Search

Background: The benefit of adding radiation therapy after excision of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is widely debated. Randomized clinical trials are underpowered to delineate long-term outcomes after radiation.Methods: The authors of this report constructed a Markov decision model to simulate the clinical course of DCIS in a woman aged 60 years who received treatment with either of 2 breast-conserving strategies: excision alone or excision plus radiation therapy. Sensitivity analyses were used to study the influence of risk of local recurrence, likelihood of invasive disease at recurrence, surgical choice at recurrence, and patient age at diagnosis on treatment outcomes.Results: The addition of radiation therapy was associated with slight improvements in invasive disease-free and overall survival. However, radiation therapy decreased the chance of having both breasts intact over a patient's lifetime. Radiation therapy improved survival by 2.1 months for women who were diagnosed with DCIS at age 60 years but decreased the chance of having both breasts by 8.6% relative to excision alone. The differences in outcomes between the treatment strategies became smaller with increasing age at diagnosis. Sensitivity analyses revealed a greater benefit for radiation with an increased likelihood of invasive recurrence. The decrement in breast preservation with radiation therapy was mitigated by an increased likelihood of mastectomy at the time of recurrence or new breast cancer diagnosis.Conclusions: The current analysis quantified the benefits of radiation after excision of DCIS but also revealed that radiation therapy may increase the likelihood of eventual mastectomy. Therefore, the authors concluded that patient age and preferences should be considered when making the decision to add or forgo radiation for DCIS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Long-term outcomes of patients with stage I human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer receiving adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) remain undefined, and prognostic predictors represent an unmet need., Methods: In the ATEMPT phase II trial, patients with stage I centrally confirmed HER2-positive breast cancer were randomly assigned 3:1 to adjuvant T-DM1 for 1 year or paclitaxel plus trastuzumab (TH). Coprimary objectives were to compare the incidence of clinically relevant toxicities between arms and to evaluate invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) with T-DM1. Correlative analyses included the HER2DX genomic tool, multiomic evaluations of HER2 heterogeneity, and predictors of thrombocytopenia., Results: After a median follow-up of 5.8 years, 11 iDFS events were observed in the T-DM1 arm, consistent with a 5-year iDFS of 97.0% (95% CI, 95.2 to 98.7). At 5 years, the recurrence-free interval (RFI) was 98.3% (95% CI, 97.0 to 99.7), the overall survival was 97.8% (95% CI, 96.3 to 99.3), and the breast cancer-specific survival was 99.4% (95% CI, 98.6 to 100). Comparable iDFS was observed with T-DM1 irrespective of tumor size, hormone receptor status, centrally determined HER2 immunohistochemical score, and receipt of T-DM1 for more or less than 6 months. Although ATEMPT was not powered for this end point, the 5-year iDFS in the TH arm was 91.1%. Among patients with sufficient tissue for HER2DX testing (n = 187), 5-year outcomes significantly differed according to HER2DX risk score, with better RFI (98.1% v 81.8%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.10, P = .01) and iDFS (96.3% v 81.8%, HR, 0.20, P = .047) among patients with HER2DX low-risk versus high-risk tumors, respectively., Conclusion: Adjuvant T-DM1 for 1 year leads to outstanding long-term outcomes for patients with stage I HER2-positive breast cancer. A high HER2DX risk score predicted a higher risk of recurrence in ATEMPT.

Importance: Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) improves local-regional disease control and patient survival. Hypofractionation (HF) regimens have comparable efficacy and complication rates with improved quality of life compared with conventional fractionation (CF) schedules. However, the use of HF after mastectomy in patients undergoing breast reconstruction has not been prospectively examined., Objective: To compare HF and CF PMRT outcomes after implant-based reconstruction., Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial assessed patients 18 years or older undergoing mastectomy and immediate expander or implant reconstruction for breast cancer (Tis, TX, or T1-3) and unilateral PMRT from March 8, 2018, to November 3, 2021 (median [range] follow-up, 40.4 [15.4-63.0] months), at 16 US cancer centers or hospitals. Analyses were conducted between September and December 2023., Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to HF or CF PMRT. Chest wall doses were 4256 cGy for 16 fractions for HF and 5000 cGy for 25 fractions for CF. Chest wall toxic effects were defined as a grade 3 or higher adverse event., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the change in physical well-being (PWB) domain of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) quality-of-life assessment tool at 6 months after starting PMRT, controlling for age. Secondary outcomes included toxic effects and cancer recurrence., Results: Of 400 women (201 in the CF arm and 199 in the HF arm; median [range] age, 47 [23-79] years), 330 patients had PWB scores at baseline and at 6 months. There was no difference in the change in PWB between the study arms (estimate, 0.13; 95% CI, -0.86 to 1.11; P = .80), but there was a significant interaction between age group and study arm (P = .03 for interaction). Patients younger than 45 years had higher 6-month absolute PWB scores if treated with HF rather than CF regimens (23.6 [95% CI, 22.7-24.6] vs 22.0 [95% CI, 20.7-23.3]; P = .047) and reported being less bothered by adverse effects (mean [SD], 3.0 [0.9] in the HF arm and 2.6 [1.2] in the CF arm; P = .02) or nausea (mean [SD], 3.8 [0.4] in the HF arm and 3.6 [0.8] in the CF arm; P = .04). In the as-treated cohort, there were 23 distant (11 in the HF arm and 12 in the CF arm) and 2 local-regional (1 in the HF arm and 1 in the CF arm) recurrences. Chest wall toxic effects occurred in 39 patients (20 in the HF arm and 19 in the CF arm) at a median (IQR) of 7.2 (1.8-12.9) months. Fractionation was not associated with chest wall toxic effects on multivariate analysis (HF arm: hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.52-2.00; P = .95). Fewer patients undergoing HF vs CF regimens had a treatment break (5 [2.7%] vs 15 [7.7%]; P = .03) or required unpaid time off from work (17 [8.5%] vs 34 [16.9%]; P = .02)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the HF regimen did not significantly improve change in PWB compared with the CF regimen. These data add to the increasing experience with HF PMRT in patients with implant-based reconstruction., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03422003.

pCR should be integrated with other prognostic factors to optimize postneoadjuvant treatments in BC.

Therapeutic agents targeting Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) demonstrated to positively impact the prognosis of HER2-positive breast cancer. HER2-positive breast cancer can present either as hormone receptor-negative or positive, defining Triple-positive breast cancer (TPBC). TPBC demonstrate unique gene expression profiles, showing reduced HER2-driven gene expression, as recapitulated by a higher proportion of Luminal-type intrinsic subtypes. The different molecular landscape of TPBC dictates distinctive clinical features, including reduced chemotherapy sensitivity, different patterns of recurrence, and better overall prognosis. Cross-talk between HER2 and hormone receptor signaling seems to be critical to determine resistance to HER2-directed agents. Accordingly, superior outcomes have been achieved with the use of endocrine therapy, representing the first subtype-specific pharmacological intervention unique to this subgroup. Additional targeted agents capable to tackle resistance mechanisms to anti-HER2, hormone agents, or both might further improve the efficacy of treatments, such as PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors, particularly in a biomarker-enriched setting, and CDK4/6-inhibitors, with preliminary data suggesting a role of PAM50 subtyping to predict higher benefits in luminal tumors. Finally, the distinct biology of triple-positive tumors may yield the rationale for considering combinations within antibody-drug conjugate regimens. Accordingly, in this review, we summarized the current evidence and rationale for considering TPBC as a different entity, in which distinct therapeutical approaches leveraging on the different biological profile of TPBC may result in superior anticancer regimens and improved patient-centric outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: EN was supported by an American-Italian Cancer Foundation Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship. MR received travel expenses reimbursement from Sanofi. AP reports advisory and consulting fees from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Amgen, BMS, Puma, Oncolytics Biotech, MSD, Guardant Health, Peptomyc and Lilly, lecture fees from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Amgen, BMS, Nanostring Technologies and Daiichi Sankyo, institutional financial interests from Boehringer, Novartis, Roche, Nanostring, Sysmex Europa GmbH, Medica Scientia Innovation Research, SL, Celgene, Astellas and Pfizer; stockholder and consultant of Reveal Genomics, SL; AP is also listed as an inventor on patent applications for the HER2DX assay. NF has received honoraria for consulting, advisory role, speaker bureau, travel, and/or research grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, Menarini, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Gilead, Diaceutics, Adicet Bio Sermonix, Reply, and Leica Biosystems. GC received honoraria for speaker's engagement: Roche, Seattle Genetics, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Foundation Medicine, NanoString, Samsung, Celltrion, BMS, MSD; Honoraria for providing consultancy: Roche, Seattle Genetics, NanoString; Honoraria for participating in Advisory Board: Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Foundation Medicine, Samsung, Celltrion, Mylan; Honoraria for writing engagement: Novartis, BMS; Honoraria for participation in Ellipsis Scientific Affairs Group; Institutional research funding for conducting phase I and II clinical trials: Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Celgene, Servier, Orion, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, AbbVie, Tesaro, BMS, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp Dome, Janssen-Cilag, Philogen, Bayer, Medivation, Medimmune. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Breast cancer is treated with a multidisciplinary approach involving surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Breast Cancer include recommendations for clinical management of patients with carcinoma in situ, invasive breast cancer, Paget's disease, Phyllodes tumor, inflammatory breast cancer, and management of breast cancer during pregnancy. The content featured in this issue focuses on the recommendations for overall management of systemic therapy (preoperative and adjuvant) options for nonmetastatic breast cancer. For the full version of the NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer, visit NCCN.org.

Purpose: Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6is) are an important component of treatment for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC), but it is not known if patients might derive benefit from continuation of CDK4/6i with endocrine therapy beyond initial tumor progression or if the addition of checkpoint inhibitor therapy has value in this setting., Methods: The randomized multicenter phase II PACE trial enrolled patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2- MBC whose disease had progressed on previous CDK4/6i and aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:2:1 to receive fulvestrant (F), fulvestrant plus palbociclib (F + P), or fulvestrant plus palbociclib and avelumab (F + P + A). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in patients treated with F versus F + P., Results: Overall, 220 patients were randomly assigned between September 2017 and February 2022. The median age was 57 years (range, 25-83 years). Most patients were postmenopausal (80.9%), and 40% were originally diagnosed with de novo MBC. Palbociclib was the most common previous CDK4/6i (90.9%). The median PFS was 4.8 months on F and 4.6 months on F + P (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11 [90% CI, 0.79 to 1.55]; P = .62). The median PFS on F + P + A was 8.1 months (HR v F, 0.75 [90% CI, 0.50 to 1.12]; P = .23). The difference in PFS with F + P and F + P + A versus F was greater among patients with baseline ESR1 and PIK3CA alterations., Conclusion: The addition of palbociclib to fulvestrant did not improve PFS versus fulvestrant alone among patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2- MBC whose disease had progressed on a previous CDK4/6i plus AI. The increased PFS seen with the addition of avelumab warrants further investigation in this patient population.

ASCO Rapid Recommendation Updates highlight revisions to select ASCO guideline recommendations as a response to the emergence of new and practice-changing data. The rapid updates are supported by an evidence review and follow the guideline development processes outlined in the ASCO Guideline Methodology Manual. The goal of these articles is to disseminate updated recommendations, in a timely manner, to better inform health practitioners and the public on the best available cancer care options. Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating provider and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information (Appendix 1 and Appendix 2, online only) .