Search

Purpose: This phase II study evaluated the impact of adding ribociclib to maintenance endocrine therapy (ET) treatment of physicians' choice following the first palliative chemotherapy in pre- and post-menopausal women with hormone receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor 2 negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC)., Patients and Methods: The initial randomized study design was later amended into a single-arm study, and all subsequent patients received ribociclib and ET. The primary end point was locally assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), clinical benefit rate (CBR), safety, compliance, and quality of life (QoL)., Results: A total of 43 patients received ribociclib + ET and 10 patients received ET only. Median PFS was 12.4 months [95% CI 8.7-24.4] for patients who received ribociclib + ET and 4.75 months [95% CI 1.0-10.3] for those who received ET only. Median OS was not reached for patients who received ribociclib + ET, and 28 (65.1%) patients experienced clinical benefit [95% CI 49.1-79.0]. For patients who received ribociclib + ET, grade 3-4 hematological adverse events (AEs) occurred in 25 (58.1%) patients, and grade 3-4 non-hematological AEs occurred in 17 (39.5%) patients. During the study, 15 patients died - 14 of whom due to tumor-related reasons, and one patient due to pneumonia, which was not treatment-related., Conclusion: The results of the AMICA study show a promising efficacy and safety of maintenance treatment with ribociclib added to ET after at least stable disease following the first metastatic chemotherapy in patients with HR+/HER2-mBC., Trial Registration: Anti-hormonal Therapy With Ribociclib in HR-positive/HER2- Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer (AMICA), NCT03555877, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03555877., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. T. Decker reports ad boards from Lilly, Novartis, and IOMEDICO. K. Luedtke-Heckenkamp reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Novartis, and Pfizer. She is on the advisory board of Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, and Roche. K. Lübbe is on the advisory board of Genomic Health, Roche, Daiichy Sankyo, Lilly, MSD, EISAI, Seagen, and Novartis, and has received lecture fees from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, and Lilly. M. Schmidt reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from BioNTech, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Pierre-Fabre, personal fees from Roche, and personal fees from SeaGen outside the submitted work; in addition, M. Schmidt has a patent for EP 2390370 B1: A method for predicting the response of a tumor in a patient suffering from or at risk of developing recurrent gynecologic cancer towards a chemotherapeutic agent issued and a patent for EP 2951317 B1: A method for predicting the benefit from inclusion of a taxane in a chemotherapy regimen in patients with breast cancer issued. C. Denkert reports grants from European Commission H2020, grants from German Cancer Aid Translational Oncology, grants from German Breast Group; personal fees from Novartis, Roche, MSD Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Molecular Health, Merck, grants from Myriad to his institution, other from Sividon diagnostics (cofounder and former shareholder until 2016); In addition, C. Denkert has a patent VMScope digital pathology software with royalties paid, a patent WO2020109570A1 - cancer immunotherapy pending, and a patent WO2015114146A1 and WO2010076322A1- therapy response issued. V. Müller received speaker honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead, and Pierre Fabre; consultancy honoraria from Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Sanofi, Seagen, and Gilead; institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, and Genentech; and travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Gilead. M. Thill is on the advisory boards of Agendia, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Becton/Dickinson, Biom‘Up, ClearCut, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead Science, Grünenthal, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Norgine, Neodynamics, Novartis, Onkowissen, Organon, Pfizer, pfm Medical, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, RTI Surgical, Seagen, Sirius Pintuition, and Sysmex. He has received support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, ClearCut, Clovis, Daiichi Sanyko, Hexal, Neodynamics, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm medical, Roche, Servier, and Sirius Medical. He reports travels expenses from Amgen, Art Tempi, AstraZeneca, Clearcut, Clovis, Connect Medica, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Hexal, I-Med-Institute, Lilly, MCI, Medtronic, MSD, Neodynamics, Norgine, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm Medical, Roche, RTI Surgical, and Seagen. He has received honoraria and funding from Amgen, Art Tempi, AstraZeneca, Biom’Up, Celgene, Clearcut, Clovis, Connect Medica, Eisai, Endomag, Exact Sciences, Gedeon Richter, Gilead Science, GSK, Hexal, I-Med-Institute, Jörg Eickeler, Laborarztpraxis Walther et al., Lilly, MCI, Medscape, MSD, Medtronic, Neodynamics, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, pfm medical, Roche, RTI Surgical, Seagen, StreamedUp, Sysmex, Vifor, and Viatris. N. Hirmas and N. Filmann declare to be GBG Forschungs GmbH employees. GBG Forschungs GmbH received funding for research grants from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche (paid to the institution); other (non-financial/medical writing) from Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Seagen (paid to the institution). GBG Forschungs GmbH has following royalties/patents: EP14153692.0, EP21152186.9, EP15702464.7, EP19808852.8 and VM Scope GmbH. S. Loibl reports grants or contracts paid to institute from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, DSI, Celgene, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Molecular H; in addition, S. Loibl has royalties or licenses for Digital Ki67 Evaluator from VM Scope GmbH that were paid to institute; in addition, S. Loibl receives honorary for lectures paid to the institute from AstraZeneca, DSI, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; non-financial for Medical Writing from DSI, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen; in addition, S. Loibl has patent for EP14153692.0, EP21152186.9, EP15702464.7 and EP19808852.8, all patents via institute; in addition, S. Loibl declares participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, DSI, Eirgenix, Eisai Europe, GSK, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Relay Therapeutics, Roche, Sanofi, and Seagen, all paid to institute., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Up to 30% of metastatic breast cancer (BC) patients develop brain metastases (BM). Prognosis of patients with BM is poor and long-term survival is rare. Identification of factors associated with long-term survival is important for improving treatment modalities., Patients and Methods: A total of 2889 patients of the national registry for BM in BC (BMBC) were available for this analysis. Long-term survival was defined as overall survival (OS) in the upper third of the failure curve resulting in a cut-off of 15 months. A total of 887 patients were categorized as long-term survivors., Results: Long-term survivors compared to other patients were younger at BC and BM diagnosis (median 48 versus 54 years and 53 versus 59 years), more often had HER2-positive tumors (59.1% versus 36.3%), less frequently luminal-like (29.1% versus 35.7%) or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (11.9% versus 28.1%), showed better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) at the time of BM diagnosis (ECOG 0-1, 76.9% versus 51.0%), higher pathological complete remission rates after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (21.6% versus 13.7%) and lower number of BM (n = 1, BM 40.9% versus 25.4%; n = 2-3, BM 26.5% versus 26.7%; n ≥4, BM 32.6% versus 47.9%) (P < 0.001). Long-term survivors had leptomeningeal metastases (10.4% versus 17.5%) and extracranial metastases (ECM, 73.6% versus 82.5%) less frequently, and asymptomatic BM more often at the time of BM diagnosis (26.5% versus 20.1%), (P < 0.001). Median OS in long-term survivors was about two times higher than the cut-off of 15 months: 30.9 months [interquartile range (IQR) 30.3] overall, 33.9 months (IQR 37.1) in HER2-positive, 26.9 months (IQR 22.0) in luminal-like and 26.5 months (IQR 18.2) in TNBC patients., Conclusions: In our analysis, long-term survival of BC patients with BM was associated with better ECOG PS, younger age, HER2-positive subtype, lower number of BM and less extended visceral metastases. Patients with these clinical features might be more eligible for extended local brain and systemic treatment., Competing Interests: Disclosure IW received speaker’s honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi-Sankyo, Seagen, Gilead and Novartis. KL received speaker’s honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, MSD, Eisai, Lilly, Seagen, AstraZeneca and Daiichy Sankyo. MS has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Seagen. His institution has received research funding from AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Eisai, Genentech, German Breast Group, Novartis, Palleos, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pierre Fabre and Seagen. In addition, he has a patent for EP 2390370 B1 and a patent for EP 2951317 B1 issued. SL reports grants, non-financial support and other from Daiichi-Sankyo, during the conduct of the study; grants and other from Abbvie, other from Amgen, grants and other from AstraZeneca, other from BMS, grants and other from Celgene, other from Eirgenix, other from Eisai Europe Ltd, other from GSK, grants, non-financial support and other from Immunomedics/Gilead, other from Lilly, other from Merck, grants from Molecular Health, grants, non-financial support and other from Novartis, grants, non-financial support and other from Pfizer, other from Pierre Fabre, other from Relay Therapeutics, grants, non-financial support and other from Roche, other from Sanofi, non-financial support and other from Seagen, other from Olema Pharmaceutics, outside the submitted work; In addition, SL has a patent EP14153692.0 pending, a patent EP21152186.9 pending, a patent EP15702464.7 issued, a patent EP19808852.8 pending and a patent Digital Ki67 Evaluator with royalties paid. CD reports advisory role for MSD Oncology, Daiichi-Sankyo, Molecular Health, AstraZeneca, Roche and Lilly; CD received research funding from Myriad Genetics, Roche and German Breast Group; CD owns following patents: VMScope digital pathology software, Patent WO2020109570A1, Patent WO2015114146A1, Patent WO2010076322A1. MT received personal fees from Agendia, Amgen, Art tempi, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead Science, Grünenthal, GSK, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Organon, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen, Servier, Streamd Up!, Viatris, Vifor, trial funding from Exact Science and institutional trial honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Roche. VM received speaker honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead and Pierre Fabre; consultancy honoraria from Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Sanofi, Seagen and Gilead; Institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech; travel grants: Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead. RW received support for advisory, consultancy, speaker and travel grants from Agendia, Amgen, Aristo, AstraZeneca, Boeringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Clinsol, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Genomic Health, Gilead, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hexal, Lilly, Medstrom Medical, MSD, Mundipharma, Mylan, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, PINK, PumaBiotechnolgogy, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Sanofi Genzyme, Seattle Genetics /Seagen, Stemline, Tesaro Bio, Teva, Veracyte and Viatris. TD received Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Novartis, IOMEDICO and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Novartis, IOMEDICO. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Stomatitis is one of the main reasons to discontinue everolimus in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). To decrease stomatitis and subsequently early treatment discontinuations or dose reductions, the DESIREE trial investigated the use of a stepwise dose-escalation schedule of everolimus (EVE esc)., Patients and Methods: DESIREE is a phase II, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with HR+/HER2- mBC and progression/relapse after nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor treatment. Patients were randomised to EVE esc (2.5 mg/day, week 1; 5 mg/day, week 2; 7.5 mg/day, week 3; 10 mg/day, weeks 4-24) or everolimus 10 mg/day (EVE 10mg) for 24 weeks plus exemestane. The primary endpoint was the incidence of stomatitis episodes grade ≥2 within 12 weeks of treatment. The secondary endpoints included toxicity, relative total dose intensity (RTDI) and quality of life (QoL)., Results: A total of 160 patients were randomised and 156 started treatment (EVE esc: 80; EVE 10mg: 76). The median age of patients was 64 years (range 33-85), 56.3% patients in the EVE esc arm versus 42.1% in the EVE 10mg arm had liver metastasis (P = 0.081) and 62.5% versus 51.3% received over one metastatic therapy line (P = 0.196). Within 12 weeks, the incidence of stomatitis episodes grade ≥2 was significantly lower in the EVE esc arm compared with the EVE 10mg arm (28.8% versus 46.1%; odds ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.24-0.92; P = 0.026). Toxicity was in line with the known safety profile without new safety concerns. The median RTDI was 91.1% in the EVE esc arm versus 80.0% in the EVE 10mg arm (P = 0.329). Discontinuation rate in the first 3 weeks was 6.3% versus 15.8%, respectively (P = 0.073). QoL was comparable between the two treatment arms., Conclusions: A dose-escalation schema of everolimus over 3 weeks can be successfully used to reduce the incidence of high-grade stomatitis in the first 12 weeks of treatment in patients with HR+/HER2- mBC., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02387099; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02387099., Competing Interests: Disclosure VM reports personal fees from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seagen, GSK, Gilead; personal fees from Genomic Health, Gilead, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Clin Sol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, GSK, Gilead, other from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech, outside the submitted work. MS reports grants or contracts to the Institution from AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Eisai, German Breast Group, Genentech, Novartis, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pfizer and Roche; patents planned, issued or pending: EP 2951317 B1 and EP 2390370 B1; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen; receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services from Roche. MR reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Novartis, Pfizer; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Novartis, Pfizer. TD reports consulting fees from Novartis Adboard, iOMEDICO adboard. TL reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Amgen, Roche, Clovis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, GSK, Gilead, AstraZeneca; support for attending meetings and/or travel from MSD, Celgene, Clovis, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen, MSD, Roche, Tesaro, Pfizer, Lilly, Myriad, Eisai, GSK, Daiichi Sankyo. KL reports payment for participation on Advisory Board from Seagen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, MSD, Eisai; payment or honoraria for lectures from Novartis, Genomic Health, Roche, Lilly. MT reports trial funding, payment to the institution from Exact Sciences, Endomag; consulting fees or Advisory board from Agendia, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Becton/Dickinson, ClearCut, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Grünenthal, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Neodynamics, Onkowissen, Organon, Pfizer, Pfm medical, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Seagen, Sirius Pintuition, Sysmex; payment or honoraria for lectures, manuscript writing from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Art tempi, ClearCut, Clovis, Connect Medica, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Hexal, Exact Sciences, Eickeler, Onkowissen, Sysmex, Vifor, Viatris, I-Med-Institute, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm medical, Roche, Seagen, Servier; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, Art tempi, AstraZeneca, Clearcut, Clovis, Connect medica, Daiichi Sankyo, Exact Sciences, I-Med-Institute, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm medical, Neodynamics, Seagen; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid from AWOgyn. MvM reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Genomic Health, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Molecular Health, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Lilly. SL reports honoraria for Advisory board, lectures and research grant paid to the institution from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer, Roche; advisory board and research grant paid to the institution from AbbVie, BMS (Celgene), Gilead; honoraria for advisory board paid to the institution from Amgen, EirGenix, GSK, Lilly, Merck KGaA, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi; honoraria for Advisory board and medical writing paid to the institution, and nonfinancial support from Seagen; patent issued and royalties (Digital Ki67 Evaluator) VM Scope GmbH paid to the institution; patents pending: EP14153692.0 (immunosignature in TNBC), EP21152186.9 (signature for CDK4/6 inhibitor), EP19808852.8. (GeparNUEVO) paid to the institution; patent issued: EP15702464.7 (Predicting response to an anti-HER2 containing therapy) paid to the institution. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported. Data sharing, (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Following chemotherapy and human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-targeted neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive early breast cancer, residual invasive breast cancer at surgery may be HER2-negative on retesting in some patients. We evaluated outcomes with T-DM1 and trastuzumab in patients randomized in the phase III KATHERINE trial based on HER2-positive central testing of the pre-treatment core biopsy with HER2-negative central testing on their corresponding surgical specimen after neoadjuvant treatment. In the 70/845 (8.3%) patients with HER2-negative residual disease on retesting at surgery, there were 11 IDFS events in the 42 trastuzumab-treated patients (26.2%) and none in the 28 T-DM1-treated patients, suggesting that T-DM1 should not be withheld in this patient population., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Up to 40% of patients with metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer develop brain metastases (BMs). Understanding of clinical features of these patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and BMs is vital., Patients and Methods: A total of 2948 patients from the Brain Metastases in Breast Cancer registry were available for this analysis, of whom 1311 had primary tumors with the HER2-positive subtype., Results: Patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and BMs were-when compared with HER2-negative patients-slightly younger at the time of breast cancer and BM diagnosis, had a higher pathologic complete response rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and a higher tumor grade. Furthermore, extracranial metastases at the time of BM diagnosis were less common in HER2-positive patients, when compared with HER2-negative patients. HER2-positive patients had more often BMs in the posterior fossa, but less commonly leptomeningeal metastases. The median overall survival (OS) in all HER2-positive patients was 13.2 months (95% confidence interval 11.4-14.4). The following factors were associated with shorter OS (multivariate analysis): older age at BM diagnosis [≥60 versus <60 years: hazard ratio (HR) 1.63, P < 0.001], lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status (2-4 versus 0-1: HR 1.59, P < 0.001), higher number of BMs (2-3 versus 1: HR 1.30, P = 0.082; ≥4 versus 1: HR 1.51, P = 0.004; global P = 0.015), BMs in the fossa anterior (HR 1.71, P < 0.001), leptomeningeal metastases (HR 1.63, P = 0.012), symptomatic BMs at diagnosis (HR 1.35, P = 0.033) and extracranial metastases at diagnosis of BMs (HR 1.43, P = 0.020). The application of targeted therapy after the BM diagnosis (HR 0.62, P < 0.001) was associated with longer OS. HER2-positive/hormone receptor-positive patients showed longer OS than HER2-positive/hormone receptor-negative patients (median 14.3 versus 10.9 months; HR 0.86, P = 0.03), but no differences in progression-free survival were seen between both groups., Conclusions: We identified factors associated with the prognosis of HER2-positive patients with BMs. Further research is needed to understand the factors determining the longer survival of HER2-positive/hormone receptor-positive patients., Competing Interests: Disclosure MT serves on the advisory board for Amgen, AstraZeneca, AURIKAMED, Becton/Dickinson, Biom‘Up, Celgene, ClearCut, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead Science, Lilly, MSD, Norgine, NeoDynamics, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, pfm Medical, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, RTI Surgical, Seagen and Sysmex; reports manuscript support from Amgen, Celgene, ClearCut, pfm medical, Roche and Servier; support for travel expenses from Amgen, Art Tempi, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Cleracut, Clovis, Connect Medica, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Hexal, I-Med-Institute, Lilly, MCI, Medtronic, MSD, Norgine, Novartis, OmniaMed, Pfizer, pfm medical, Roche and RTI Surgical; support for congress expenses from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Hexal, NeoDynamics, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; support for speech expenses: Amgen, Art Tempi, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, Connect Medica, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead Science, Hexal, I-Med-Institute, Jörg Eickeler, Lilly, MCI, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, OmniaMed, Pfizer, pfm Medical, Roche, RTI Surgical, Seagen, Sysmex, Vifor and Viatris; trial funding support from Endomag and Exact Sciences. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The conversion of initially histologically confirmed axillary lymph node-positive (pN+) to ypN0 after neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NAST) is an important prognostic factor in breast cancer (BC) patients and may influence surgical de-escalation strategies. We aimed to determine pCR rates in lymph nodes (pCR-LN), the breast (pCR-B), and both (tpCR) in women who present with pN+ BC, to assess predictors for response and the impact of pCR-LN, pCR-B, and tpCR on invasive disease-free survival (iDFS)., Methods: Retrospective, exploratory analysis of 242 patients with pN+ at diagnosis from the multicentric, randomized GeparOcto trial., Results: Of 242 patients with initially pN+ disease, 134 (55.4%) had a pCR-LN, and 109 (45.0%) a pCR-B. Of the 109 pCR-B patients, 9 (8.3%) patients had involved LN, and 100 (41.3%) patients had tpCR. Those with involved LN still had a bad prognosis. As expected, pCR-B and intrinsic subtypes (TNBC and HER2+) were identified as independent predictors of pCR-LN. pCR-LN (ypN0; hazard ratio 0.42; 95%, CI 0.23-0.75; p = 0.0028 for iDFS) was the strongest independent prognostic factor., Conclusions: In initially pN+ patients undergoing NAST, the conversion to ypN0 is of high prognostic value. Surgical axillary staging after NAST is still essential in these patients to offer tailored treatment.

Background: GeparOcto demonstrated that pathological complete response (pCR) of intense dose-dense epirubicin, paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide (iddEPC) was comparable to weekly paclitaxel/non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (plus carboplatin (PM(Cb) in triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC]) in high-risk early breast cancer (BC). Here, we report time-to-event secondary end-points., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomised to receive 18 weeks of E (150 mg/m 2 ) followed by P (225 mg/m 2 ) followed by C (2000 mg/m 2 ), each q2w or weekly P (80 mg/m 2 ) plus M (20 mg/m 2 ) plus, in TNBC, Cb (AUC 1.5). Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+)BC received trastuzumab (6[loading dose 8]mg/kg q3w) and pertuzumab (420[840]mg q3w) with P and C cycles., Results: 945 patients started treatment (iddEPC n = 470; PM(Cb) n = 475). After a median follow-up of 47.0 (range 1.6-61.5) months, 162 (75 in iddEPC; 87 in PM(Cb)) invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) events and 79 (41 in iddEPC; 38 in PM(Cb)) deaths were reported. No significant difference was observed in 4-year iDFS (81.9% iddEPC versus 79.7% PM(Cb), HR = 1.16 [95%CI 0.85-1.59], log-rank p = 0.334) or 4-year overall survival (OS) (90.3% iddEPC versus 90.6% PM(Cb), HR = 0.90 [95%CI 0.58-1.40], log-rank p = 0.637) overall and in HER2+ and TNBC subgroups. HR+/HER2- BC patients, however, had significantly better 4-year iDFS (77.9% iddEPC versus 62.5% PM, HR = 2.11 [95%CI 1.08-4.10], log-rank p = 0.025) and 4-year OS with iddEPC (94.7% iddEPC versus 80.1% PM, HR = 3.26 [95%CI 1.06-10.00], log-rank p = 0.029)., Conclusion: While there was no difference in survival for the entire cohort, the HR+/HER2-subgroup significantly benefits from iddEPC. This supports the concept of an additional effect of NACT beyond pCR in patients with HR+/HER2- BC. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Identifier: NCT02125344., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: AS reports grants from Celgene, grants from Roche, grants from AbbVie, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Pfizer, other from Roche, outside the submitted work; CD reports grants from European Commission H2020, grants from German Cancer Aid Translational Oncology, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from MSD Oncology, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from AstraZeneca, from Molecular Health, grants from Myriad, personal fees from Merck, other from Sividon diagnostics, outside the submitted work; In addition, Dr. Denkert has a patent VMScope digital pathology software with royalties paid, a patent WO2020109570A1-cancer immunotherapy pending, and a patent WO2015114146A1 and WO2010076322A1-therapy response issued; CH reports a consulting or advisory role for Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lilly-Pharma, Celgene; CJ reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; CS reports a consulting or advisory role for Hologicm, MSD; reports travel, accommodations, or expenses from Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche; EH reports honoraria and a consulting or advisory role from AstraZeneca; HT reports other from Pierre Fabre, other from Pfizer Pharma, other from Mundipharma, other from ClinSol, other from Novartis, other from Lilly, other from AMGEN, other from Grünenthal, other from Vifor, other from AstraZeneca, other from Mylan, other from BMS, during the conduct of the study; JH reports personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Roche, other from Daichii, other from Roche, other from Pfizer, grants from Novartis, grants from Hexal, outside the submitted work; JUB reports honoraria, travel support and unrestricted grants from AMGEN, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Molecular Health, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche; KK reports other from MSD Sharpe amd Dome GmBH, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, outside the submitted work; KL reports a consulting or advisory role for Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Exact Science Eisai, MSD; reports travel, accommodations, or expenses from Roche; KR reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work; LM reports honoraria from Pfizer, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Roche, Lilly; reports a consulting or advisory role for Pfizer, Roche, Eisai, AstraZeneca; reports travel, accommodations, or expenses from Eisai, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Roche; MU reports honoraria to the employer/institution from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi-Aventis, MSD; reports research funding to the employer/institution from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Pierre Fabre; PAF reports honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Astra Zeneca, Hexal, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Agendia, Cepheid, BionTech; reports a consulting or advisory role for Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Astra Zeneca, Hexal, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Agendia, Lilly; reports research funding from Novartis, BioNTech AG, Cepheid; SL reports honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, DSI, Eirgenix, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Prime/Medscape, Puma, Roche, Samsung, and Seagen; reports a consulting or advisory role for Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, DSI, Eirgenix, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Prime/Medscape, Puma, Roche, and Seagen; reports a speaker's bureau for AstraZeneca, DSI, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Prime/Medscape, Roche, and Samsung; reports research funding from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Cepheid, DSI, Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; reports a patent or intellectual property interest with VM Scope GmbH; reports another relationship with Roche; TL reports honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Clovis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly; reports a consulting or advisory role from Tesaro, Amgen, MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, Myriad, Esai, GSK; reports travel, accommodations, or expenses from MSD, Celgen, Clovis; VM reports and Speaker honoraria received from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Roche, Teva. Consultancy honoraria from Roche, Amgen, Tesaro and Myelo Therapeutics; No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The development of anti-HER2 antibody-drug conjugates opens new therapeutic options for patients with breast cancer, including patients with low expression of HER2. To characterise this new breast cancer subtype, we have compared the clinical and molecular characteristics of HER2-low-positive and HER2-zero breast cancer, including response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and prognosis., Methods: In this pooled analysis of individual patient data, we evaluated a cohort of 2310 patients with HER2-non-amplified primary breast cancer that were treated with neoadjuvant combination chemotherapy in four prospective neoadjuvant clinical trials (GeparSepto, NCT01583426; GeparOcto, NCT02125344; GeparX, NCT02682693; Gain-2 neoadjuvant, NCT01690702) between July 30, 2012, and March 20, 2019. Central HER2 testing was done prospectively before random assignment of participants in all trials. HER2-low-positive status was defined as immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or IHC2+/in-situ hybridisation negative and HER2-zero was defined as IHC0, based on the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines. Disease-free survival and overall survival data were available for 1694 patients (from all trials except GeparX) with a median follow-up of 46·6 months (IQR 35·0-52·3). Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models and Cox-proportional hazards models were performed based on a predefined statistical analysis plan for analysis of the endpoints pathological complete response, disease-free survival, and overall survival., Findings: A total of 1098 (47·5%) of 2310 tumours were HER2-low-positive and 1212 (52·5%) were HER2-zero. 703 (64·0%) of 1098 patients with HER2-low-positive tumours were hormone receptor positive, compared with 445 (36·7%) of 1212 patients with HER2-zero tumours (p<0.0001). HER2-low-positive tumours had a significantly lower pathological complete response rate than HER2-zero tumours (321 [29·2%] of 1098 vs 473 [39·0%] of 1212, p=0·0002). Pathological complete response was also significantly lower in HER2-low-positive tumours versus HER2-zero tumours in the hormone receptor-positive subgroup (123 [17·5%] of 703 vs 105 [23·6%] of 445, p=0·024), but not in the hormone receptor-negative subgroup (198 [50·1%] of 395 vs 368 [48·0%] of 767, p=0·21). Patients with HER2-low-positive tumours had significantly longer survival than did patients with HER2-zero tumours (3-year disease-free survival: 83·4% [95% CI 80·5-85·9] vs 76·1% [72·9-79·0]; stratified log-rank test p=0·0084; 3-year overall survival: 91·6% [84·9-93·4] vs 85·8% [83·0-88·1]; stratified log-rank test p=0·0016). Survival differences were also seen in patients with hormone receptor-negative tumours (3-year disease-free survival: 84·5% [95% CI 79·5-88·3] vs 74·4% [70·2-78.0]; stratified log-rank test p=0·0076; 3-year overall survival: 90·2% [86·0-93·2] vs 84·3% [80·7-87·3], stratified log-rank test p=0·016), but not in patients with hormone receptor-positive tumours (3-year disease-free survival 82·8% [79·1-85·9] vs 79·3% [73·9-83·7]; stratified log-rank test p=0·39; 3-year overall survival 92·3% [89·6-94·4] vs 88·4% [83·8-91·8]; stratified log-rank test p=0·13)., Interpretation: Our results show that HER2-low-positive tumours can be identified as new subgroup of breast cancer by standardised IHC, distinct from HER2-zero tumours. HER2-low-positive tumours have a specific biology and show differences in response to therapy and prognosis, which is particularly relevant in therapy-resistant, hormone receptor-negative tumours. Our results provide a basis for a better understanding of the biology of breast cancer subtypes and the refinement of future diagnostic and therapeutic strategies., Funding: German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CD reports grants from European Commission H2020, German Cancer Aid Translational Oncology, German Breast Group, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Novartis, Roche, MSD Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Molecular Health, and Merck, and grants from Myriad, outside the submitted work. CD is the cofounder of Sividon diagnostics. CD has a patent VMScope digital pathology software with royalties paid, a patent WO2020109570A1-cancer immunotherapy pending, and a patent WO2015114146A1 and WO2010076322A1-therapy response issued. AS reports grants from Celgene, Roche, and AbbVie; personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly, and Roche, outside the submitted work. TL receives payment or honoraria from Tesaro, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Clovis, and Lilly; receives support for travel costs from Roche, Pfizer, MSD, Celgene, and Clovis; reports participation on an Advisory Board from Roche, Tesaro, Amgen, MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Myriad, Esai, and GSK, outside the submitted work. J-UB reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Amgen, MSD Oncology, Lilly, Novartis, Sysmex, Roche, and Sonoscape, outside the submitted work. PW reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Teva, Eisai, Clovis, and Tesaro, outside the submitted work. HT reports consulting fees and travel costs from Pierre Fabre, Pfizer Pharma, Mundipharma, ClinSol, Novartis, Lilly, Grünenthal, Vifor, AstraZeneca, Mylan, and AMGEN; payment or honoraria from Vifor, Novartis, AstraZeneca, ClinSol, Mundipharma, Lilly, and Amgen; participation on an Advisory Board from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Molecular Health, Pfizer, Roche, Grünenthal, and Mylan; and is part of a leadership or fiduciary role in Arbeitskreis klinische Studien. ASCO, BNHO, DGHO, DKG, ESMO, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Senelogie. CJ receives payment or honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lilly, Exact Sciences, and Pierre Fabre; recieves support for travel costs from Roche and AstraZeneca, reports participation on an Advisory Board from Roche, Lilly, and AstraZeneca. MR reports consulting fees from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, and Somatex; receives payment or honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Somatex, and AstraZeneca; recieves support for travel costs from Novartis, Pfizer, and Celgene. EFS receives payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Celgene, Roche, and Amgen; support for travel costs from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Erbe, Gedeon, Richter, Genomic Health, Jenapharm, Johnson Johnson, KLS Martin, Matramed, Medac, Mentor, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, MSD, Roche, Samsung, Storz, Tewa, Vifor, Medconcept, and Thieme; is part of a leadership or fiduciary role of University of Saarland, Germany, society for German Gynecological Endoscopy. CH reports personal fees from Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Celgene, outside the submitted work. PAF reports personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Seattle Genetics, Roche, and Hexal, and grants from Biontech and Cepheid, during the conduct of the study. KL receives payment from Roche, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Lilly, and Genomic Health, support for travel costs from Roche, and reports participation on an Advisory Board from Roche, MSD, and Esai. JH reports research grants to institution from Celgene, Novartis, and Hexal; consulting fees from Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Hexal, AstraZeneca, MSD, Celgene, and Abbvie; receives payment from Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Celgene, Eisai, and Abbvie; recieves support for travel costs from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Celgene, and Daiichi. TR reports consulting fees from Pfizer, honoraria for presentations from AstraZeneca and receives payment from Pfizer, Roche, and Novartis. MS reports grants from AstraZeneca, BioNtech, Eisai, German Breast Group, Genentech, Novartis, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and SeaGen; receives payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and SeaGen; support for travel costs from Pfizer and Roche; has planned patents, issued or pending from EP 2951317 B1 and EP 2390370 B1; reports participation on an Advisory Board from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and SeaGen; medical writing support from Roche. WJ reports grants and personal fees from Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Chugai, AstraZeneca, MSD, and Daiichi Sankyo, during the conduct of the study. ES reports consulting fees from Roche and AstraZeneca; receives payment or honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, and Astra Zeneca; support for travel costs from Roche, Pfizer, and Daiko. SSe reports reimbursement of travel costs from Novartis and personal fees from Roche, Mundipharma, and Amgen, outside the submitted work. MU reports personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly Int, MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Odonate, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland, TEVA Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Clovis Oncology; personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly Deutschland, PUMA Biotechnology, Pierre Fabre, Seattle Genetics, outside the submitted work. SL reports grants or fundings from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Immunomedics, Pfizer, Roche, DSI Trevor, Vifor, Abbvie, Cepheid, Seagen, and VM Scope; receives payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Prime/Medscape, Puma, and Samsung; has planned patents, issued or pending from EP14153692.0; reports participation on an Advisory Board from Amgen, AstraZeneca, DSI, Roche, Merck, Pfizer, BMS, SeaGen, Eirgenix, Celgene, Abbvie, Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pierre Fabre; is part of a leadership or fiduciary role from BIG. All other authors report no conflicts of interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: BRCA1 and BRCA2 play a central role in DNA repair. Therefore, patients harbouring germline (g) BRCA1/2 mutations (m) treated with chemotherapy might be at higher risk of haematological toxicities., Methods: Patients from German Breast Group (GBG) and Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie-breast group studies with early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and known gBRCA1/2m status treated with anthracycline-taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy were analysed. Primary objective was the rate of neutropenia grade (G)III-IV in cycle 1 (C1). Secondary objectives included effects on overall and other haematological toxicities GIII-IV in C1, cumulative haematological toxicity across all cycles, relative total dose intensity, and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis. Haematological toxicities under taxanes, carboplatin, and cyclophosphamide were explored., Results: Two hundred nine of 1171 (17.8%) evaluated patients had gBRCA1/2m. In C1, 37.4% gBRCA1/2m versus 35.7% wild-type patients had neutropenia GIII-IV (P = 0.683). For C1, gBRCA1/2m predicted neither for neutropenia GIII-IV (odds ratio [OR]: 1.26, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.87-1.82, P = 0.226) nor for other haematological toxicities GIII-IV (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.64-1.31, P = 0.625) in multivariable regression models. Analyses of cumulative toxicities across all cycles yielded similar results except thrombocytopaenia GIII-IV, which was increased in gBRCA1m patients. In patients treated with taxanes, the rate of haematological toxicities GIII-IV was higher in gBRCA1/2m compared with wild-type (59.5% versus 43.1%; p < 0.001). No difference was seen under cyclophosphamide or platinum-containing chemotherapies., Conclusions: gBRCA1/2m was not associated with higher risk of overall severe haematological toxicities in the first cycle or cumulatively across all cycles under standard chemotherapy for TNBC. Under taxane, patients with gBRCA1/2m might have a higher risk of haematological toxicities GIII-IV, requiring further research., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following conflicts of interest: A.S. reports receiving grants from Celgene, Roche, AbbVie; personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly, and others from Roche, outside the submitted work; C.H. reports receiving personal fees from Roche, Novartis, Lilliy, MSD, Astra Zeneca, and Pfizer; C.J. reports personal fees from Roche, AsraZeneca, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, and Amgen; F.J.C. reports receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca; receiving grants from GRAIL, others from Qiagen and Ambry Genetics, outside the submitted work; H.T. reports receiving personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, and Lilly, outside the submitted work; J.H. reports receiving grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Eisai, MSD, and Abbvie, personal fees and other from Pfizer and Roche, other from Daichii; receiving grants, personal fees and other from Celgene; receiving grants and personal fees from Hexal, outside the submitted work; J.U.B. reports receiving personal fees from AMGEN, ASTRA Zeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SonoScape, and Sysmex, outside the submitted work; K.L. reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, Lilly, personal fees from Novartis and Genomic Health, outside the submitted work; K.R. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Tesaro and Pfizer, outside the submitted work; M.U. reports personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, Amgen GmbH, Eisai GmbH, Daiji Sankyo, Celgene GmbH, MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Roche Pharma AG, Odonate, TEVA Pharmaceuticals Ind Ltd., Sanofi Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Pfizer GmbH, Astra Zeneca and Lilly Int., Novartis, Clovis Oncology, and Myriad Genetics; personal fees from BMS, Lilly Deutschland, PUMA Biotechnology, Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work; P.A.F. reports receiving personal fees from Novartis, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, and Seattle Genetics, Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Astra Zeneca, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme; grants from Biontech, Cepheid. R.S. reports receiving grants from Cologne Furtune; S.L. reports receiving grants and other from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Amgen and Celgene during the conduct of the study; grants and non-financial support from Immunomedics; other from Seattle Genetics, PriME/Medscape, Lilly, Samsung, Eirgenix, BMS, Puma, MSD; personal fees from Chugai; grants from Teva and Vifor; outside the submitted work; In addition, S.L. has a patent EP14153692.0 pending. T.L. reports non-financial support from Pharma Mar, Celgene and Daiichi-Sankyo; personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Clovis; personal fees from Amgen, Novartis, Teva, Tesaro, outside the submitted work; V.M. reports speaker honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Roche, TEVA, and consultancy honoraria from Roche, Amgen, Tesaro and Myelo Therapeutic; No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Several scores have been developed in order to estimate the prognosis of patients with brain metastases (BM) by objective criteria. The aim of this analysis was to validate all three published graded-prognostic-assessment (GPA)-scores in a subcohort of 882 breast cancer (BC) patients with BM in the Brain Metastases in the German Breast Cancer (BMBC) registry. The median age at diagnosis of BM was 57 years. All in all, 22.3% of patients ( n = 197) had triple-negative, 33.4% ( n = 295) luminal A like, 25.1% ( n = 221) luminal B/HER2-enriched like and 19.2% ( n = 169) HER2 positive like BC. Age ≥60 years, evidence of extracranial metastases (ECM), higher number of BM, triple-negative subtype and low Karnofsky-Performance-Status (KPS) were all associated with worse overall survival (OS) in univariate analysis ( p < 0.001 each). All three GPA-scores were associated with OS. The breast-GPA showed the highest probability of classifying patients with survival above 12 months in the best prognostic group (specificity 68.7% compared with 48.1% for the updated breast-GPA and 21.8% for the original GPA). Sensitivities for predicting 3 months survival were very low for all scores. In this analysis, all GPA-scores showed only moderate diagnostic accuracy in predicting the OS of BC patients with BM.

Background Patients with breast cancer can be affected by cardiotoxic reactions through cancer therapies. Cardiac biomarkers, like NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T, might have predictive value. Methods and Results Echocardiography, ECG, hemodynamic parameters, NT-proBNP and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T were assessed in 853 patients with early-stage breast cancer randomized in the German Breast Group GeparOcto-GBG 84 phase III trial. Patients received neo-adjuvant dose-dense, dose-intensified epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide (iddEPC group, n=424) or paclitaxel, non-pegylated doxorubicin, and in triple negative breast cancer, (paclitaxel, non-pegylated doxorubicin, carboplatin group, n=429) treatment for 18 weeks. Patients positive for human epidermal growth receptor 2 (n=354, 41.5%) received monoclonal antibodies on top of allocated therapy; 119 (12.9%) of all patients showed a cardiotoxic reaction during therapy (15 [1.8%] using a more strict definition). Presence of cardiotoxic reactions was irrespective of treatment allocation ( P =0.31). Small but significant increases in NT-proBNP developed early in patients with a cardiotoxic reaction as compared with those without in whom NT-proBNP rose only towards the end of therapy ( P =0.04). High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T rose early in both groups. Logistic regression showed that NT-proBNP (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% CI, 1.008-1.055; P =0.01) and hemoglobin (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05-1.63; P =0.02) measured at 6 weeks after treatment initiation were significantly associated with cardiotoxic reactions. Conclusions NT-proBNP and hemoglobin are significantly associated with cardiotoxic reactions in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing dose-dense and dose-intensified chemotherapy, but high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T is not. Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02125344.

Background : Brain metastases (BM) have become a major challenge in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Methods : The aim of this analysis was to characterize patients with asymptomatic BM ( n = 580) in the overall cohort of 2589 patients with BM from our Brain Metastases in Breast Cancer Network Germany (BMBC) registry. Results : Compared to symptomatic patients, asymptomatic patients were slightly younger at diagnosis (median age: 55.5 vs. 57.0 years, p = 0.01), had a better performance status at diagnosis (Karnofsky index 80-100%: 68.4% vs. 57%, p < 0.001), a lower number of BM (>1 BM: 56% vs. 70%, p = 0.027), and a slightly smaller diameter of BM (median: 1.5 vs. 2.2 cm, p < 0.001). Asymptomatic patients were more likely to have extracranial metastases (86.7% vs. 81.5%, p = 0.003) but were less likely to have leptomeningeal metastasis (6.3% vs. 10.9%, p < 0.001). Asymptomatic patients underwent less intensive BM therapy but had a longer median overall survival (statistically significant for a cohort of HER2-positive patients) compared to symptomatic patients (10.4 vs. 6.9 months, p < 0.001). Conclusions : These analyses show a trend that asymptomatic patients have less severe metastatic brain disease and despite less intensive local BM therapy still have a better outcome (statistically significant for a cohort of HER2-positive patients) than patients who present with symptomatic BM, although a lead time bias of the earlier diagnosis cannot be ruled out. Our analysis is of clinical relevance in the context of potential trials examining the benefit of early detection and treatment of BM.

Importance: The GeparOcto randomized clinical trial compared the efficacy of 2 neoadjuvant breast cancer (BC) treatment regimens: sequential intense dose-dense epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide (iddEPC) vs weekly paclitaxel and nonpegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PM) in patients with different biological BC subtypes. Patients with triple-negative BC (TNBC) randomized to the PM arm received additional carboplatin (PMCb). Overall, no difference in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates was observed between study arms. It remained elusive whether the germline variant status of BRCA1/2 and further BC predisposition genes are associated with treatment outcome., Objective: To determine treatment outcome for BC according to germline variant status., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective biomarker study is a secondary analysis of the GeparOcto multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial conducted between December 2014 and June 2016. Genetic analyses assessing for variants in BRCA1/2 and 16 other BC predisposition genes in 914 of 945 women were performed at the Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Cologne, Germany, from August 2017 through December 2018., Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of patients who achieved pCR (ypT0/is ypN0 definition) after neoadjuvant treatment according to germline variant status., Results: In the study sample of 914 women with different BC subtypes with a mean (range) age at BC diagnosis of 48 (21-76) years, overall higher pCR rates were observed in patients with BRCA1/2 variants than in patients without (60.4% vs 46.7%; odds ratio [OR], 1.74; 95% CI, 1.13-2.68; P = .01); variants in non-BRCA1/2 BC predisposition genes were not associated with therapy response. Patients with TNBC with BRCA1/2 variants achieved highest pCR rates. In the TNBC subgroup, a positive BRCA1/2 variant status was associated with therapy response in both the PMCb arm (74.3% vs 47.0% without BRCA1/2 variant; OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.44-7.39; P = .005) and the iddEPC arm (64.7% vs 45.0%; OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.04-4.84; P = .04). A positive BRCA1/2 variant status was also associated with elevated pCR rates in patients with ERBB2-negative, hormone receptor-positive BC (31.8% vs 11.9%; OR, 3.44; 95% CI, 1.22-9.72; P = .02)., Conclusions and Relevance: Effective chemotherapy for BRCA1/2-mutated TNBC is commonly suggested to be platinum based. With a pCR rate of 64.7%, iddEPC may also be effective in these patients, though further prospective studies are needed. The elevated pCR rate in BRCA1/2-mutated ERBB2-negative, hormone receptor-positive BC suggests that germline BRCA1/2 testing should be considered prior to treatment start., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02125344.

Background: Paediatric dialysis patients still suffer from high morbidity rates. To improve this, quality assurance programs like the German QiNKid (Quality in Nephrology for Children)-Registry have been developed. In our study, the significance of underlying renal disease on a range of clinical and laboratory parameters impacting morbidity and mortality was analysed. Our aim was to evaluate whether or not disease-specific dialysis strategies should be considered in planning dialysis for a patient., Methods: Inclusion criteria were defined as follows: (1) CAKUT (congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract) or glomerular disease patient, (2) < 18 years of age, (3) haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis patient. Only measurements obtained from day 90 to 365 after the date of the first dialysis in the registry were analysed. Laboratory (serum albumin, haemoglobin, ferritin, calcium, phosphate, parathyroid hormone) and clinical parameters (height, blood pressure) were analysed using mixed effects models accounting for the correlation of repeated measures in individual patients., Results: The study cohort comprised n = 167 CAKUT and n = 55 glomerular disease patients. Glomerular disease patients had significantly higher odds of hypoalbuminemia (OR 13.90, 95% CI 1.35-159.99; p = 0.0274), anaemia (OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.22-9.13; p = 0.0197), hyperphosphatemia (OR 9.69, 95% CI 2.65-37.26; p = 0.0006) and diastolic hypertension (OR 3.38, 95% CI 1.20-9.79; p = 0.0212)., Conclusions: Glomerular disease patients might require more intensive dialysis regimens. The evaluation of hydration status should be given more attention, since conditions differing between the cohorts can be linked to overhydration. The QiNKid-Registry allows monitoring of the quality of paediatric dialysis in a nationwide cohort.

The E-VITA study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of two schedules of eribulin and lapatinib in patients with trastuzumab-pretreated HER-2-positive metastatic breast cancer. This multicenter, open-label phase II trial, randomly assigned patients with trastuzumab-pretreated HER-2-positive metastatic breast cancer to lapatinib 1000 mg daily with eribulin 1.23 mg/m (equivalent to 1.4 mg/m eribulin mesylate) days 1+8 every 21 days (split-dose arm) or eribulin 1.76 mg/m (equivalent to 2.0 mg/m eribulin mesylate) day 1 every 21 days (3-weekly arm). Time to progression and tolerability were defined as primary end points; no sample size calculation for formal comparison of efficacy data has been performed. Secondary end points included objective response rate, clinical benefit rate, and overall survival. Overall, 43 patients of a planned number of 80 patients were recruited. At a median follow-up of 28.7 months, the median time to progression was 8.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.8-9.4] in the split-dose arm and 6.5 months (95% CI: 4.6-13.4) in the 3-weekly arm. Objective response rate was 52.4% (95% CI: 31.0-73.7) in the split-dose arm and 45.0% (95% CI: 23.2-66.8) in the 3-weekly arm, and clinical benefit rate was 71.4% (95% CI: 52.1-90.8) and 75.0% (95% CI: 56.0-94.0), respectively. Overall survival was also similar in both arms. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (58.5%) and leukopenia (39.0%). The combination of eribulin and lapatinib showed an acceptable safety profile with less toxicity observed in the eribulin 1.23 mg/m day 1+8 group. This might be an alternative regimen when other treatment options are exhausted. Therefore, further clinical studies are warranted.

Background: GeparOcto compared efficacy and safety of two chemotherapy regimens in high-risk early breast cancer (BC): sequential treatment with intense dose-dense epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide (iddEPC) and weekly treatment with paclitaxel plus non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (M, Myocet®) with additional carboplatin (PM(Cb)) in triple-negative BC (TNBC)., Patients and Methods: Patients with cT1c-cT4a-d and centrally assessed human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)2-positive BC or TNBC were eligible, irrespective of nodal status, luminal B-like tumours only if pN+. Patients were randomised (stratified by BC subtype, Ki67, lymphocyte-predominant BC) to receive 18 weeks of E (150 mg/m 2 ) followed by P (225 mg/m 2 ) followed by C (2000 mg/m 2 ), each q2w for 3 cycles or weekly P (80 mg/m 2 ) plus M (20 mg/m 2 ) plus, in TNBC, Cb (area under curve (AUC) 1.5). HER2-positive BC patients additionally received trastuzumab (6 [loading dose 8]mg/kg q3w) and pertuzumab (420 [840]mg q3w) with all P and C cycles. Primary end-point was pathological complete response (pCR, ypT0/is ypN0), secondary end-points included other pCR definitions, pCR in stratified subpopulations, tolerability and compliance. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02125344., Results: 945/961 randomised patients started treatment. The median age was 48 years; 7.6% had cT3-4, 46% cN+, 66% G3, 40% HER2-positive, 43% TNBC. pCR rate with iddEPC was 48.3%, with PM(Cb) 48.0%, respectively (PM(Cb) versus iddEPC odds ratio 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.77-1.28, P = 0.979) with no significant differences observed in TNBC, HER2-positive, luminal B-like subtypes. 16.4% with iddEPC and 34.1% with PM(Cb) discontinued treatment (P < 0.001), mainly due to adverse events; two patients on PM(Cb) died., Conclusions: In high-risk early BC there is no difference in pCR rates following neoadjuvant treatment with iddEPC or weekly PM(Cb), respectively. iddEPC is one of the effective dose-dense regimens feasible in daily practice., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Taxanes (T) plus bevacizumab (B) and taxanes plus capecitabine (X) showed better progression-free survival (PFS) compared to taxanes alone. Since life-threatening or highly symptomatic situations require polychemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC), combination of taxanes, capecitabine plus bevacizumab appears reasonable. TABEA (NCT01200212), a prospectively randomized, open-label, phase III trial compares taxanes (paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) i.v. d1,8,15 q22 or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) i.v. d1 q22) plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg i.v. d1 q22) with (TBX) or without capecitabine (TB, 1800 mg/m(2) daily d1-14 q22) as first-line therapy in MBC. Histologically confirmed HER2-negative, locally advanced or MBC patients with a chemotherapy indication and measurable or non-measurable target lesions (RECIST criteria) were included. Primary objective was PFS. Secondary objectives were response rate and duration, clinical benefit rate (complete response, partial response, stable disease ≥24 weeks), 3-year overall survival, PFS in patients ≥65 years, toxicity, and compliance. We assumed 10 and 13.3 months PFS for TB and TBX, respectively (HR = 0.75), requiring 432 patients and 386 events. Preplanned interim futility and safety analyses after 100 events in 202 patients showed no efficacy benefit and higher toxicity for TBX. Recruitment and therapy were stopped following advice from the IDMC. Final analysis revealed a HR 1.13 [95 %CI 0.806-1.59], P = 0.474, for PFS. Overall grade 3-4 adverse event (77.3 vs. 62.1 %, P = 0.014) and serious adverse event (40.0 vs. 30.2 %, P = 0.127) rates were higher for TBX after 26.1 months median follow-up, with six deaths for TBX versus 1 for TB. Adding capecitabine to TB cannot be recommended as first-line therapy in MBC.

Trastuzumab and lapatinib are established treatments for patients with HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2)-positive breast cancer with different mechanisms of action. The focus of this study is to investigate, whether altered expression levels of potentially relevant microRNAs (miRs) in serum are associated with response to trastuzumab or lapatinib. Circulating miR-21, miR-210, and miR-373 were quantified with TaqMan MicroRNA assays in serum of 127 HER2-postive breast cancer patients before and after neoadjuvant therapy and in 19 healthy controls. Patients received chemotherapy combined with either trastuzumab or lapatinib within the prospectively randomized Geparquinto trial. The association between miR levels and pathological response (pCR) to therapy and type of therapy was examined. Serum levels of miR-21 (p = 5.04e-08, p = 1.43e-10), miR-210 (p = 0.00151, p = 1.6e-05), and miR-373 (p = 7.87e-06, p = 1.75e-07) were significantly higher in patients before and after chemotherapy than in healthy women. Concentrations of miR-21 (p = 5.73e-08), miR-210 (p = 0.000724), and miR-373 (p = 0.00209) increased further after chemotherapy. A significant association of higher serum levels of miR-373 with advanced clinical tumor stage could be detected (p < 0.002). An association of miR-21 levels before (p = 0.0091) and after (p = 0.037) chemotherapy with overall survival of the patients could be detected, independent of type of anti-HER2 therapy. No association of circulating miRs with pCR was found. Our findings demonstrate a specific influence of neoadjuvant therapy on the serum levels of miR-21, miR-210, and miR-373 in breast cancer patients together with a prognostic value of miR-21.

Purpose: Everolimus has shown to stop formation and activity of osteoclasts. Breast cancer patients with bone metastases only are candidates for effective but low toxic treatment., Patients and Methods: We evaluated everolimus in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II, randomized discontinuation study in breast cancer patients with HER2 negative breast cancer patients with bone metastases only. After being stable on 8 weeks of everolimus 10 mg/day, patients were randomized to everolimus-continuation or placebo. Primary outcome was time (from randomization) to progression (TTP). Seventy-six patients would have had to be randomized to show a hazard ration (HR) of 0.5 for everolimus-continuation., Results: Eighty-nine patients were enrolled in 4 years. Thirty-nine patients with SD after 8 weeks on everolimus were randomized to everolimus-continuation or placebo. TTP in patients with everolimus-continuation was 37.0 (95 % CI 16.7-40.3) versus 12.6 weeks (95 % CI 7.1-17.9) with placebo [HR 0.554 (95 % CI 0.282-1.09) p = 0.0818], adjusted for endocrine therapy [HR 0.464 (95 % CI 0.226-0.954) p = 0.037]. TTP in everolimus responders (n = 6) was 86 weeks., Conclusion: The RADAR study is mainly hypothesis generating. It suggests that everolimus has single-agent activity, and patients with bone metastases only may retrieve long-term benefit from everolimus if they do not progress within 8 weeks of treatment.

Aim: Around half of all women in Germany with breast cancer are older than 65 and approximately one third of them is older than 70 years of age. In theory, the preferred therapeutic management of women with breast cancer aged 65 and above corresponds to that formulated for younger patients and complies with the S3 Guidelines and the therapy recommendations formulated by AGO. To study the current therapies used to treat women with breast cancer aged 70 and above in Germany, a survey of the clinics of the German Breast Group (GBG) was done. Method: An online survey was carried out with requests sent to 599 physicians registered as principal investigators in the database of the GBG. The 12-item questionnaire was used to investigate the systematic therapeutic management of 70-year-old patients in different settings. The indication for chemotherapy was taken as a given. Results: In a neoadjuvant setting, 62 % of physicians opted for anthracycline and taxane-based therapy as did 56.6 % of physicians in an adjuvant setting. One third of physicians preferred a taxane-based therapy with the anti-angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab as first-line therapy for primary metastatic cancer and after anthracycline-based therapy. Capecitabine (around 30 %) and navelbine (around 20 %) were proposed as second-line neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies after prior anthracycline- and taxane-based therapy. Conclusion: The chemotherapy regimen prescribed for women with breast cancer aged 70 and above in Germany appears to be relatively standardised and corresponds to the recommendations given in the S3 Guidelines and by the AGO Breast Committee.

Background: We present a series of skin-sparing mastectomies (SSMs) with skin reduction and immediate breast reconstruction to treat large and ptotic breasts. The technique combines oncological mastectomy with immediate subpectoral implant placement as a single-step procedure. Methods: Data was collected from a prospective database from February 2009 to April 2011. A total of 24 patients with macromastia or pronounced ptosis fulfilled the criteria for skin-saving mastectomy. All operations were carried out as a single-step procedure with adaptation of the contralateral breast by reduction mastopexy. Results: A total of 27 SSMs were performed in 24 patients. The mean implant volume was 265 cm 3 . Immediate reconstruction of the nipple-areola complex was done in 22 patients. The cosmetic and functional results were assessed in all patients 6 months postoperatively; mean follow-up time was 13 months. Mean patient age was 49 years. The cosmetic result was assessed as "very good" or "good" by 22 patients; 2 patients graded the result as "unsatisfactory". There was one local recurrence. Conclusion: Our results support the use of this technique as a safe oncoplastic procedure which is well tolerated by patients.

In order to characterize better the morphology and immune response in acute necrotizing HSV infection, murine HSV hepatitis was examined. BALB/c mice were inoculated intraperitoneally with 10(6) plaque-forming units (PFU) of HSV-1 (Lenette) and HSV-2 (D316). In both groups half the animals were pretreated with silica particles to block macrophage function. Up to 6 days after infection four mice from each group were sacrificed at daily intervals and the livers were examined by light and electron microscopy, immunohistology, in situ hybridization, combined immunohistology/in situ hybridization and titration of viral PFU. HSV-2 infected mice developed severe necrotizing hepatitis with persistence of HSV in the liver tissue until the end of the study. HSV-1 infected mice rapidly eliminated the virus and revealed only small necrotic foci. Early phase alterations and necrotic phase lesions were distinguished and characterized and morphologic evidence of a direct cytopathic effect of HSV was detected. A specific immune reaction in late stages appeared to be mediated by T4-positive T-lymphocytes. In situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry showed a close correlation with virus titration and were valuable in characterizing early phases and in the assessment of prognosis and differential diagnosis.