALA; n = 31, PCT) was 33.5 (24.0-61.4) mo for TALA and 7.6 (1.1-36.3) mo for PCT; 51.4% receiving TALA and 91.2% receiving PCT had subsequent therapy. In SHORT responders, median treatment duration was 2.0 (0.1-5.5) mo (TALA) and 1.4 (0.2-5.6) mo (PCT); 67.5% and 68.8% received subsequent therapy following TALA or PCT, respectively. Conclusions: In this clinical characterization of responders from the EMBRACA study, a higher number of LONG responders had HR+ BC and received no prior CT for ABC. A greater proportion of SHORT responders had TNBC and received ≥2 prior CT regimens or platinum. Further investigation is warranted in a larger number of pts. Clinical trial information: NCT01945775 .[Table: see text]

Recent research has shown that aspirin reduces the risk of cancers associated with Lynch Syndrome. However, uncertainty exists around the optimal dosage, treatment duration and whether the benefits of aspirin as a risk-reducing medication (RRM) outweigh adverse medication related side-effects. Little is known about clinicians' attitudes, current practice, and perceived barriers to recommending aspirin as a RRM. To explore the attitudes of clinicians who discuss risk management options with patients with Lynch Syndrome towards using aspirin as a RRM. Clinicians were invited through professional organisations to complete an online survey. Topics included their clinical experience with Lynch Syndrome, views and practice of recommending aspirin as a RRM, and knowledge about clinical risk management guidelines for Lynch Syndrome. Comparison of attitudes was made between three professional groups. 181 respondents were included in the analysis: 59 genetics professionals (genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists, medical oncologists with specialist training in familial cancer), 49 gastroenterologists and 73 colorectal surgeons. Most clinicians (76 %) considered aspirin to be an effective RRM and most (72 %) were confident about discussing it. In all professional categories, those who were confident about discussing aspirin with patients perceived it to be an effective RRM (OR = 2.8 [95 % CI = 1.8-4.2], p

Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma (HLRCC) syndrome secondary to germline fumarate hydratase (FH) mutation presents with cutaneous and uterine leiomyomas, and a distinctive aggressive renal carcinoma. Identification of HLRCC patients presenting first with uterine leiomyomas may allow early intervention for renal carcinoma. We reviewed the morphology and immunohistochemical (IHC) findings in patients with uterine leiomyomas and confirmed or presumed HLRCC. IHC was also performed on a tissue microarray of unselected uterine leiomyomas and leiomyosarcomas. FH-deficient leiomyomas underwent Sanger and massively parallel sequencing on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. All 5 patients with HLRCC had at least 1 FH-deficient leiomyoma: defined as completely negative FH staining with positive internal controls. One percent (12/1152) of unselected uterine leiomyomas but 0 of 88 leiomyosarcomas were FH deficient. FH-deficient leiomyoma patients were younger (42.7 vs. 48.8 y, P=0.024) and commonly demonstrated a distinctive hemangiopericytomatous vasculature. Other features reported to be associated with FH-deficient leiomyomas (hypercellularity, nuclear atypia, inclusion-like nucleoli, stromal edema) were inconstantly present. Somatic FH mutations were identified in 6 of 10 informative unselected FH-deficient leiomyomas. None of these mutations were found in the germline. We conclude that, while the great majority of patients with HLRCC will have FH-deficient leiomyomas, 1% of all uterine leiomyomas are FH deficient usually due to somatic inactivation. Although IHC screening for FH may have a role in confirming patients at high risk for hereditary disease before genetic testing, prospective identification of FH-deficient leiomyomas is of limited clinical benefit in screening unselected patients because of the relatively high incidence of somatic mutations.

Background: TALA significantly prolonged progression-free survival vs physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.54 [95% CI 0.41-0.71]; P < 0.001) and improved patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients (pts) with HER2- ABC (locally advanced/metastatic) with a gBRCA1/2 mutation. We report results of the final OS analysis (secondary endpoint). Methods: Pts randomized 2:1 to TALA or PCT. OS HR was based on stratified Cox regression model (treatment as covariate); P value on stratified log-rank test. Results: 431 pts were randomized (287 TALA/144 PCT), 412 treated (286 TALA/126 PCT). By Sept 30, 2019, 216 deaths (75.3%) occurred for TALA and 108 deaths (75.0%) PCT; median follow-up 44.9 and 36.8 months, respectively. HR for OS was 0.85 (95% CI 0.67-1.07; P = 0.17); survival probability was higher for pts receiving TALA at 24, 36, and 48 months (Table 1). OS results were consistent across subgroups, eg by prior platinum or hormone receptor status. Most pts received post-study therapies; 32.6% of pts in the PCT arm received a PARP inhibitor post-study (4.5% for TALA arm). Grade 3-4 AEs occurred in 69.6% (TALA) and 64.3% (PCT) pts; AEs leading to permanent treatment discontinuation (excluding progressive disease) occurred in 5.9% and 8.7% of pts. Extended follow-up showed statistically significant overall improvements and delays in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration in both global health status/QoL and breast symptoms scales favoring TALA vs PCT (P < 0.01 for all), consistent with initial PRO analyses. Table 1.OS and post-study therapy (intent-to-treat)Talazopariboral 1 mg QDN = 287PCTaN = 144Deaths (%)216 (75.3)108 (75.0)HR (95% CI)0.85 (0.67-1.07); P = 0.17Median, mo. (95% CI)b19.3 (16.6-22.5)19.5 (17.4-22.4)Survival probability (95% CI) at Monthc120.71 (0.66-0.76)0.74 (0.66-0.81)240.42 (0.36-0.47)0.38 (0.30-0.47)360.27 (0.22-0.33)0.21 (0.14-0.29)480.19 (0.14-0.25)0.07 (0.02-0.15)Post-study antineoplastic therapy, n (%)233 (81.2)110 (76.4)PARP inhibitor, n (%)13 (4.5)47 (32.6)Platinum-based therapy, n (%)133 (46.3)60 (41.7)CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; KM, Kaplan-Meier; mo., months; OS, overall survival; PARP, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase; QD, once daily.aPCT, physician's choice of chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, vinorelbine).bDuration of OS based on KM estimates.cProbability estimated from the KM curve and CI calculated with product-limit method. Conclusions: In gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2- ABC, TALA did not significantly improve OS over PCT (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.67-1.07; P = 0.17); analysis not adjusted for subsequent therapies. TALA was generally well-tolerated with no new safety signals. PRO continued to favor TALA. Funding: Pfizer (Medivation) Citation Format: Jennifer K. Litton, Sara A. Hurvitz, Lida A. Mina, Hope S. Rugo, Kyung-Hun Lee, Anthony Gonçalves, Sami Diab, Natasha Woodward, Annabel Goodwin, Rinat Yerushalmi, Henri Roché, Young-Hyuck Im, Wolfgang Eiermann, Ruben G. Quek, Tiziana Usari, Silvana Lanzalone, Akos Czibere, Joanne L. Blum, Miguel Martin, Johannes Ettl. Talazoparib (TALA) in germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-mutated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC): Final overall survival (OS) results from randomized Phase 3 EMBRACA trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT071.

12115 Background: FCR affects 50-70% of cancer survivors. There are no validated oncologist-delivered FCR interventions. This multicentre, single-arm study sought to determine the helpfulness, feasibility and efficacy of an oncologist-delivered FCR intervention. Methods: Women were invited to participate if they had completed local treatment, chemotherapy and/or HER2 targeted therapy for early stage breast cancer and had a FCR score >0 on the 42-item FCR Inventory. The brief intervention, delivered by their medical oncologist at routine follow-up, entailed 1) FCR normalisation; 2) provision of personalised prognostic information; 3) take-home education sheet on recurrence symptoms; and 4) advice on managing worry. Consultations were audio-recorded. FCR, need for help, depression and anxiety were assessed before the intervention (T0), and at one week (T1) and three months (T2) after the intervention. Satisfaction with the intervention was assessed at T1. The primary outcome was participant-rated helpfulness. Secondary outcomes included feasibility (response rate, time taken for intervention) and efficacy. Results: Five oncologists delivered the intervention to 61 women (255 women invited; response rate 24%). The mean age was 57 ± 13 years. The mean time since breast cancer diagnosis was 2.5 ± 1.3 years. Forty-three (72%) were on adjuvant hormonal therapy. Overall, 58 women (95%) found the intervention helpful and 59 (98%) would recommend it to others. FCR severity, and the proportion of women with clinically significant FCR decreased significantly over time. There were no significant changes in unmet need, depression, or anxiety. Forty (66%) of consultations were recorded. Mean consultation length was 22 minutes (range 12-37 minutes) and mean intervention length was 9 minutes (3-20 minutes). The intervention was perceived as useful and feasible by oncologists, all of whom have used components of the intervention to help manage FCR in other breast cancer patients. Conclusions: A brief oncologist-delivered intervention to address FCR is helpful and feasible, and has shown preliminary efficacy in reducing FCR. Plans for an implementation study amongst oncologists in Australia are underway. Clinical trial information: ACTRN12618001615279 . [Table: see text]

1018 Background: Loss-of-function mutations in genes encoding components of the homologous recombination DNA damage response (DDR) machinery, notably BRCA1/2, are associated with tumor sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). In EMBRACA, the PARPi TALA showed an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) (HR [95% CI] 0.54 [0.41-0.71], P < 0.001) vs physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT) in g BRCAm HER2− ABC. Methods: Baseline tumor tissue from 308 pts (71%; intent-to-treat) was sequenced using the FoundationOne CDx panel. Mutations summarized below were known/likely pathogenic single-nucleotide variants, insertions, deletions, or rearrangements. Best tumor response (BOR) was using RECIST 1.1 by Investigator (confirmation of CR or PR not required). Results: 296/308 (96%) of evaluable pts exhibited ≥1 tumor BRCA mutation, with 7 of the remaining 12 exhibiting BRCA copy number alterations deemed pathogenic. Mutations in other genes implicated in DDR and/or potential sensitization to PARPi were rare, with mutations detected in BARD1, CDK12, FANCG, STAG2 (each 0.3%), ATR, BRD4, FANCC, PALB2, RAD51B (0.6%), ATM, BRIP1 (1.0%), NBN (1.3%), CHEK2, FANCA (1.6%), and ARID1A (2.3%). No association was observed between total number of DDR mutations, including BRCA1/2, and best tumor response (BOR) [odds ratio of 1 vs ≥2 DDR mutations (95% CI): TALA, 0.76 (0.31-1.87), P = 0.55; PCT, 0.98 (0.27-3.51), P = 0.97]. TP53 and PIK3CA were the most commonly mutated non- BRCA genes in BRCAm tumors (52.0 and 10.8%, respectively). TP53 mutations were more prevalent in BRCA1m vs BRCA2m tumors (85.2 vs 24.8%). PIK3CA mutations were more prevalent in BRCA2m vs BRCA1m tumors (15.9 vs 5.2%). With TALA, PFS was significantly shorter in pts with TP53 mutations than without [HR (95% CI) 1.693 (1.186-2.418), P = 0.0033]. A similar, non-significant, trend was evident with PCT [HR (95% CI) 1.439 (0.859-2.411), P = 0.1614]. PIK3CA mutational status had no impact on PFS in either arm. Conclusions: Selection based on g BRCA mutational status is appropriate to identify HER2─ ABC pts with potential for clinical benefit from TALA, with the total number of tumor mutations in BRCA1/2 and other DDR genes not impacting response (within the g BRCAm subset). TP53 mutations were associated with shorter PFS, likely reflecting the worse outcomes observed in g BRCA1m patients. Additional correlative analyses are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT01945775 .

1521 Background: In order to identify the ∼12% with inherited cancer predisposition, it is recommended that all men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) be offered testing. This has implications for treatment choices and cancer prevention in family. Limited geneticists/genetic counsellors globally present a major barrier to testing. We tested a potential solution, mainstreaming, where testing is performed by the patient’s oncologist. Methods: Men with mPC at three Australian sites were offered germline genetic testing at their medical oncology appointment. Panel testing ( ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CHEK2, EPCAM, FANCA, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, PALB2, PMS2, RAD51D and TP53) was performed on saliva/blood (Invitae). Primary outcomes were clinician and patient acceptability (modified Royal Marsden Satisfaction Questionnaires). Secondary outcomes included mutation rates and cost-effectiveness. A sample size of 44 provided 90% power, with a one-sided alpha of 5%, to distinguish a proportion of men happy with mainstreaming of 80% vs. 60% or less. Allowing for 25% drop-out, we aimed to recruit 60 men. Results: Of 66 men offered testing from April to November 2019, 63 (95%) accepted. Four pathogenic variants were identified (2 BRCA2, 1 NBN, 1 MSH6). 48 patients and eight clinicians completed questionnaires. Acceptability was high. All (48/48) patients were happy to have been tested, and 45/48 (94%) were happy to have been tested at their oncology appointment. All were happy to receive their results from their oncologist. All clinicians were satisfied mainstreaming and 88% (7/8) felt confident doing so. Mainstreaming was cost-effective, requiring 87% fewer genetic consultations than traditional genetic counselling. Conclusions: This study shows that mainstreaming of men with mPC is feasible, resource efficient and acceptable to both clinicians and patients. Widespread implementation as a new standard of care would facilitate timely access to genetic testing for men with mPC.

The germline BAP1 (BRCA1-associated protein-1) mutation and associated cancer pre-disposition syndrome was first described in 2011. Since then, physicians have considered this diagnosis for patients with a characteristic personal or family history of BAP1-associated tumours (mainly uveal and cutaneous melanoma, pleural/peritoneal mesothelioma, renal cell carcinoma and BAP1-deficient melanocytic lesions). However, a positive germline BAP1 mutation detection creates significant uncertainty in terms of appropriate cancer surveillance. A number of groups have proposed surveillance plans but important management dilemmas remain unresolved. The lifetime risk of developing cancer is not known and it is not clear if surveillance would lead to detecting cancer at an earlier stage or change survival outcomes. A consensus monitoring strategy was initially proposed at the Melanoma Institute Australia Melanoma Multidisciplinary Team meeting and later discussed with specialists in the field of cancer genetics, pathology, radiology, medical oncology, ophthalmology and dermatology. The objectives were to facilitate early diagnosis, incorporating where possible, clinically based and low/non-ionising radiation imaging modalities, applying the principles of a good screening test and a multidisciplinary focus.

Continuing medical education (CME) is challenging and often has limited impact on clinician behavior or patient outcomes. This study examined the impact of an online Qstream education program on senior clinicians to determine its utility for increasing clinician knowledge about the latest guidelines regarding genetic assessment and consideration of genetic testing for women with particular types of ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer. Participants were recruited into a pilot study that involved responding to case-based scenarios at spaced and repeated intervals. At the completion of the program, semi-structured interviews were conducted to ascertain the impact on their knowledge and referral behavior. Findings from interviews were subject to thematic analysis that involved the identification of categories and themes. Twenty-one participants commenced the program, seventeen completed and twelve participated in semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis yielded several themes including knowledge change, curriculum and format and changes in referral patterns. A majority of participants (n = 10) agreed the program had helped update their knowledge about referring women, and eight agreed they would now change their referral patterns. The use of QStream as an approach to CME has significant advantages when working with busy clinicians. QStream has a well accepted format and most participants indicated it is very appropriate for disseminating updates to clinical guidelines and protocols. It is important to supplement CME programs with other implementation techniques, such as audit and feedback as multifaceted approaches are more likely to result in behavior change.

Background Anthracyclines and taxanes are chemotherapeutic agents widely used in a sequential regimen in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment of early breast cancer to reduce the risk of cancer recurrence. Standard practice is to administer anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed by a taxane. Anthracyclines tend to be administered first as they were established before taxanes for treatment of early breast cancer. Objectives To assess whether the sequence in which anthracyclines and taxanes are administered affects outcomes for people with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy. Search methods We searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 1 February 2018. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials comparing administering a taxane prior to an anthracycline with taxane following anthracycline to people with early breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. The studies needed to have reported on at least one of our outcomes of interest, which included overall survival, disease-free survival, pathological response, treatment adherence, toxicity and quality of life. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included disease-free survival, pathological response (in the neoadjuvant setting only), adverse events, treatment adherence and quality of life. For time-to-event outcomes of overall survival and disease-free survival, we derived hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) where possible. For dichotomous outcomes of pathological complete response, treatment adherence and adverse events, we reported the treatment effect as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI where possible. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence separately for the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. Main results There were 1415 participants in five neoadjuvant studies and 280 participants in four adjuvant studies involving five treatment comparisons. Four of the five neoadjuvant studies collected data for the primary outcome (overall survival) and two studies had data available; one of the four adjuvant studies collected overall survival data.The neoadjuvant studies suggested that the administration of taxanes first probably resulted in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.08; 947 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and disease-free survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.09; 828 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Administration of taxanes first also resulted in little to no difference in pathological complete response (absence of cancer in the breast and axilla: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.38; 1280 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). However, there appeared to be a trend in favour of taxanes first. Studies reported treatment adherence using a range of measures. Administration of taxanes first probably did not increase the likelihood of requiring dose reductions compared to administration of anthracyclines first (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.11; 280 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). There was probably little to no difference in the risk of grade 3/4 neutropenia (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.82; 280 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) or grade 3/4 neurotoxicity (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.65; 1108 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) when taxanes were given first. There were no data on quality of life.Only one adjuvant study collected data on overall survival and disease-free survival but did not report data. Administration of taxanes first reduced the risk of grade 3/4 neutropenia (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97; 279 participants; 4 studies, 5 treatment comparisons; high-certainty evidence) and appeared to result in little to no difference in grade 3/4 neurotoxicity (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.46; 162 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). There was probably little to no difference in the proportions experiencing dose delays when taxanes are given first compared to anthracyclines given first (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.12; 238 participants; 3 studies, 4 treatment comparisons; moderate-certainty evidence). One study reported on quality of life and indicated that scores (using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast Cancer (FACT-B) validated questionnaire) were similar in both groups though did not provide numerical data. Authors' conclusions In the neoadjuvant setting, there is high- to low-certainty evidence of equivalent outcomes for the sequence in which taxanes are delivered. In the adjuvant setting, none of the studies reported on overall survival or disease-free survival. In most institutions, standard practice would be to deliver anthracycline followed by taxane, and currently available data do not support a change in this practice. We wait for the full-text publication of a relevant neoadjuvant study for women with HER2-negative breast cancer for inclusion in an update of this review.

BACKGROUND: Bone is the most common site of metastatic disease associated with breast cancer (BC). Bisphosphonates inhibit osteoclast‐mediated bone resorption, and novel targeted therapies such as denosumab inhibit other key bone metabolism pathways. We have studied these agents in both early breast cancer and advanced breast cancer settings. This is an update of the review originally published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2005 and 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and other bone agents in addition to anti‐cancer treatment: (i) in women with early breast cancer (EBC); (ii) in women with advanced breast cancer without bone metastases (ABC); and (iii) in women with metastatic breast cancer and bone metastases (BCBM). SEARCH METHODS: In this review update, we searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 19 September 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing: (a) one treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone‐acting agent with the same treatment without a bisphosphonate/bone‐acting agent; (b) treatment with one bisphosphonate versus treatment with a different bisphosphonate; (c) treatment with a bisphosphonate versus another bone‐acting agent of a different mechanism of action (e.g. denosumab); and (d) immediate treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone‐acting agent versus delayed treatment of the same bisphosphonate/bone‐acting agent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was bone metastases for EBC and ABC, and a skeletal‐related event (SRE) for BCBM. We derived risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and the meta‐analyses used random‐effects models. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and disease‐free survival for EBC; we derived hazard ratios (HRs) for these time‐to‐event outcomes where possible. We collected toxicity and quality‐of‐life information. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes in each treatment setting. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 RCTs involving 37,302 women. In women with EBC, bisphosphonates were associated with a reduced risk of bone metastases compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate (RR 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03, 11 studies; 15,005 women; moderate‐quality evidence with no significant heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates provided an overall survival benefit with time‐to‐event data (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; P = 0.04; 9 studies; 13,949 women; high‐quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity). Subgroup analysis by menopausal status showed a survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.90; P = 0.001; 4 studies; 6048 women; high‐quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity) but no survival benefit for premenopausal women (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.22; P = 0.78; 2 studies; 3501 women; high‐quality evidence with no heterogeneity). There was evidence of no effect of bisphosphonates on disease‐free survival (HR 0.94, 95% 0.87 to 1.02; P = 0.13; 7 studies; 12,578 women; high‐quality evidence with significant heterogeneity present) however subgroup analyses showed a disease‐free survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women only (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91; P < 0.001; 7 studies; 8314 women; high‐quality evidence with no heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates did not significantly reduce the incidence of fractures when compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08, P = 0.13, 6 studies, 7602 women; moderate‐quality evidence due to wide confidence intervals). We await mature overall survival and disease‐free survival results for denosumab trials. In women with ABC without clinically evident bone metastases, there was no evidence of an effect of bisphosphonates on bone metastases (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.43; P = 0.86; 3 studies; 330 women; moderate‐quality evidence with no heterogeneity) or overall survival (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; P = 0.28; 3 studies; 330 women; high‐quality evidence with no heterogeneity) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates however the confidence intervals were wide. One study reported a trend towards an extended period of time without a SRE with bisphosphonate compared to placebo (low‐quality evidence). One study reported quality of life and there was no apparent difference in scores between bisphosphonate and placebo (moderate‐quality evidence). In women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduced the SRE risk by 14% (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95; P = 0.003; 9 studies; 2810 women; high‐quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity) compared with placebo/no bisphosphonates. This benefit persisted when administering either intravenous or oral bisphosphonates versus placebo. Bisphosphonates delayed the median time to a SRE with a median ratio of 1.43 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.58; P < 0.00001; 9 studies; 2891 women; high‐quality evidence with no heterogeneity) and reduced bone pain (in 6 out of 11 studies; moderate‐quality evidence) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate. Treatment with bisphosphonates did not appear to affect overall survival (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; P = 0.85; 7 studies; 1935 women; moderate‐quality evidence with significant heterogeneity). Quality‐of‐life scores were slightly better with bisphosphonates than placebo at comparable time points (in three out of five studies; moderate‐quality evidence) however scores decreased during the course of the studies. Denosumab reduced the risk of developing a SRE compared with bisphosphonates by 22% (RR 0.78, 0.72 to 0.85; P < 0.001; 3 studies, 2345 women). One study reported data on overall survival and observed no difference in survival between denosumab and bisphosphonate. Reported toxicities across all settings were generally mild. Osteonecrosis of the jaw was rare, occurring less than 0.5% in the adjuvant setting (high‐quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For women with EBC, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of bone metastases and provide an overall survival benefit compared to placebo or no bisphosphonates. There is preliminary evidence suggestive that bisphosphonates provide an overall survival and disease‐free survival benefit in postmenopausal women only when compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate. This was not a planned subgroup for these early trials, and we await the completion of new large clinical trials assessing benefit for postmenopausal women. For women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of developing SREs, delay the median time to an SRE, and appear to reduce bone pain compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate.

Background Fulvestrant is a selective oestrogen receptor down-regulator (SERD), which by blocking proliferation of breast cancer cells, is an effective endocrine treatment for women with hormone-sensitive advanced breast cancer. The goal of such systemic therapy in this setting is to reduce symptoms, improve quality of life, and increase survival time. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of fulvestrant for hormone-sensitive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women, as compared to other standard endocrine agents. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 July 2015. We also searched major conference proceedings (American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium) and practice guidelines from major oncology groups (ASCO, European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and Cancer Care Ontario). We handsearched reference lists from relevant studies. Selection criteria We included for analyses randomised controlled trials that enrolled postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive advanced breast cancer (TNM classifications: stages IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC) or metastatic breast cancer (TNM classification: stage IV) with an intervention group treated with fulvestrant with or without other standard anticancer therapy. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data from trials identified in the searches, conducted 'Risk of bias' assessments of the included studies, and assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcome data extracted from these trials for our analyses and review included progression-free survival (PFS) or time to progression (TTP) or time to treatment failure, overall survival, clinical benefit rate, toxicity, and quality of life. We used the fixed-effect model for meta-analysis where possible. Main results We included nine studies randomising 4514 women for meta-analysis and review. Overall results for the primary endpoint of PFS indicated that women receiving fulvestrant did at least as well as the control groups (hazard ratio (HR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.02; P = 0.18, I2= 56%, 4258 women, 9 studies, high-quality evidence). In the one high-quality study that tested fulvestrant at the currently approved and now standard dose of 500 mg against anastrozole, women treated with fulvestrant 500 mg did better than anastrozole, with a HR for TTP of 0.66 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.93; 205 women) and a HR for overall survival of 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.98; 205 women). There was no difference in PFS whether fulvestrant was used in combination with another endocrine therapy or in the first- or second-line setting, when compared to control treatments: for monotherapy HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.04) versus HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.99) for combination therapy when compared to control, and HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.03) in the first-line setting and HR 0.96 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.04) in the second-line setting. Overall, there was no difference between fulvestrant and control treatments in clinical benefit rate (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.10; P = 0.29, I2 = 24%, 4105 women, 9 studies, high-quality evidence) or overall survival (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09, P = 0.62, I2 = 66%, 2480 women, 5 studies, high-quality evidence). There was no significant difference in vasomotor toxicity (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.18, 3544 women, 8 studies, high-quality evidence), arthralgia (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09, 3244 women, 7 studies, high-quality evidence), and gynaecological toxicities (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.57, 2848 women, 6 studies, high-quality evidence). Four studies reported quality of life, none of which reported a difference between the fulvestrant and control arms, though specific data were not presented. Authors' conclusions For postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-sensitive breast cancer, fulvestrant is at least as effective and safe as the comparator endocrine therapies in the included studies. However, fulvestrant may be potentially more effective than current therapies when given at 500 mg, though this higher dosage was used in only one of the nine studies included in the review. We saw no advantage with combination therapy, and fulvestrant was equally as effective as control therapies in both the first- and second-line setting. Our review demonstrates that fulvestrant is a safe and effective systemic therapy and can be considered as a valid option in the sequence of treatments for postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive advanced breast cancer.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is a lethal cancer with fewer than 7% of patients surviving past 5 years. T-cell immunity has been linked to the exceptional outcome of the few long-term survivors, yet the relevant antigens remain unknown. Here we use genetic, immunohistochemical and transcriptional immunoprofiling, computational biophysics, and functional assays to identify T-cell antigens in long-term survivors of pancreatic cancer. Using whole-exome sequencing and in silico neoantigen prediction, we found that tumours with both the highest neoantigen number and the most abundant CD8+ T-cell infiltrates, but neither alone, stratified patients with the longest survival. Investigating the specific neoantigen qualities promoting T-cell activation in long-term survivors, we discovered that these individuals were enriched in neoantigen qualities defined by a fitness model, and neoantigens in the tumour antigen MUC16 (also known as CA125). A neoantigen quality fitness model conferring greater immunogenicity to neoantigens with differential presentation and homology to infectious disease-derived peptides identified long-term survivors in two independent datasets, whereas a neoantigen quantity model ascribing greater immunogenicity to increasing neoantigen number alone did not. We detected intratumoural and lasting circulating T-cell reactivity to both high-quality and MUC16 neoantigens in long-term survivors of pancreatic cancer, including clones with specificity to both high-quality neoantigens and predicted cross-reactive microbial epitopes, consistent with neoantigen molecular mimicry. Notably, we observed selective loss of high-quality and MUC16 neoantigenic clones on metastatic progression, suggesting neoantigen immunoediting. Our results identify neoantigens with unique qualities as T-cell targets in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. More broadly, we identify neoantigen quality as a biomarker for immunogenic tumours that may guide the application of immunotherapies.

We report four previously undescribed families with germline BRCA1-associated protein-1 gene (BAP1) mutations and expand the clinical phenotype of this tumor syndrome. The tumor spectrum in these families is predominantly uveal malignant melanoma (UMM), cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) and mesothelioma, as previously reported for germline BAP1 mutations. However, mutation carriers from three new families, and one previously reported family, developed basal cell carcinoma (BCC), thus suggesting inclusion of BCC in the phenotypic spectrum of the BAP1 tumor syndrome. This notion is supported by the finding of loss of BAP1 protein expression by immunochemistry in two BCCs from individuals with germline BAP1 mutations and no loss of BAP1 staining in 53 of sporadic BCCs consistent with somatic mutations and loss of heterozygosity of the gene in the BCCs occurring in mutation carriers. Lastly, we identify the first reported recurrent mutation in BAP1 (p.R60X), which occurred in three families from two different continents. In two of the families, the mutation was inherited from a common founder but it arose independently in the third family.

BACKGROUND Breast cancer is the most frequently occurring malignancy and the second cause of death for cancer in women. Cancer prevention agents (CPAs) are a promising approach to reduce the burden of breast cancer. Currently, two main types of CPAs are available: selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs, such as tamoxifen and raloxifene) and aromatase inhibitors (AIs, such as exemestane and anastrozole). OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and acceptability of single CPAs for the prevention of primary breast cancer, in unaffected women, at an above-average risk of developing breast cancer.Using a network meta-analysis, to rank single CPAs, based on their efficacy and acceptability (an endpoint that is defined as the inverse of CPA-related toxicity). SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 17 August 2018. We handsearched reference lists to identify additional relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled women without a personal history of breast cancer but with an above-average risk of developing a tumor. Women had to be treated with a CPA and followed up to record the occurrence of breast cancer and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data and conducted risk of bias assessments of the included studies, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Outcome data included incidence of breast carcinoma (both invasive and in situ carcinoma) and adverse events (both overall and severe toxicity). We performed a conventional meta-analysis (for direct comparisons of a single CPA with placebo or a different CPA) and network meta-analysis (for indirect comparisons). MAIN RESULTS We included six studies enrolling 50,927 women randomized to receive one CPA (SERMs: tamoxifen or raloxifene, or AIs: exemestane or anastrozole) or placebo. Three studies compared tamoxifen and placebo, two studies compared AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) versus placebo, and one study compared tamoxifen versus raloxifene. The risk of bias was low for all RCTs.For the tamoxifen versus placebo comparison, tamoxifen likely resulted in a lower risk of developing breast cancer compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.76; 3 studies, 22,832 women; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of adverse events, tamoxifen likely increased the risk of severe toxicity compared to placebo (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.47; 2 studies, 20,361 women; moderate-certainty evidence). In particular, women randomized to receive tamoxifen experienced a higher incidence of both endometrial carcinoma (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.38; high-certainty evidence) and thromboembolism (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.89; high-certainty evidence) compared to women who received placebo.For the AIs versus placebo comparison, AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) reduced the risk of breast cancer by 53% (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63; 2 studies, 8424 women; high-certainty evidence). In terms of adverse events, AIs increased the risk of severe toxicity by 18% (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.28; 2 studies, 8352 women; high-certainty evidence). These differences were sustained especially by endocrine (e.g. hot flashes), gastrointestinal (e.g. diarrhea), and musculoskeletal (e.g. arthralgia) adverse events, while there were no differences in endometrial cancer or thromboembolism rates between AIs and placebo.For the tamoxifen versus raloxifene comparison, raloxifene probably performed worse than tamoxifen in terms of breast cancer incidence reduction (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.43; 1 study, 19,490 women; moderate-certainty evidence), but its use was associated with lower toxicity rates (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; 1 study, 19,490 women; moderate-certainty evidence), particularly relating to incidence of endometrial cancer and thromboembolism.An indirect comparison of treatment effects allowed us to compare the SERMs and AIs in this review. In terms of efficacy, AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) may have reduced breast cancer incidence slightly compared to tamoxifen (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.98; 5 RCTs, 31,256 women); however, the certainty of evidence was low. A lack of model convergence did not allow us to analyze toxicity data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS For women with an above-average risk of developing breast cancer, CPAs can reduce the incidence of this disease. AIs appear to be more effective than SERMs (tamoxifen) in reducing the risk of developing breast cancer. AIs are not associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer and thromboembolic events. However, long-term data on toxicities from tamoxifen are available while the follow-up toxicity data on unaffected women taking AIs is relatively short. Additional data from direct comparisons are needed to fully address the issues of breast cancer prevention by risk-reducing medications, with special regards to acceptability (i.e. the benefit/harm ratio).

To summarise the results of randomised trials testing the addition of radiotherapy (RT) to breast conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS); to determine whether there are subsets of women with DCIS who do not benefit from RT; and to determine what the balance may be between reduction in risk of recurrence and long-term toxicity.We performed a systematic review to resolve these questions, using standard Cochrane methodology to identify, select and appraise relevant randomised trials.Four randomised controlled trials involving 3925 women were identified. All were high quality with minimal risk of bias. Analysis confirmed a statistically significant benefit from the addition of radiotherapy on all ipsilateral breast events (HR=0.49; 95% CI 0.41-0.58, p0.00001). All subgroups analysed (margin status, age and grade) benefited from the addition of radiotherapy. Nine women require treatment with radiotherapy to prevent one ipsilateral breast recurrence (NNT=9). Deaths due to vascular disease, pulmonary toxicity and second cancers were low and not significantly higher for women who received radiotherapy.Radiotherapy was beneficial in all clinically relevant subgroups. Longer follow-up is required to detect any long-term toxicity from use of radiotherapy. To date, no increase in toxicity has been identified.