Search

Cyclin-dependent kinase 12 (CDK12) overexpression is implicated in breast cancer, but whether it has a primary or only a cooperative tumorigenic role is unclear. Here, we show that transgenic CDK12 overexpression in the mouse mammary gland per se is sufficient to drive the emergence of multiple and multifocal tumors, while, in cooperation with known oncogenes, it promotes earlier tumor onset and metastasis. Integrative transcriptomic, metabolomic and functional data reveal that hyperactivation of the serine-glycine-one-carbon network is a metabolic hallmark inherent to CDK12-induced tumorigenesis. Consistently, in retrospective patient cohort studies and in patient-derived xenografts, CDK12-overexpressing breast tumors show positive response to methotrexate-based chemotherapy targeting CDK12-induced metabolic alterations, while being intrinsically refractory to other types of chemotherapy. In a retrospective analysis of hormone receptor-negative and lymph node-positive breast cancer patients randomized in an adjuvant phase III trial to 1-year low-dose metronomic methotrexate-based chemotherapy or no maintenance chemotherapy, a high CDK12 status predicts a dramatic reduction in distant metastasis rate in the chemotherapy-treated vs. not-treated arm. Thus, by coupling tumor progression with metabolic reprogramming, CDK12 creates an actionable vulnerability for breast cancer therapy and might represent a suitable companion biomarker for targeted antimetabolite therapies in human breast cancers.

Background: Chronic pain (CP) and its management are critical issues in the care pathway of patients with breast cancer. Considering the complexity of CP experience in cancer, the international scientific community has advocated identifying cutting-edge approaches for CP management. Recent advances in the field of health technology enable the adoption of a novel approach to care management by developing integrated ecosystems and mobile health apps. Objective: The primary end point of this pilot study is to evaluate patients’ usability experience at 3 months of a new digital and integrated technological ecosystem, PainRELife, for CP in a sample of patients with breast cancer. The PainRELife ecosystem is composed of 3 main technological assets integrated into a single digital ecosystem: Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources–based cloud platform (Nu platform) that enables care pathway definition and data collection; a big data infrastructure connected to the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources server that analyzes data and implements dynamic dashboards for aggregate data visualization; and an ecosystem of personalized applications for patient-reported outcomes collection, digital delivery of interventions and tailored information, and decision support of patients and caregivers (PainRELife app). Methods: This is an observational, prospective pilot study. Twenty patients with early breast cancer and chronic pain will be enrolled at the European Institute of Oncology at the Division of Medical Senology and the Division of Pain Therapy and Palliative Care. Each patient will use the PainRELife mobile app for 3 months, during which data extracted from the questionnaires will be sent to the Nu Platform that health care professionals will manage. This pilot study is nested in a large-scale project named “PainRELife,” which aims to develop a cloud technology platform to interoperate with institutional systems and patients' devices to collect integrated health care

Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy for Luminal B-like breast cancers usually includes anthracycline-based regimens. However, some patients are reluctant to receive chemotherapy because of side-effects, especially alopecia, and ask for a “less intensive” or personalized approach. Patients and methods: We conducted a phase II feasibility trial to evaluate pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD, Caelyx®) as adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients who received surgery for pT1–3, any N, and luminal B-like early-stage breast cancer (EBC) candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy were included. PLD was administered intravenously at 20 mg/m2 biweekly for eight courses. Endocrine therapy was given according to menopausal status. Trastuzumab was administered in HER2-positive disease. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the feasibility of this regimen, defined as the ability of a patient to achieve a relative dose intensity (RDI) of at least 85% of the eight cycles of treatment. Secondary endpoints included adverse events (AEs), tolerability, breast cancer-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Results: From March 2016 to July 2018, 63 patients were included in the trial. Median age was 49 years (range: 33–76), with mostly pre-and peri-menopausal (65%) and stage I–II (94%). Only 5% of patients had HER2-positive EBC. Median RDI was 100% (range: 12.5–100%; interquartile range, IQR: 87.5–100%). The proportion of patients meeting the primary endpoint was 84% (95% confidence interval, CI: 73–92%). Overall, 55 out of 63 enrolled patients completed treatment (87%, 95% CI: 77–94%). Most common AEs were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (12.2%), fatigue (10.4%), and mucositis (8.5%). Only 13% of patients had G3 AEs. None had alopecia. After a median follow-up of 3.9 years (range: 0.3–4.7) two distant events were observed, and all patients were alive at the date of last visit. Conclusions: The trial successfully met its primary endpoint: the regimen was feasible and well tolerated

Background and Objectives: cT4 breast cancer (BC) is classified as noninflammatory breast cancer (non-IBC) or inflammatory breast cancer (IBC). The outcome often is considered worse. The purpose of this study was to determine recurrence and outcomes in overall survival (OS), invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS) according to pathological complete response (pCR), and inflammatory status. Methods: From 2000 to 2015 we selected 634 nonmetastatic cT4 BC patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery at the European Institute of Oncology. OS, IDFS, and DDFS were estimated with the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: The median follow-up was 9.0 years. Twenty patients underwent only sentinel node biopsy (SNB), 13 SNB + AD, and 601 only AD. Considering the 614 patients with AD, only 2.5% of non-IBC patients reported pCR compared to 15% of IBC cases. Only two axillary recurrences were reported. Ten-year results were 52.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 47.8–56.5) for OS, 37.0% (95% CI: 32.6–41.3) for IDFS, and 49.8% (95% CI: 45.0–54.4) for DDFS. OS, IDFS, and DDFS were better in all BC with pCR (irrespective of inflammatory status). Conclusion: Our long-term results demonstrated that pCR significantly improves survival, reducing locoregional and distant recurrence risk in cT4 tumors with respect to patients with no pCR and according to inflammatory status of cT4 BC.

Background: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors and endocrine therapy (ET) deeply transformed the treatment landscape of hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer. Randomized clinical trials suggest that second progression-free survival (PFS2) was not compromised and time to subsequent chemotherapy (TTC) may be delayed. We carried out a meta-analysis to assess the benefit on PFS2 and on delaying the TTC. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search of randomized clinical trials with CDK4/6 inhibitors and ET reporting PFS2 or TTC of HR+/HER2- pre- or postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer. We also reviewed abstracts and presentations from all major conference proceedings. We calculated the pooled hazard ratios (HR) for PFS2 and TTC using random-effects models with 95% confidence intervals (CI). I2 was used to quantify heterogeneity between results of the studies. Results: Eight studies (MONALEESA-2/3/7, MONARCH-2/3, PALOMA-1/2/3) were included in this analysis (N = 4580 patients). PFS2 benefit was observed in patients who received CDK4/6 inhibitors plus ET (pooled HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.62-0.74, I2 = 0%) and also a delay in subsequent TTC (pooled HR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.60-0.71, I2 = 0%). A benefit in terms of PFS (pooled HR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.51-0.59, I2 = 0%) and overall survival (pooled HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.69-0.84, I2 = 0%) was also observed. Conclusions: CDK4/6 inhibitors plus ET compared with ET alone improve PFS2 and TTC. The delay of chemotherapy may postpone the start of a more toxic treatment option, delaying related toxicities and potentially maintaining a better quality of life for patients, for a longer time. The benefit in PFS2 may postpone the onset of endocrine resistance and help further validate this treatment approach.

Purpose: The development of the adjuvant therapy requires that clinicians and patients should discuss the magnitude of benefit of treatment for individual patient, estimating the pros and cons and the personal preferences. The aim of the present study was to determine the preferences of women treated with adjuvant hormonal therapy (HT) for breast cancer. Methods: The analyses were conducted into three different groups of early breast cancer patients to evaluate the survival benefit needed to make treatment worthwhile before starting HT (A), after a few months from the beginning (B) and after several years of HT (C). The questionnaires, showing hypothetical scenarios based on potential survival times and rates without HT, were used to determine the lowest gains women judged necessary to make the treatment worthwhile. Results: A total of 452 patients were included in the study: 149 in group A, 150 in group B and 153 in group C. In group C, 65% of patients were receiving HT with aromatase inhibitors (with or without a LHRH analogue). In the groups A, B, C 8%, 20% and 26%, respectively, received adjuvant chemotherapy. Overall, 355 women (79%) had children. The responses were quite similar between the three groups. A median gain of 10 years was judged necessary to make adjuvant HT worthwhile based on the hypothetical scenario of untreated mean survival time of 5 and 15 years. Median gain of 20% more women surviving was judged necessary to make adjuvant HT worthwhile based on an untreated 5-year survival rate expectation of 60%. Cognitive dysfunction was considered the side effect least compatible with the continuation of treatment in all three groups. Conclusions: This is a large study of patient preferences on HT. Compared with other studies with similar design, the patients included in the present study required larger benefits to make adjuvant therapy worthwhile.

The importance of integrating biomarkers into the TNM staging has been emphasized in the 8th Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Staging system. In a pooled analysis of 2148 TNBC-patients in the adjuvant setting, TILs are found to strongly up and downstage traditional pathological-staging in the Pathological and Clinical Prognostic Stage Groups from the AJJC 8th edition Cancer Staging System. This suggest that clinical and research studies on TNBC should take TILs into account in addition to stage, as for example patients with stage II TNBC and high TILs have a better outcome than patients with stage I and low TILs.

Objective: Metronomic chemotherapy is a treatment option for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients who require prolonged disease control without cumulative toxicity. Data available on the efficacy and tolerability of prolonged usage of metronomic therapy are limited. Methods: We analyzed patients with MBC, enrolled in a clinical trial, who obtained a prolonged clinical benefit for a duration of at least 12 months with vinorelbine 30 or 40 mg orally three times a week, cyclophosphamide 50 mg daily and capecitabine 500 mg three times a day (VEX regimen). The patients were treated at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan. Results: We identified 67 MBC patients. The median age before starting the VEX regimen was 53 years. There were 59 patients (88%) who had hormone-receptors positive and HER2 negative BC. We had 37 patients who received VEX as the first-line treatment for MBC, while 30 patients were pretreated. The objective response rate was 49% (95% CI, 37-62). The median duration of VEX treatment after the first year was 14 months (min-max range 0.3-81.3 months). The progression-free survival at 3 years was 25.4% (95% CI, 15.7-36.2) and at 4 years was 18.5% (95% CI, 10.1-28.8 time 0 corresponds to 1 year after starting VEX). A total of 25 patients required a dose reduction, 7% of patients experienced G3 hand and foot syndrome. Conclusions: Metronomic VEX regimen can induce prolonged clinical benefit in MBC. On the basis of this long-term safety evaluation, there is no evidence of specific cumulative or delayed toxicities with metronomic chemotherapy.

Introduction: Metronomic chemotherapy (mCHT) is a treatment regimen in which drugs are administered frequently or continuously and that maintains low, prolonged, and pharmacologically active plasma concentrations of drugs to avoid toxicity associated with traditional chemotherapy regimens, while achieving tumor response. Despite the increasing use of mCHT in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and the endorsement of mCHT in guidelines, no consensus exists about which patients may substantially benefit from mCHT, which agents can be recommended, and in which treatment setting mCHT is most appropriate. Methods: In October 2017, ten international experts in the management of breast cancer convened to develop a report describing the current status of the use of mCHT for the treatment of advanced breast cancer, based not only on current literature but also on their opinion. The Delphi method was used to reach consensus. Results: A full consensus was reached concerning the acknowledgement that mCHT is not simply a different way of administering chemotherapy but a truly new treatment option. The best-known effect of mCHT is on angiogenesis inhibition, but exciting new data are on the way regarding potential activity on immune system activation. The experts strongly suggest that the ideal patients for mCHT are those with hormone receptor (HR)-positive tumors or those with triple-negative disease. Independently of HR status, mCHT could be an advantageous option for elderly patients, who are often under-treated simply because of their age. Conclusion: Current data support the use of mCHT in selected patients with MBC. Funding: Pierre Fabre.

Rapid and continuing advances in biomarker testing are not being matched by uptake in health systems, and this is hampering both patient care and innovation. It also risks costing health systems the opportunity to make their services more efficient and, over time, more economical. The potential that genomics has brought to biomarker testing in diagnosis, prediction and research is being realised, pre‐eminently in many cancers, but also in an ever‐wider range of conditions— notably BRCA1/2 testing in ovarian, breast, pancreatic and prostate cancers. Nevertheless, the implementation of genetic testing in clinical routine setting is still challenging. Development is impeded by country‐related heterogeneity, data deficiencies, and lack of policy alignment on standards, approval—and the role of real‐world evidence in the process—and reimbursement. The acute nature of the problem is compellingly illustrated by the particular challenges facing the development and use of tumour agnostic therapies, where the gaps in preparedness for taking advantage of this innovative approach to cancer therapy are sharply exposed. Europe should already have in place a guarantee of universal access to a minimum suite of biomarker tests and should be planning for an optimum testing scenario with a wider range of biomarker tests integrated into a more sophisticated health system articulated around personalised medicine. Improving healthcare and winning advantages for Europe’s industrial competitiveness and innovation require an appropriate policy framework—starting with an update to outdated recommendations. We show herein the main issues and proposals that emerged during the previous advisory boards organised by the European Alliance for Personalized Medicine which mainly focus on possible scenarios of harmonisation of both oncogenetic testing and management of cancer patients.

Rapid and continuing advances in biomarker testing are not being matched by uptake in health systems, and this is hampering both patient care and innovation. It also risks costing health systems the opportunity to make their services more efficient and, over time, more economical. The potential that genomics has brought to biomarker testing in diagnosis, prediction and research is being realised, pre‐eminently in many cancers, but also in an ever‐wider range of conditions— notably BRCA1/2 testing in ovarian, breast, pancreatic and prostate cancers. Nevertheless, the implementation of genetic testing in clinical routine setting is still challenging. Development is impeded by country‐related heterogeneity, data deficiencies, and lack of policy alignment on standards, approval—and the role of real‐world evidence in the process—and reimbursement. The acute nature of the problem is compellingly illustrated by the particular challenges facing the development and use of tumour agnostic therapies, where the gaps in preparedness for taking advantage of this innovative approach to cancer therapy are sharply exposed. Europe should already have in place a guarantee of universal access to a minimum suite of biomarker tests and should be planning for an optimum testing scenario with a wider range of biomarker tests integrated into a more sophisticated health system articulated around personalised medicine. Improving healthcare and winning advantages for Europe’s industrial competitiveness and innovation require an appropriate policy framework—starting with an update to outdated recommendations. We show herein the main issues and proposals that emerged during the previous advisory boards organised by the European Alliance for Personalized Medicine which mainly focus on possible scenarios of harmonisation of both oncogenetic testing and management of cancer patients.

Background: The aim of this study was to record the opinions of Italian oncologists about the use of oral vinorelbine administered metronomically in patients with advanced breast cancer. Methods: A series of meetings were held throughout Italy, and participants were asked how much they agreed with each of the several statements. Results: The majority of oncologists agreed that the concept of the minimum biologically effective dose should be used for drugs administered metronomically. Over 50% agreed that metronomic vinorelbine is an option in first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced breast cancer, including those with a terminal illness and the elderly, as well as in young and fit patients. Just over one-third of experts agreed that a combination of two chemotherapy agents instead of one is not desirable in metastatic breast cancer because of increased toxicity. Most experts agreed that the main aim of a first-line therapy is to control the disease over time and to preserve quality of life. Conclusion: Metronomically administered oral vinorelbine, either as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs, is effective in the long-term treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer. The clinical profiles of patients should be carefully considered to determine the appropriate treatment strategy.

Background: Triple negative breast cancer encompasses several biological entities with different outcomes and is a priority to identify which patients require more treatment to reduce the risk of recurrence and which patients need less treatment. Patients and methods: Among the 210 women with first primary invasive apocrine non metastatic breast cancer operated on between January 1998 and December 2016 at the European Institute Oncology, Milan, we identified 24 patients with a pT1-pT2, node-negative, triple negative subtype and Ki-67 ≤ 20% who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy (CT). We compared the outcome of this cohort with a similar group of 24 patients with ductal tumors who received adjuvant chemotherapy, matched by pathological stage and biological features and also with a similar group of 12 patients with apocrine tumors who received adjuvant chemotherapy. Results: The median age was 64 and 61 years in the apocrine (w/o CT) and ductal group, respectively. The median value of Ki-67 expression was 12% in the apocrine group (w/o CT) and 16% in the ductal group (p < 0.001). After a median follow-up of 7.5 years, no patients in the apocrine group (w/o CT) experienced a breast cancer related event compared with 4 events in the ductal carcinoma group (Gray test p-value = 0.11). Conclusions: The outcome of selected apocrine triple negative breast cancer patients who did not received adjuvant chemotherapy is excellent and supports a treatment de-escalation. Multicenter projects focusing on the possibility of avoiding adjuvant chemotherapy in selected subtypes of triple negative breast cancers with favorable outcome are warranted.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA) is a distressing side effect of cancer therapy. The trial aimed to assess feasibility and effectiveness of scalp-cooling system DigniCap® to prevent CIA in primary breast cancer patients receiving an anthracycline containing adjuvant chemotherapy (CT). Methods: Hair loss (HL) was evaluated by patient self-assessment and by the physician according to the Dean’s scale at baseline and after each cycle of CT. The primary efficacy endpoint was the patient self-assessment HL score evaluated at least 3 weeks after completing CT. A Dean's scale score of 0–2 (i.e. HL ≤50%) was considered a success. Results: From July 2014 to November 2016, 139 consecutive breast cancer patients were enrolled and received at least one treatment with scalp cooling. Fifty-six out of 131 evaluated patients successfully prevented HL (43%, 95% CI: 34–51%). Twenty-four patients (32%) discontinued the scalp cooling because of alopecia or scalp-cooling related AE, three patients had missing information on CIA, and 48 patients (64%) had a HL greater than 50% after CT. No serious AEs were reported. Conclusions: DigniCap® System resulted as a promising medical device to be safely integrated in supportive care of early breast cancer patients. Longer follow-up is needed to assess long-term safety and feasibility. Clinical trial registration number: NCT03712696.