Search

Introduction The combination of a CDK4/6 inhibitor with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) has recently become the gold standard for AI-sensitive first line treatment of oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) HER2-negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer. However, most patients receiving this combination will ultimately progress and require further therapies.Several studies have demonstrated that the onset of a ESR1 gene mutation lead to AIs resistance in the advanced setting. ESR1 mutations can be detected in circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) using a digital PCR assay. Our study aims to prove the clinical efficacy of periodic monitoring for emerging or rise of ESR1 mutations in ctDNA to trigger an early change from AI plus palbociclib to fulvestrant plus palbociclib treatment while assessing global safety.Methods PADA-1 is a randomised, open-label, multicentric, phase III trial conducted in patients receiving AI and palbociclib as first line therapy for metastatic ER +HER2- breast cancer. 1000 patients will be included and treated with palbociclib in combination with an AI. Patients will be screened for circulating blood ESR1 mutation detection at regular intervals. Patients for whom a rising circulating ESR1 mutation is detected without tumour progression (up to N=200) will be randomised (1:1) between (1) Arm A: no modification of therapy; and (2) Arm B: palbociclib in combination with fulvestrant, a selective ER down-regulator. At tumour progression, an optional crossover will be offered to patients randomised in arm A. The coprimary endpoints are (1) Grade ≥3 haematological toxicities and their associations with baseline characteristics and (2) progression-free survival in randomised patients.Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the French medicines agency (ANSM) and by an ethics committee (ref 01/17_1 CPP Ouest-IV Nantes) in January 2017. The trial results will be published in academic conference presentations and international peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numbers EudraCT: 2016-004360-18; NCT03079011.

Background: Phosphorylation of serine 118 (ser118) has been reported to be involved in the activation of estrogen receptor (ER). In the present study, we evaluated whether endocrine therapy modulated ER phosphorylation on ser118. Patients and methods: We carried out a tissue microarray that included 80 primary breast tumors obtained before the administration of endocrine therapy. A second tissue microarray included 52 tumors obtained after endocrine therapy from the same patients. Immunostainings were carried out for ER, Pser118ER, Her2, insulin growth factor receptor (IGFR), p21-activated kinase 1 (PAK1), pMAPK, bcl2 and progesterone receptor. Results: Pser118ER staining was higher in Her2- (P = 0.06), IGFR- (P = 0.0002) and pMAPK-expressing tumors (P = 0.001). The level of ER phosphorylation was not different according to the occurrence of clinical tumor response (P = 0.16). Pser118ER expression was significantly reduced by endocrine therapy. The mean Pser118ER score was 163 [standard deviation (SD) 81] before endocrine therapy and 80 (SD 90) after endocrine therapy (P = 0.0001, paired t-test). The magnitude of Pser118ER decrease was higher in tumors that responded to endocrine therapy (mean decrease 128, SD 86) as compared with refractory tumors (mean decrease 38, SD 130) (P = 0.017, t-test). Conclusion: These findings suggest that endocrine therapy modulates ER on ser118. Pser118ER immunostaining could be used as surrogate marker to monitor treatment efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We hypothesized that, among molecular subclasses of breast cancer, p53 status may have a differential predictive value for the efficacy of anthracyclines/alkylating agents-based regimen. We analysed the efficacy of a preoperative combination between 5-fluorouracil, anthracyclines and cyclophosphamide according to both p53 status and molecular classification. Patients and methods: Oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression and p53 status were determined by immunohistochemistry in 293 samples from two different centres. A logistic regression model was used for multivariate analysis of predictors for pathological complete response (pCR). Results: p53 immunostaining (54%) was associated with high grade (P = 0.002) and ER negativity (P = 0.04). p53 was detected in 59% of triple-negative tumours (ER−/PgR−/HER2−, n = 120 patients). In the overall population, pCR (9.6%) was independently predicted by high tumour grade (P = 0.002) and ER/PgR/HER2 triple negativity (P = 0.0004), but not by p53 status (P = 0.12). p53 immunostaining was associated with a trend for a higher rate of pCR in triple-negative tumours [relative risk (RR) = 2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.8–7.5, P = 0.09], but not in non-triple-negative tumours (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.16–3.3, P = 0.69). Conclusion: p53 status may have a different predictive value for efficacy of anthracycline/alkylating agents-based regimen in each molecular subclass, a result which may explain the different results reported in literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: AKT phosphorylation is a critical step in the activation of growth factor receptors and can mediate tumor resistance to anthracyclines. We evaluated the expression patterns and predictive value of phosphorylated AKT (pAKT) in breast cancer tissues. Patients and methods: pAKT expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry in 823 tumors from patients with early breast cancer enrolled in two randomized trials. The distribution of pAKT expression was correlated with HER2 and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression. The predictive value of pAKT for the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy was determined by test for interaction. Results: pAKT, EGFR, and HER2 were expressed in 119 of 781 (15%), 118 of 758 (16%), and 99 of 775 (13%) assessable tumors. Staining was positive for pAKT in 28 of 99 (28%) and 90 of 676 (13%) HER2+ and HER2− tumors (P P = 0.49). A positive staining for pAKT did not correlate with prognosis (P = 0.94), and did not predict the resistance to anthracyclines (test for interaction, P = 0.70). Conclusions: AKT phosphorylation is associated with HER2 expression but not EGFR expression in patients with early breast cancer. pAKT is not predictive for the efficacy of anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prion protein (PrPc) has been previously reported to be associated with resistance to proapoptotic stimuli. We evaluated whether the expression of PrPc was associated with the resistance to adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with estrogen receptor (ER) -negative breast cancer. Patients and methods: The expression of PrPc by primary tumors was assessed by immunohistochemistry in a series of 756 patients included in two randomized trials that compared anthracycline-based chemotherapy to no chemotherapy. The PrPc expression was correlated with ER expression and the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy was assessed according to PrPc expression in patients with ER-negative tumors. Results: Immunostaining analysis showed that PrPc was mainly expressed by myoepithelial cells in normal breast tissue. Tissue microarray analysis from 756 breast tumors showed that PrPc was associated with ER-negative breast cancer subsets (P P = 0.95], while it decreased the risk for death (HR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.2–0.74, P = 0.004) in patients with ER-negative/PrPc-negative tumors. Conclusion: These data indicate that ER-negative/PrPc-negative phenotype is associated with a high sensitivity to adjuvant chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the predictive value of breast cancer molecular subclassification regarding the benefit of adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Patients and methods: Tumor samples from 823 patients included in two randomized trials that compared an anthracycline-based chemotherapy with no treatment were used to construct a tissue array. Estrogen receptor (ER), Her2, epidermal growth factor receptor, cytokeratine 5/6 expressions were determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC). The potential predictive factors of treatment effect on disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed by interaction tests and multivariate analysis. Results: Sixty-four (8%), 98 (12%), 109 (14%) and 527 (66%) patients presented a Her2ﱄ−, basal-like, Her2−/ER−/nonbasal and luminal-like breast cancer. ER expression, when assessed by IHC, was an independent predictive factor for the benefit of chemotherapy on DFS (test for interaction, P = 0.0015). The molecular subclassification significantly predicted the efficacy of chemotherapy (test for interaction, P = 0.01), but had no significant added value (P = 0.32) as compared to the ER by treatment interaction. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio for relapse or death of 0.42 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.17–1.05], 0.54 (95% CI: 0.27–1.08), 0.35 (95% CI: 0.18–0.68), 1.07 (95% CI: 0.81–1.41) for patients with Her2ﱄ−, basal-like, Her2−/ER−/nonbasal and luminal-like tumors, respectively. Conclusion: The breast cancer molecular subclassification was predictive for chemotherapy efficacy in adjuvant setting, but did not provide significant additional information to ER. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The phase III RxPONDER trial has impacted treatment for node-positive(1-3), hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer with 21-gene recurrence score (RS) ≤ 25. We investigated how these findings apply to different racial and ethnic groups within the trial., Methods: The trial randomized women to endocrine therapy (ET) or to chemotherapy plus ET. The primary clinical outcome was invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) with distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) as a secondary outcome. Multivariable Cox models were used to evaluate the association between race/ethnicity and survival outcomes, adjusting for clinicopathologic characteristics, RS, and treatment., Results: A total of 4,048 women with self-reported race/ethnicity were included: Hispanic (15.1%), non-Hispanic Black (NHB)(6.1%), Native American/Pacific Islander (0.8%), Asian (8.0%), and non-Hispanic White (NHW)(70%). No differences in RS distribution, tumor size, or number of positive nodes were observed by race/ethnicity. Relative to NHWs, IDFS was worse for NHBs (5-year IDFS 91.6% vs 87.1%, HR = 1.37; 95% CI 1.03-1.81) and better for Asians (91.6% vs 93.9%, HR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.46-0.91). Relative to NHW, DRFS was worse for NHBs (5-year DRFS 95.8% vs 91.0%, HR = 1.65; 95% CI 1.17-2.32) and better for Asians (95.8% vs 96.7%, HR = 0.59; 95% CI 0.37-0.95). Adjusting for clinical characteristics, particularly body mass index, diminished the effect of race on outcomes. Chemotherapy treatment efficacy did not differ by race/ethnicity., Conclusions: NHB women had worse clinical outcomes compared to NHWs in the RxPONDER trial despite similar RS and comparable treatment. Our study emphasizes the persistent racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes while highlighting complex interactions among contributing factors., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01272037., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Demonstration of trial emulation ability to benchmark randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from real-world data (RWD) is required to increase confidence in the use of routinely collected data for decision making in oncology., Methods: To assess the frequency with which emulation findings align with RCTs regarding effect size on overall survival (OS) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC), 8 of 13 pre-selected pivotal RCTs in MBC were emulated using data from 32,598 patients enrolled in the French ESME-MBC cohort between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2021. Adjustment methods and confounders were selected a priori for each emulation; stabilized weight was the reference method to mitigate confounding. Concordance in OS hazard ratios with associated 95 % confidence intervals between RCTs and emulations were assessed used predefined metrics based on statistical significance, estimates, and standardized differences., Results: The effect sizes were consistent with RCT results in 7 out of the 8 emulations; 4 emulations achieved full statistical significance agreement; 5 emulations had a point estimate included in the RCT CI (estimate agreement); 6 emulations reported no significant differences between RCT and emulation (standardized difference agreement). Discrepancies related to residual confounders and significant shifts in prescription practices post-drug approval may arise in some cases., Conclusion: Target trial emulation from RWD combined with appropriate adjustment can provide conclusions similar to RCTs in MBC. In oncology, this methodology offers opportunities for confirming the impact on long-term survival, for expanding indications in patients excluded from RCTs and for comparative effectiveness in single-arm trials using external control arms., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Alison Antoine received a grant from the National French Agency for Research and Technology (ANRT) and Roche (France) via CIFRE (“Industrial Agreements for Training through Research”) doctoral fellowship no. 2020/1054. Rémy Choquet and Béchir Ben Hadj Yahia are employed by Roche. Suzette Delaloge is an Associate Editor for [European Journal of Cancer] and was not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article. All remaining 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. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Small, hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-), lymph node-negative breast cancers are associated with relatively low rates of disease recurrence and have therefore been underrepresented in clinical trials assessing the effects of systemic therapy. Consequently, it remains uncertain if this patient population derives benefit from these treatments. For this exploratory analysis, we selected MINDACT (NCT00433589) patients with a HR+, HER2-, T1ab (≤1 cm) tumor and negative lymph nodes. Patients with discordant clinical risk and MammaPrint genomic risk classification were randmomized to receive chemotherapy based on either the clinical or the genomic risk assessment. Endocrine therapy treatment was based on local guidelines. 715/6693 (10.7%) MINDACT patients had HR+, HER2-, T1abN0 breast cancer and were included in this analysis. All were clinically low-risk, 124/715 (17.3%) were genomic high-risk. For genomic high-risk tumors, 8-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) was 92.9% (95% CI 86.2-96.4%) compared to 95.0% (95% CI 92.8-96.6%) for genomic low-risk tumors. For genomic high-risk tumors treated with or without chemotherapy, 8-year DMFS was 89.2% (95% CI 73.6-95.8%) and 94.1% (95% CI 82.9-98.1%), respectively. For genomic low-risk tumors, the 8-year DMFS and disease-free survival (DFS) were 96.1% (95% CI 93.4-97.6%) and 89.3% (95% CI 85.5-92.2%) when treated with endocrine therapy and 92.9% (95% CI 87.9-95.9%) and 79.4% (95% CI 72.5-84.8%) without. In conclusion, although the number of randomized patients is small, patients with small, genomic high-risk breast cancer did not seem to derive benefit from chemotherapy. Endocrine therapy was associated with improved outcomes even in genomic low-risk breast cancers., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The plasma concentrations of acyl coenzyme A binding protein (ACBP, also known as diazepam-binding inhibitor, DBI, or 'endozepine') increase with age and obesity, two parameters that are also amongst the most important risk factors for cancer., Methods: We measured ACBP/DBI in the plasma from cancer-free individuals, high-risk patients like the carriers of TP53 or BRCA1/2 mutations, and non-syndromic healthy subjects who later developed cancer. In mice, the neutralization of ACBP/DBI was used in models of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and breast cancer development and as a combination treatment with chemoimmunotherapy (chemotherapy + PD-1 blockade) in the context of NSCLC and sarcomas. The anticancer T cell response upon ACBP/DBI neutralization was characterized by flow cytometry and single-cell RNA sequencing., Results: Circulating levels of ACBP/DBI were higher in patients with genetic cancer predisposition (BRCA1/2 or TP53 germline mutations) than in matched controls. In non-syndromic cases, high ACBP/DBI levels were predictive of future cancer development, and especially elevated in patients who later developed lung cancer. In preclinical models, ACBP/DBI neutralization slowed down breast cancer and NSCLC development and enhanced the efficacy of chemoimmunotherapy in NSCLC and sarcoma models. When combined with chemoimmunotherapy, the neutralizing monoclonal antibody against ACBP/DBI reduced the frequency of regulatory T cells in the tumor bed, modulated the immune checkpoint profile, and increased activation markers., Conclusion: These findings suggest that ACBP/DBI acts as an endogenous immune suppressor. We conclude that elevation of ACBP/DBI constitutes a risk factor for the development of cancer and that ACBP/DBI is an actionable target for improving cancer immunosurveillance., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: Risk-stratification should improve the benefits-to-harms ratio for breast screening, whereby higher-risk women receive additional screening and low-risk women are screened less. This study investigated the effects of healthcare context by comparing how women in England and France experienced risk-based breast screening., Methods and Measures: Fifty-two women were purposively sampled from participants who underwent risk-based screening in the MyPeBS trial. Women received objectively-derived 5-year breast cancer risk estimates (low = < 1%, average = 1-1.66%, high = ≥ 1.67 to <6%, very-high-risk = ≥ 6%). This determined future trial-related screening schedules and prevention options. Semi-structured interviews were transcribed for thematic framework analysis., Results: Two overarching themes were produced: the importance of supported risk communication and accessibility of risk management . Overall, risk-based breast screening was viewed positively. However, trial procedures, especially in risk estimate provision, differed across sites. Women at increased risk were more reassured when appointments were with specialist healthcare professionals (HCP). When absent, this resulted in reduced satisfaction with risk communication and greater uncertainty about its personal relevance. Low-risk women's views on extended mammogram schedules seemed linked to how health services are organised differently., Conclusions: Context is an important consideration regarding acceptability of healthcare innovations such as risk-stratified screening: it should not be assumed that findings from one country apply universally.

Purpose: AMEERA-5 investigated amcenestrant (oral selective estrogen receptor [ER] degrader) plus palbociclib versus letrozole plus palbociclib as first-line treatment for ER-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2-) advanced/metastatic breast cancer (aBC)., Materials and Methods: In AMEERA-5 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04478266), a double-blind, double-dummy, international phase III trial, adult pre-/post-menopausal women and men without previous systemic therapy for ER+/HER2- aBC were randomly assigned 1:1 to amcenestrant 200 mg once daily + standard palbociclib dosage (125 mg once daily, 21 days on/7 days off) or letrozole 2.5 mg once daily + standard palbociclib dosage, stratified by de novo metastatic disease, postmenopausal women, and visceral metastasis. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), compared using a stratified log-rank test with one-sided type I error rate of 2.5%. Secondary end points included overall survival (key secondary), pharmacokinetics, and safety., Results: Between October 14, 2020, and December 2, 2021, 1,068 patients were randomly assigned to amcenestrant + palbociclib (N = 534) or letrozole + palbociclib (N = 534). At the interim analysis (median follow-up 8.4 months), the stratified hazard ratio for PFS was 1.209 (95% CI, 0.939 to 1.557; one-sided P value = .9304); therefore, the study was stopped for futility. The 6-month PFS rate was 82.7% (95% CI, 79.0 to 85.8) with amcenestrant + palbociclib versus 86.9% (95% CI, 83.5 to 89.6) with letrozole + palbociclib. In the amcenestrant + palbociclib versus letrozole + palbociclib groups, treatment-emergent adverse events (any grade) occurred in 85.6% versus 85.4% of patients and grade ≥3 events in 46.3% versus 60.8%, respectively., Conclusion: The AMEERA-5 study was discontinued on the basis of the recommendation of the data monitoring committee at the interim futility analysis. No new safety signals were identified.

Cancer Core Europe brings together the expertise, resources, and interests of seven leading cancer institutes committed to leveraging collective innovation and collaboration in precision oncology. Through targeted efforts addressing key medical challenges in cancer and partnerships with multiple stakeholders, the consortium seeks to advance cancer research and enhance equitable patient care., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) accounts for 15-25% of all breast cancer diagnoses. Its prognosis is excellent overall, the main risk being the occurrence of local breast events, as most cases of DCIS do not progress to invasive cancer. Systematic screening has greatly increased the incidence of this non-obligate precursor of invasion, lending urgency to the need to identify DCIS that is prone to invasive progression and distinguish it from non-invasion-prone DCIS, as the latter can be overdiagnosed and therefore overtreated. Treatment strategies, including surgery, radiotherapy, and optional endocrine therapy, decrease the risk of local events, but have no effect on survival outcomes. Active surveillance is being evaluated as a possible new option for low-risk DCIS. Considerable efforts to decipher the biology of DCIS have led to a better understanding of the factors that determine its variable natural history. Given this variability, shared decision making regarding optimal, personalised treatment strategies is the most appropriate course of action. Well designed, risk-based de-escalation studies remain a major need in this field., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SD reports institutional grants and non-financial support from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Seagen, and Roche Genentech; grants from Eli Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi, MSD, BMS, Exact Sciences, Rappta, the European Commission, the French National Cancer Institute, Fondation ARC, Banque des Territoires France 2023 (public entity), Besins, and Gilead outside the submitted work. SAK declares research funding from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation to her institution; personal honoraria from the University of Toronto, Japan Clinical Oncology Group, San Antonio Breast Cancer conference, and the Dana Farber Cancer Center for conferences; a patent for endoxifen transdermal therapy; travel funding from the NCI for the TMIST trial; and institutional drug supplies for a clinical trial from BHR Pharma. JW reports institutional research grants from Cancer Research UK, KWF Dutch Cancer Society, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Investment Fund, ZonMW Healthcare innovation, and support for travel for international speaking from ESMO, UCSF, the National Physics Laboratory, Oslo University Hospital, and Maastricht University. JW is a member of the scientific advisory board of the KWF Dutch Cancer Society; is a review panel member for Cancer Research UK on an ad hoc basis; is a member of the scientific advisory board of the National Reference Center for Breast Cancer Screening; and is a member of the advisory board of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment regarding population-based breast cancer screening. TW declares institutional research funding from Exact Sciences/Genomic Health and non-direct financial support for biomarker testing from Exact Sciences/Genomic Health for ongoing studies., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Understanding breast cancer survivors' perspectives is critical to personalizing endocrine therapy (ET) in the adjuvant setting. A nationwide survey among breast cancer survivors was proposed in France, in collaboration with patient advocacy organizations, to assess their perspectives on personalizing ET and developing dedicated informative tools. This survey explored patients' preferences regarding ET intake schedule, formulation, presentation (color, taste, shape, size, design, and packaging), combination with agents targeting ET-related adverse events, and a mobile application to support them during ET. Of the 1103 individuals who started the survey, 939 (85.1%) were eligible for enrollment and completed the survey. The majority of the participants considered that a personalized ET should take into consideration the intake schedule (n = 974, 90.7%) and swallowable tablet formulation (n = 606, 64.5%), without a preference for ET presentation (n = 619; 65.9%). The majority of the participants expressed a willingness to participate in a potential clinical trial evaluating the combination of ET with agents targeting ET-related adverse events at the start of ET (n = 752, 80.1%) or in the case of major ET-related adverse events (n = 778, 82.8%). The primary considerations were to have an uncompromised ET efficacy and a guaranteed reduction of adverse events. Last, a dedicated mobile application was considered helpful by 665 participants (70.8%). Informative tools should focus on the recommendations for dealing with adverse events (n = 593, 63.2%), the impact on the patient's daily life (n = 515, 54.9%), benefits (n = 504, 53.7%), and adverse events (n = 494, 52.6%) of ET. This survey paves the way for multimodal strategies that can include a personalized ET (e.g., ET in combination with agents targeting ET-related adverse events) and dedicated mobile applications to ultimately improve adherence., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The OlympiA randomized phase III trial compared 1 year of olaparib (OL) or placebo (PL) as adjuvant therapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2 , high-risk human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early breast cancer after completing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy ([N]ACT), surgery, and radiotherapy. The patient-reported outcome primary hypothesis was that OL-treated patients may experience greater fatigue during treatment., Methods: Data were collected before random assignment, and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The primary end point was fatigue, measured with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale. Secondary end points, assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, Core 30 item, included nausea and vomiting (NV), diarrhea, and multiple functional domains. Scores were compared between treatment groups using mixed model for repeated measures. Two-sided P values <.05 were statistically significant for the primary end point. All secondary end points were descriptive., Results: One thousand five hundred and thirty-eight patients (NACT: 746, ACT: 792) contributed to the analysis. Fatigue severity was statistically significantly greater for OL versus PL, but not clinically meaningfully different by prespecified criteria (≥3 points) at 6 months (diff OL v PL: NACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.4 to -0.2]; P = .022; ACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.3 to -0.2]; P = .017) and 12 months (NACT: -1.6 [95% CI, -2.8 to -0.3]; P = .017; ACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.4 to -0.2]; P = .025). There were no significant differences in fatigue severity between treatment groups at 18 and 24 months. NV severity was worse in patients treated with OL compared with PL at 6 months (NACT: 6.0 [95% CI, 4.1 to 8.0]; ACT: 5.3 [95% CI, 3.4 to 7.2]) and 12 months (NACT: 6.4 [95% CI, 4.4 to 8.3]; ACT: 4.5 [95% CI, 2.8 to 6.1]). During treatment, there were some clinically meaningful differences between groups for other symptoms but not for function subscales or global health status., Conclusion: Treatment-emergent symptoms from OL were limited, generally resolving after treatment ended. OL- and PL-treated patients had similar functional scores, slowly improving during the 24 months after (N)ACT and there was no clinically meaningful persistence of fatigue severity in OL-treated patients.

Purpose: The interim analysis of the phase IIIb LUCY trial demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of olaparib in patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC), with median progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.11 months, which was similar to that in the olaparib arm of the phase III OlympiAD trial (7.03 months). This prespecified analysis provides final overall survival (OS) and safety data., Methods: The open-label, single-arm LUCY trial of olaparib (300 mg, twice daily) enrolled adults with gBRCAm or somatic BRCA-mutated (sBRCAm), HER2-negative mBC. Patients had previously received a taxane or anthracycline for neoadjuvant/adjuvant or metastatic disease and up to two lines of chemotherapy for mBC., Results: Of 563 patients screened, 256 (gBRCAm, n = 253; sBRCAm, n = 3) were enrolled. In the gBRCAm cohort, median investigator-assessed PFS (primary endpoint) was 8.18 months and median OS was 24.94 months. Olaparib was clinically effective in all prespecified subgroups: hormone receptor status, previous chemotherapy for mBC, previous platinum-based chemotherapy (including by line of therapy), and previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor use. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were nausea (55.3%) and anemia (39.2%). Few patients (6.3%) discontinued olaparib owing to a TEAE. No deaths associated with AEs occurred during the study treatment or 30-day follow-up., Conclusion: The LUCY patient population reflects a real-world population in line with the licensed indication of olaparib in mBC. These findings support the clinical effectiveness and safety of olaparib in patients with gBRCAm, HER2-negative mBC., Clinical Trial Registration: Clinical trials registration number: NCT03286842., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: A number of studies are currently investigating de-escalation of radiation therapy in patients with a low risk of in-breast relapses on the basis of clinicopathologic factors and molecular tests. We evaluated whether 70-gene risk score is associated with risk of locoregional recurrence (LRR) and estimated 8-year cumulative incidences for LRR in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation., Methods: In this exploratory substudy of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10041/BIG 03-04 MINDACT trial, we evaluated women with a known clinical and genomic 70-gene risk score test result and who had breast-conserving surgery (BCS). The primary end point was LRR at 8 years, estimated by cumulative incidences. Distant metastasis and death were considered competing risks., Results: Among 6,693 enrolled patients, 5,470 (81.7%) underwent BCS, of whom 98% received radiotherapy. At 8-year follow-up, 189 patients experienced a LRR, resulting in an 8-year cumulative incidence of 3.2% (95% CI, 2.7 to 3.7). In patients with a low-risk 70-gene signature, the 8-year LRR incidence was 2.7% (95% CI, 2.1 to 3.3). In univariable analysis, adjusted for chemotherapy, five of 12 variables were associated with LRR, including the 70-gene signature. In multivariable modeling, adjuvant endocrine therapy and to a lesser extent tumor size and grade remained significantly associated with LRR., Conclusion: This exploratory analysis of the MINDACT trial estimated an 8-year low LRR rate of 3.2% after BCS. The 70-gene signature was not independently predictive of LRR perhaps because of the low number of events observed and currently cannot be used in clinical decision making regarding LRR. The overall low number of events does provide an opportunity to design trials toward de-escalation of local therapy.

Introduction: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Gustave Roussy Cancer Center introduced teleconsultation via telephone, as an alternative to face-to-face consultation to reduce patient hospital visits. This study was designed to assess patient and doctor satisfaction with this modality of care in oncology patient care during the period of the pandemic and beyond., Methods: We designed two questionnaires based on validated scores to assess satisfaction from teleconsultation in patients (EORTC OUT-PATSAT 35 and Telemedicine Satisfaction Questionnaire [TSQ] scores) and doctors (Telehealth Usability Questionnaire [TUQ]), and anxiety levels in both groups (anxiety section of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS], HADS-A). These were electronically sent to patients and doctors with experience of at least one remote consultation during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic., Results: 239 patients and 32 doctors were eligible for the analyses. In the patient group, the mean satisfaction scores were 79.5 (SD 18.1) and 74.92 (SD 15.3) for EORTC OUT-PATSAT 35 and TSQ, respectively. In the doctor group, the mean satisfaction scores were 67.1 (SD 12.7) and 64.9 (SD 13.9) for TUQ and TUQ for Skype for Business, respectively. 65.7% of patients and 81.2% of doctors had no/low anxiety. Univariable analyses in patients showed correlation of the EORTC OUT-PATSAT 35 and TSQ scores with anxiety and gender, with lower mean scores in women compared to men. Multivariable analysis showed correlation of the EORTC OUT-PATSAT 35 and TSQ scores to anxiety in both patients and doctors., Conclusions: Teleconsultation via telephone is an acceptable modality of care for oncology patients, with high satisfaction from its implementation during the pandemic reported by patients and doctors. This was consistent across responder groups with different characteristics. An individualized approach to patients should be implemented for the safe and effective use of teleconsultation in oncology beyond the pandemic.

Background: The widespread use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionised treatment of multiple cancer types. However, selecting patients who may benefit from ICI remains challenging. Artificial intelligence (AI) approaches allow exploitation of high-dimension oncological data in research and development of precision immuno-oncology., Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed original articles studying the ICI efficacy prediction in cancer patients across five data modalities: genomics (including genomics, transcriptomics, and epigenomics), radiomics, digital pathology (pathomics), and real-world and multimodality data., Results: A total of 90 studies were included in this systematic review, with 80% published in 2021-2022. Among them, 37 studies included genomic, 20 radiomic, 8 pathomic, 20 real-world, and 5 multimodal data. Standard machine learning (ML) methods were used in 72% of studies, deep learning (DL) methods in 22%, and both in 6%. The most frequently studied cancer type was non-small-cell lung cancer (36%), followed by melanoma (16%), while 25% included pan-cancer studies. No prospective study design incorporated AI-based methodologies from the outset; rather, all implemented AI as a post hoc analysis. Novel biomarkers for ICI in radiomics and pathomics were identified using AI approaches, and molecular biomarkers have expanded past genomics into transcriptomics and epigenomics. Finally, complex algorithms and new types of AI-based markers, such as meta-biomarkers, are emerging by integrating multimodal/multi-omics data., Conclusion: AI-based methods have expanded the horizon for biomarker discovery, demonstrating the power of integrating multimodal data from existing datasets to discover new meta-biomarkers. While most of the included studies showed promise for AI-based prediction of benefit from immunotherapy, none provided high-level evidence for immediate practice change. A priori planned prospective trial designs are needed to cover all lifecycle steps of these software biomarkers, from development and validation to integration into clinical practice., Competing Interests: Disclosure AP declares training of personnel role for AstraZeneca and Italfarma; advisory board role for BMS, travel grant from Janssen; and speaker’s engagement for Roche. FT declares full or part-time employment with Politecnico di Milano as researcher and lecturer for high-level education; and as cofounder of MLcube. CG declares advisory board role for Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda; speaker’s engagement from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck-Sharp-Dohme, and Novartis; institutional funding from AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squibb; institutional research grant from Italian Ministry of Health; clinical trials PI for AstraZeneca and Roche; and non-remunerated activities as member or AIOM, AIOT, ASCO, FONICAP, IASLC, and ISLB. SER declares speaker’s engagement from Amgen, BMS, Astellas, and GSK; writer’s engagement from BMS and Amgen; and travel and accommodation from Janssen and MSD. LC-B declares full time employment with ESMO as Scientific and Medical division Fellow. JD declares consultant role for MJH Life Sciences at ASCO Clinical Congress Consultants at ASCO 2022. ATP declares advisory board role for Abbvie, Elevar, Prelude Therapeutics, and Privo; institutional research grant from Abbvie and Kura; and non-renumerated activity as PI for Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma Research Foundation and Cancer Research Foundation. GLR declares advisory board role for AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; speaker’s engagement from Italfarnaco; institutional funding as local PI for Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi. CP declares personal fees from Italfarmaco, AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Janssen; and institutional funding from Novartis. ST declares speaker’s engagement from IDEA Pharma, Merck, MSD, Roche, and Ventana; institutional funding from Andy Quick Charitable fund, Complete genomics, CRUK, CRUK training and career development board, CRUK Welcome Trust, Harry J Lloyd Charitable Trust Career Development Award, NIHR, RMH/ICR/BRC/Imperial AHSC/Faculty of Medicine, Rosetrees Trust, The Francis Crick Institute, The Robert McAlpine Foundation, and Ventana. MK declares advisory board role for Bayer, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Servier; speaker’s engagement for BMS, Merck; institutional funding from Amgen, BMS, Merck, Nordic Farma, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Servier; institutional research grant from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Personal Genomics Diagnostics, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Servier, Sirtex; trial chair for Servier; non-remunerated activities for Leadership Role for Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group and ESMO; advisory role for KWF, Patient representative organization (Kanker.nl), ZiNNL; and non-remunerated activity as ESMO faculty member. SD declares advisory board role for AstraZeneca, Besins Healthcare, Cellectis, Elsan, Isis/Servier, Novartis, Orion, Pierre Fabre, Rappta, Sanofi; speaker’s engagement for AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Seagen; institutional funding as steering committee member for AstraZeneca, BMS, Pfizer, Puma, Sanofi, Roche Genentech; institutional funding as local PI for Orion; institutional funding as coordinating PI for Taiho; institutional funding from GE; non-remunerated activity as PI for European Commission; and non-remunerated activity as Board of Directors member for SFSPM. JNK declares advisory board role for DoMore Diagnostics, Owkin, and Panakeia; and speaker’s engagement from Eisai, Fresenius, and MSD. FGMDeB declares speaker’s engagement from Ambrosetti, Amgen, BMS, Dephaforum, ESO, Healthcare Research & Pharmacoepidemiology, Incyte, Merck Group, MSD, Nadirex, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, and Servier; consultation/advisory role from Mattioli 1885, AstraZeneca, BMS, EMD Serono, Incyte, Menarini, MSD, NMS Nerviano Medical Science, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and Taiho; funding as coordinating PI from Basilea Pharmaceutica International AG, BMS, DAICHI SANKIO Dev. Limited, Exelixis Inc, F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd, Ignyta Operating INC, IQVIA, Janssen-Cilag International NV, Kymab, LOXO Oncology Incorporated, MedImmune LCC, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme Spa, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Tesaro; and think tank funding from MCCann Health. MCG declares speaker’s engagement from AstraZeneca, ecancer, GrupoPacifico-Secretaria Tecnica ICAPEM/AstraZeneca, Medscape, MSD, MSD Italia, S.O.S S.r.l, WebMD, WebMD Oncology/Takeda; consultation/advisory role from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca Poland, AstraZeneca UK, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Mirati Therapeutics, MSD, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Sanofi/Prex, Sanofi Genzyme corporation, Seagen International GmbH, and Takeda; institutional funding as local PI for Phase III studies from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bluprint, BMS, GlaxoSmithkline, Incyte Corporation, IPSEN Bioscience, MedImmune LCC, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi; institutional funding as local PI for Phase II studies from AstraZeneca, Celgene Corporation, Daiichi Sankyo Development, MedImmune LCC, Merck KGaA, Merck Serono, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, and Turning Point Therapeutics; institutional funding as local PI for Phase I studies from Exelixis Inc., Janssen; institutional funding as local PI from Bayer, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Italy; institutional funding as Coordinating PI from AstraZeneca, MSD; steering committee member of the MK-3475 KN671 Steering Committee (KEYNOTE-671) from MSD, MK-3475 KN671 Steering Committee from MSD, Steering Committee ML41118 from Roche, and steering committee of Pfizer Global Lung Cancer Educational Programme; personal financial interests as PACIFIC-R Scientific Committee from AstraZeneca, PACIFIC-R Global Scientific Committee from AstraZeneca, Pacific 6 International Coordinating Investigator from AstraZeneca, steering Committee member and Co-chair at the AstraZeneca Lung Cancer Summit 2019, GSK-Garassino-ZEAL Steering Committee 2020-23, GSK Lung Cancer Global Council, Jannesen Scientific Advisory Board and Therapeutic Area Steering Committee Meeting on Lung Cancer, Seattle Genetics Lung Cancer Platform Study; travel, accommodations and expenses from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Roche; non-remunerated activities as principal investigator of AO Spedali Civili Brescia, Eli Lilly Studio TYME trial, European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP) phase III trial, GOIRC Studio CHANCE trial, GOIRC RAME trial, GUSTAVE-ROUSSY PARIGI LIPI TRIAL, Istituto dei Tumori Pascale MILES 5 trial, Istituto dei Tumori Pascale IND227 trial, Istituto dei Tumori Pascale Beverly trial, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Progetto Timoma trial, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori APOLLO trial, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Bando finalizzata Mesotelioma trial, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori POST-ALK trial, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori TERAVOLT trial, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori FAME trial, MSD People, Pfizer STYLE trial, and Sant’Orsola Malpighi Creta trial; non-remunerated activities as member of AIOM, AIOT, ASCO, EMA Scientific Advisory Group, ESMO, IPOP, TUTOR, WCLC, Women for Oncology Italy; and non-remunerated activities as Scientific Programme Committee of AACR. GP declares full time employment from ESMO. ALGP declares personal financial interests for stocks/shares as cofounder of Agade s.r.l. and AllyArm s.r.l; institutional financial interests for co-funding of the Professorship Chair by Associazione Univerlecco and Congregazione Suore Infermiere dell’Addolorata; institutional financial interests for licensing/royalties as co-inventor of Patent No. 10201900000848 (Load compensation device, registered with Politecnico di Milano, surrendered in January 2023 with a royalty return plan), Patent No. 102018000006950 (System for detection and kinematic monitoring of body movements in water, and relative method, registered with Politecnico di Milano and Fondazione per la Ricerca Scientifica Termale; PCT/EP2019/067618) and Patent No. 102017000027918 (Device for controlled assistance of the grip; PCT/IB2018/051652); and non-financial interests as a member of the International Conference of Rehabilitation Robotics, member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), IEEE Robotics and Automation Society, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society and IEEE Women in Engineering. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

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

With more than 60,000 new cases of breast cancer in mainland France in 2023 and 8% of all cancer deaths, breast cancer is the leading cancer in women in terms of incidence and mortality. While the number of new cases has almost doubled in 30 years, the percentage of patients at all stages alive at 5 years (87%) and 10 years (76%) testifies to the major progress made in terms of screening, characterisation and treatment. However, this progress, rapid as it is, needs to be evaluated and integrated into an overall strategy, taking into account the characteristics of the disease (stage and biology), as well as those of the patients being treated. These are the objectives of the St Paul-de-Vence recommendations for clinical practice. We report here the summary of the votes, discussions and conclusions of the Saint-Paul-de-Vence 2022-2023 RPCs., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés. All rights reserved.)

Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology has been widely used for the diagnosis of breast cancer lesions with the objective of differentiating benign from malignant masses. However, the occurrence of unsatisfactory samples and false-negative rates remains a matter of concern. Major improvements have been made thanks to the implementation of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) in multidisciplinary and integrated medical settings such as one-stop clinics (OSCs). In these settings, clinical and radiological examinations are combined with a morphological study performed by interventional pathologists. The aim of our study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the on-site cytopathology advance report (OSCAR) procedure on breast FNA cytologic samples in our breast OSC during the first three years (April 2004 till March 2007) of its implementation. To this goal, we retrospectively analyzed a series of 1820 breast masses (1740 patients) radiologically classified according to the American College of Radiology (ACR) BI-RADS lexicon (67.6% being either BI-RADS 4 or 5), sampled by FNA and immediately diagnosed by cytomorphology. The clinicoradiological, cytomorphological, and histological characteristics of all consecutive patients were retrieved from the hospital computerized medical records prospectively registered in the central information system. Histopathological analysis and ultrasound (US) follow-up (FU) were the reference diagnostic tests of the study design. In brief, we carried out either a histopathological verification or an 18-month US evaluation when a benign cytology was concordant with the components of the triple test. Overall, histology was available for 1138 masses, whereas 491 masses were analyzed at the 18-month US-FU. FNA specimens were morphologically nondiagnostic in 3.1%, false negatives were observed in 1.5%, and there was only one false positive (0.06%). The breast cancer prevalence was 62%. Diagnostic accuracy measures of the OSCAR procedure with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were the following: sensitivity (Se) = 97.4% (96.19-98.31); specificity (Sp) = 94.98% (92.94-96.56); positive predictive value (PPV) = 96.80% (95.48-97.81); negative predictive value (NPV) = 95.91% (94.02-97.33); positive likelihood ratio (LR+) = 19.39 (13.75-27.32); negative predictive ratio (LR-) = 0.03 (0.02-0.04), and; accuracy = 96.45% (95.42-97.31). The respective positive likelihood ratio (LR+) for each of the four categories of cytopathological diagnoses (with their 95% CI) which are malignant, suspicious, benign, and nondiagnostic were 540 (76-3827); 2.69 (1.8-3.96); 0.03 (0.02-0.04); and 0.37 (0.2-0.66), respectively. In conclusion, our study demonstrates that the OSCAR procedure is a highly reliable diagnostic approach and a perfect test to select patients requiring core-needle biopsy (CNB) when performed by interventional cytopathologists in a multidisciplinary and integrated OSC setting. Besides drastically limiting the rate of nondiagnostic specimens and diagnostic turn-around time, OSCAR is an efficient and powerful first-line diagnostic approach for patient-centered care.

Background: Although adjuvant cancer treatments increase cure rates, they may induce clonal selection and tumor resistance. Information still lacks as whether (neo)adjuvant anti-HER2 treatments impact the patterns of recurrence and outcomes of HER2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We aimed to assess this in the large multicenter ESME real-world database., Patients and Methods: We examined the characteristics and outcomes (overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival under first-line treatment (PFS1)) of HER2+ patients with MBC from the French ESME program with recurrent disease, as a function of the previous receipt of adjuvant trastuzumab. Multivariable analyses used Cox models adjusted for baseline demographic, prognostic factors, adjuvant treatment received, and disease-free interval., Results: Two thousand one hundred and forty-three patients who entered the ESME cohort between 2008 and 2017 had a recurrent HER2+ MBC. Among them, 56% had received (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab and 2.5% another anti-HER2 in this setting. Patients pre-exposed to trastuzumab were younger, had a lower disease-free interval, more HR-negative disease and more metastatic sites. While the crude median OS appeared inferior in patients exposed to adjuvant trastuzumab, as compared to those who did not (37.2 (95%CI 34.4-40.3) versus 53.5 months (95% CI: 47.6-60.1)), this difference disappeared in the multivariable model (HR = 1.05, 95%CI 0.91-1.22). The same figures were observed for PFS1., Conclusions: Among patients with relapsed HER2+ MBC, the receipt of adjuvant trastuzumab did not independently predict for worse outcomes when adjusted to other prognostic factors., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Several randomized clinical trials provide evidence of the survival benefit of extended adjuvant tamoxifen in women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive early breast cancer (BC). However, non-adherence may lead to underestimate treatment effects using intention to treat (ITT) methods. We reanalyzed a randomized trial using contemporary statistical methods adjusting for non-adherence., Methods: The TAM01 study was a phase 3 trial including women with early BC, who had completed 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen between 1986 and 1995. Participants were randomly assigned to continue tamoxifen up to 10 years or to discontinue the treatment at randomization. Invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using marginal structural models (MSM) and rank preserving structural failure time model (RPSFTM)., Results: Of 3830 patients enrolled, 2485 were randomized to extended tamoxifen, and 1345 to treatment discontinuation. The 10-year non-adherence rate in the extended group was 27.2%. Among women with ER-positive BC (n = 2402), extended tamoxifen was associated with a 45% and 21% relative improvement in iDFS by MSM and RPSFTM, respectively (Hazard Ratio (HR), 0.55; 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.48-0.64 and HR, 0.79; 95%CI, 0.67-0.95, respectively), a considerable greater benefit than in the ITT analysis (HR, 0.90; 95%CI, 0.81-0.99). The OS reanalysis revealed a substantial benefit of extended tamoxifen (MSM: HR, 0.70; 95%CI, 0.59-0.83; RPSFTM: HR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.67-1.04), compared to the ITT analyses (HR, 0.94; 95%CI, 0.84-1.07)., Conclusion: This analysis emphasizes both the importance of adherence to hormonotherapy in hormone-receptor positive early BC and the usefulness of more complex statistical analyses., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Amcenestrant (oral selective estrogen receptor degrader) demonstrated promising safety and efficacy in earlier clinical studies for endocrine-resistant, estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (aBC)., Patients and Methods: In AMEERA-3 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04059484), an open-label, worldwide phase II trial, patients with ER+/HER2- aBC who progressed in the (neo)adjuvant or advanced settings after not more than two previous lines of endocrine therapy (ET) were randomly assigned 1:1 to amcenestrant or single-agent endocrine treatment of physician's choice (TPC), stratified by the presence/absence of visceral metastases, previous/no treatment with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0/1). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent central review, compared using a stratified log-rank test (one-sided type I error rate of 2.5%)., Results: Between October 22, 2019, and February 15, 2021, 290 patients were randomly assigned to amcenestrant (n = 143) or TPC (n = 147). PFS was numerically similar between amcenestrant and TPC (median PFS [mPFS], 3.6 v 3.7 months; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 1.051 [95% CI, 0.789 to 1.4]; one-sided P = .643). Among patients with baseline mutated ESR1 ; (n = 120 of 280), amcenestrant numerically prolonged PFS versus TPC (mPFS, 3.7 v 2.0 months; stratified HR, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.565 to 1.435]). Overall survival data were immature but numerically similar between groups (HR, 0.913; 95% CI, 0.595 to 1.403). In amcenestrant versus TPC groups, treatment-emergent adverse events (any grade) occurred in 82.5% versus 76.2% of patients and grade ≥3 events occurred in 21.7% versus 15.6%., Conclusion: AMEERA-3 did not meet its primary objective of improved PFS with amcenestrant versus TPC although a numerical improvement in PFS was observed in patients with baseline ESR1 mutation. Efficacy and safety with amcenestrant were consistent with the standard of care for second-/third-line ET for ER+/HER2- aBC.

In the primary analysis of the phase III OlympiAD trial, olaparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) vs chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm), HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We report subgroup analyses for the final analysis at a median OS follow-up of 18.9 months (olaparib) and 15.5 months (TPC). Patients (N = 302) with gBRCAm, HER2-negative mBC and ≤2 previous lines of chemotherapy for mBC were randomized 2:1 to open-label olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or TPC. All subgroup analyses were prespecified except site of metastases. Investigator-assessed median PFS was 8.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.8-8.4; 176/205 events) for olaparib and 3.8 months (95% CI 2.8-4.2; 83/97 events) for TPC (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.39-0.66). In subgroup analyses, median PFS hazard ratios (95% CI) favored olaparib: hormone receptor status (triple-negative: 0.47, 0.32-0.69; hormone receptor-positive: 0.52, 0.36-0.75); gBRCAm (BRCA1: 0.49, 0.35-0.71; BRCA2: 0.49, 0.33-0.74); site of metastases (visceral/CNS: 0.53, 0.40-0.71; non-visceral: 0.45, 0.23-0.98); prior chemotherapy for mBC (yes: 0.51, 0.38-0.70; no: 0.49, 0.30-0.82); prior platinum-based chemotherapy for BC (yes: 0.49, 0.30-0.83; no: 0.50, 0.37-0.69); progressive disease at randomization (yes: 0.48, 0.35-0.65; no: 0.61, 0.36-1.07). Investigator-assessed objective response rates were higher across all subgroups with olaparib (35-68%) vs TPC (5-40%). Global health status/health-related quality of life increased in all subgroups with olaparib vs decreased/no change with TPC. These data confirm the consistency of olaparib benefit across patient subgroups in OlympiAD., (© 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Background: Real-world data studies usually consider biases related to measured confounders. We emulate a target trial implementing study design principles of randomized trials to observational studies; controlling biases related to selection, especially immortal time; and measured confounders., Methods: This comprehensive analysis emulating a randomized clinical trial compared overall survival in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC), receiving as first-line treatment, either paclitaxel alone or combined to bevacizumab. We used data from 5538 patients extracted from the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics-MBC cohort to emulate a target trial using advanced statistical adjustment techniques including stabilized inverse-probability weighting and G-computation, dealing with missing data with multiple imputation, and performing a quantitative bias analysis for residual bias due to unmeasured confounders., Results: Emulation led to 3211 eligible patients, and overall survival estimates achieved with advanced statistical methods favored the combination therapy. Real-world effect sizes were close to that assessed in the existing E2100 randomized clinical trial (hazard ratio = 0.88, P = .16), but the increased sample size allowed to achieve a higher level of precision in real-world estimates (ie, reduced confidence intervals). Quantitative bias analysis confirmed the robustness of the results with respect to potential unmeasured confounding., Conclusion: Target trial emulation with advanced statistical adjustment techniques is a promising approach to investigate long-term impact of innovative therapies in the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics-MBC cohort while minimizing biases and provides opportunities for comparative efficacy through the synthetic control arms provided., Database Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT03275311., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Early metastatic relapse of triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) after anthracyclins and/or taxanes based (A/T) primary treatment represents a highly aggressive cancer situation requiring urgent characterisation and handling. Epidemio-Strategy-Medico-Economical-Metastatic Breast Cancer (ESME-MBC) database, a multicenter, national, observational cohort (NCT03275311) provides recent data on this entity., Methods: All ESME patients diagnosed between 2008 and 2020 with mTNBC occurring as a relapse after a systemic neoadjuvant/adjuvant taxane and/or anthracycline-based chemotherapy were included. Early relapses were defined by a metastatic diagnosis up to 12 months of the end of neo/adjuvant A/T chemotherapy. We assessed overall survival (OS) and progression-free-survival under first-line treatment (PFS1) by early versus late relapse (≥12 months)., Results: Patients with early relapse (N = 881, 46%) were younger and had a larger tumour burden at primary diagnosis than those with late relapses (N = 1045). Early relapse rates appeared stable over time. Median OS was 10.1 months (95% CI 9.3-10.9) in patients with early relapse versus 17.1 months (95% CI 15.7-18.2) in those with late relapse (adjusted hazard-ratio (aHR): 1.92 (95% CI 1.73-2.13); p < 0.001). The median PFS1 was respectively 3.1 months (95% CI 2.9-3.4) and 5.3 months (95% CI 5.1-5.8); (aHR: 1.66; [95% CI 1.50-1.83]; p < 0.001). Among early relapsed patients, a higher number of metastatic sites, visceral disease but not treatment types, were independently associated with a poorer OS., Conclusion: These real-world data provide strong evidence on the dismal prognosis, higher treatment resistance and major unmet medical need associated with early relapsed mTNBC. Database registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT032753., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr. Delaloge discloses: Financial interests, all to my institution (advisory boards, speaker activities): AstraZeneca, MSD, Rappta, Besins, Gilead, Elsan. Research and clinical research funding, all to my institution: Sanofi, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche Genentech, Lilly, Puma, Orion, Amgen, Servier, MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Rappta, Taiho, European Commission, French government, Fondation ARC. Recipient, Horizon 2020 grant MyPeBS. Non-financial interests, personal: Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Seagen. Dr. Frenel reports consulting fees from Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen; honoraria from Lilly, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen. Dr. Jacot reports Grants or contracts from Astra Zeneca and Daiichi Sankyo; Payment or honoraria for lectures from Astra Zeneca, Eisai, BMS, Lilly France, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Astra ZenecaEisai, BMS, Lilly France, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen. Dr. Pérol reports grants or contracts from Roche and ESME, payment or honoraria for lectures from Astrazeneca, Bayer, Boehringher-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli-Lilly, Ipsen, Roche, Novartis, Merck Sharp And Dohme, Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer. Dr. Arnedos reports grants or contracts from Roche and Astrazeneca; Consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Eli-Lilly, Pfizer; Payment or honoraria for lectures from Gilead and Novartis; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli-Lilly; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Novartis, Astra Zeneca. A Antoine reports a grant from the National French Research and Technology Association (ANRT) and Roche (France) via CIFRE doctoral fellowship no. 2020/1054, outside the submitted work. All remaining authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Epigenetic alterations are a near-universal feature of human malignancy and have been detected in malignant cells as well as in easily accessible specimens such as blood and urine. These findings offer promising applications in cancer detection, subtyping, and treatment monitoring. However, much of the current evidence is based on findings in retrospective studies and may reflect epigenetic patterns that have already been influenced by the onset of the disease., Methods: Studying breast cancer, we established genome-scale DNA methylation profiles of prospectively collected buffy coat samples (n = 702) from a case-control study nested within the EPIC-Heidelberg cohort using reduced representation bisulphite sequencing (RRBS)., Results: We observed cancer-specific DNA methylation events in buffy coat samples. Increased DNA methylation in genomic regions associated with SURF6 and REXO1/CTB31O20.3 was linked to the length of time to diagnosis in the prospectively collected buffy coat DNA from individuals who subsequently developed breast cancer. Using machine learning methods, we piloted a DNA methylation-based classifier that predicted case-control status in a held-out validation set with 76.5% accuracy, in some cases up to 15 years before clinical diagnosis of the disease., Conclusions: Taken together, our findings suggest a model of gradual accumulation of cancer-associated DNA methylation patterns in peripheral blood, which may be detected long before clinical manifestation of cancer. Such changes may provide useful markers for risk stratification and, ultimately, personalized cancer prevention., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

SOLAR-1 and BYLieve trials documented the efficacy of the PI3K-inhibitor alpelisib in pre-treated PIK3CA-mutant, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients. We report here real-life data of patients prospectively registered in the French alpelisib early access program (EAP) opened to PIK3CA-mutant HR+/HER2- ABC patients treated with alpelisib and fulvestrant. Primary endpoint was PFS by local investigators using RECIST1.1. Eleven centers provided individual data on 233 consecutive patients. Patients had received a median number of 4 (range: 1-16) prior systemic treatments for ABC, including CDK4/6 inhibitor, chemotherapy, fulvestrant and everolimus in 227 (97.4%), 180 (77.3%), 175 (75.1%) and 131 (56.2%) patients, respectively. After a median follow-up of 7.1 months and 168 events, median PFS was 5.3 months (95% CI: 4.7-6.0). Among 186 evaluable patients, CBR at 6 months was 45.3% (95% CI: 37.8-52.8). In multivariable analysis, characteristics significantly associated with a shorter PFS were age < 60 years (HR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1-2.1), >5 lines of prior treatments (HR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.0-2.0) and the C420R PI3KCA mutation (HR = 4.1, 95% CI = 1.3-13.6). N = 91 (39.1%) patients discontinued alpelisib due to adverse events. To our knowledge, this is the largest real-life assessment of alpelisib efficacy. Despite heavy pre-treatments, patients derived a clinically relevant benefit from alpelisib and fulvestrant., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

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

Purpose: Optimal comprehensive survivorship care is insufficiently delivered. To increase patient empowerment and maximize the uptake of multidisciplinary supportive care strategies to serve all survivorship needs, we implemented a proactive survivorship care pathway for patients with early breast cancer at the end of primary treatment phase., Methods: Pathway components included (1) a personalized survivorship care plan (SCP), (2) face-to-face survivorship education seminars and personalized consultation for supportive care referrals (Transition Day), (3) a mobile app delivering personalized education and self-management advice, and (4) decision aids for physicians focused on supportive care needs. A mixed-methods process evaluation was performed according to the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework including administrative data review, pathway experience survey (patient, physician, and organization), and focus group. The primary objective was patient-perceived satisfaction with the pathway (predefined progression criteria for pathway continuation ≥70%)., Results: Over 6 months, 321 patients were eligible for the pathway and received a SCP and 98 (30%) attended the Transition Day. Among 126 patients surveyed, 77 (66.1%) responded. 70.1% received the SCP, 51.9% attended the Transition Day, and 59.7% accessed the mobile app. 96.1% of patients were very or completely satisfied with the overall pathway, whereas perceived usefulness was 64.8% for the SCP, 90% for the Transition Day, and 65.2% for the mobile app. Pathway implementation seemed to be positively experienced by physicians and the organization., Conclusion: Patients were satisfied with a proactive survivorship care pathway, and the majority reported that its components were useful in supporting their needs. This study can inform the implementation of survivorship care pathways in other centers.

Background: Return to work (RTW) after cancer can be modulated by psychosocial factors, including a reordering of one's life values, with more emphasis on private life than work-life. This change in patients' outlook on work-life is however poorly understood., Methods: We used data from a French cohort (CANTO, NCT01993498) of women diagnosed with stage I-III primary breast cancer (BC) prospectively assessing life priorities between work and private life at diagnosis and 2 years after diagnosis. We identified women who reported a shift in life values toward private life, and we investigated the clinical, demographic, work-related, and psychosocial determinants of this change using logistic regressions., Results: Overall, 46% (N = 1097) of the women had reordered their life priorities toward private life 2 years after diagnosis. The factors positively associated with this shift included being diagnosed with stage III BC, perceiving one's job as not very interesting, being an employee/clerk (vs. executive occupation), perceiving no support from the supervisor at baseline, perceiving negative interferences of cancer in daily life, and perceiving a positive impact from experiencing cancer. Depressive symptoms were negatively associated with this shift., Conclusion: After BC, there seems to be an important reordering of life values, with more emphasis on private life. This change is influenced by clinical determinants, but also by work-related and psychosocial factors., Implications for Cancer Survivors: Stakeholders should consider this change in a patient's outlook on work-life as much as the classical physical late effects when designing post-BC programs to support RTW., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Efficacy of endocrine therapy in HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer could differ depending on the presence of BRCA1/2 germline mutation., Methods: The ESME metastatic breast cancer platform (NCT03275311) is a French real world database. Multivariable models including a time-varying approach and landmark analyses assessed the association between time-dependent gBRCA status (categorised as gBRCAm, gBRCAwt (wild type), and untested), overall survival (OS), and first-line progression-free survival (PFS1)., Results: A total of 170 patients were gBRCAm carriers, 676 gBRCAwt, and 12,930 were untested at baseline. In the multivariable analysis, gBRCAm carriers overall had a lower OS compared to gBRCAwt (adjusted HR [95% CI] 1.26 [1.03-1.55]). gBRCAm patients treated with front-line endocrine therapy had lower adjusted OS (adjusted HR [95% CI] = 1.54 [1.03-2.32]) and PFS1 (adjusted HR [95% CI] 1.58 [1.17-2.12]) compared to gBRCAwt patients. However, for patients who received frontline chemotherapy, neither OS nor PFS1 differed between gBRCAm carriers and the other groups (HR versus gBRCAwt for OS: 1.12 [0.88-1.41], p = 0.350; PFS1: 1.09 [0.90-1.31], p = 0.379)., Conclusion: In this large cohort of HR+/HER2- MBC patients treated in a pre-CDK4/6 inhibitors era, gBRCAm status was associated with a lower OS and lower PFS following first-line endocrine therapy, but not following first-line chemotherapy., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: ExteNET showed that neratinib, an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor, given for 1 year after trastuzumab-based therapy significantly improved invasive disease-free survival in women with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer. We report the final analysis of overall survival in ExteNET., Methods: In this international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, women aged 18 years or older with stage 1-3c (amended to stage 2-3c) HER2-positive breast cancer who had completed neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy plus trastuzumab were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to oral neratinib 240 mg/day or placebo for 1 year. Randomisation was stratified according to hormone receptor (HR) status (HR-positive vs. HR-negative), nodal status (0, 1-3 or 4+), and trastuzumab regimen (sequentially vs. concurrently with chemotherapy). Overall survival was analysed by intention to treat. ExteNET is registered (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00878709) and is complete., Results: Between July 9, 2009, and October 24, 2011, 2840 women received neratinib (n = 1420) or placebo (n = 1420). After a median follow-up of 8.1 (IQR, 7.0-8.8) years, 127 patients (8.9%) in the neratinib group and 137 patients (9.6%) in the placebo group in the intention-to-treat population had died. Eight-year overall survival rates were 90.1% (95% CI 88.3-91.6) with neratinib and 90.2% (95% CI 88.4-91.7) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.75-1.21; p = 0.6914)., Conclusions: Overall survival in the extended adjuvant setting was comparable for neratinib and placebo after a median follow-up of 8.1 years in women with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: SD declares institutional grants from Puma Biotechnology Inc. during the conduct of the study, institutional grants from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, RocheGenentech, Lilly, Myriad, Orion, Amgen, Sanofi, Genomic Health, GE, Servier, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Rappta, Besins, European Commission, French Government, Fondation ARC, Taiho, and Elsan, and non-financial support from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and RocheGenentech outside the submitted work. BE is a Medical Director of the Danish Breast Cancer Group, and has received a personal grant from the Danish Cancer Society, and institutional grants from Samsung Bioepis, MSD, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. HI declares institutional grants from Chugai, Eli Lilly, Nihon Kayaku, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Taiho, Pfizer, MSD, Sanofi, Novartis, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim, personal consulting fees from Chugai, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo, and personal payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Chugai, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Taiho, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, and Kyowa Kirin. MG has received consulting fees from Lifebrain, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Veracyte, Novartis, and MSD, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Pierre Fabre, support for attending meetings and/or travel from Eli Lilly, and declares that his spouse is employed by Sandoz. MB is a stockholder of the International Drug Development Institute. CHB declares support from Puma Biotechnology for work completed for the present manuscript, institutional grants or contracts from Abbvie, Nektar, Pfizer, Polyphor, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, Exelixis, Regeneron, Novartis, Henlius, Shanghai, GSK, Janssen, OBI Pharma, Lilly, Seagen, Checkpoint Therapeutics, Roche, BMS, MSD, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca, Novocure, Aveo Oncology, Takeda, TRIO, PharmaMar, Celgene, Myovant, PPD, Syneos Health, Docs, Labcorp, ICON, IQVIA, Parexel, Nuvisan, PSI, and Medpace, advisory board or consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Zodiac, Lilly, Sanofi, and Daiichi Sankyo, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Zodiac, Lilly, Sanofi, and Daiichi Sankyo, support for attending meetings and/or travel from Daiichi Sankyo, participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Roche/Genentech, and is a member of the BIG Executive Board. TS received payments for lectures, presentations and educational events from Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Roche, Amgen, Sandoz, Abbot, and AstraZeneca, support for attending symposia from Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, and received drugs for patient treatment through market access programmes from Novartis, Pfizer, and Puma Biotechnology Inc. RŠ received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and Astellas, and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Novartis and Roche. AGZ reports an institutional grant from Pfizer, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Exact Sciences, and Lilly, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Exact Sciences, support for attending meetings and/or travel from Novartis, Pfizer, and Lilly, and a leadership or fiduciary role in GEICAM. ND declares support for the present manuscript, grants or contracts from the US Oncology Network, support for attending meetings and/or travel for a Seattle Genetics advisory board, participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Alliance, leadership or fiduciary role at the Arlington Free Clinic, and stock or stock options with AstraZeneca (employee currently). DP declares a leadership or fiduciary role on the Board of Directors, Community Oncology Alliance. EG has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Amgen, Gilead, Lilly, Astellas, and GEN Ilac Ve Saglik Urunleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret, payment for expert testimony from BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Gilead, and Lilly, support for attending meetings and/or travel from BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Astellas, and Abdi Ibrahim, participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Amgen, Gilead, Lilly, and Astellas. IG declares funding for the trial, provision of study drug and manuscript support from Puma Biotechnology Inc., clinical trial support from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, and stock or stock options for Pfizer and Merck. SL declares institutional grants or contracts from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, royalties or licenses paid to institution from VM Scope GmbH, payments or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events paid to institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, patents pending and issued paid to institution (EP14153692.0, EP21152186.9, EP15702464.7, EP19808852.8), participation on Data Safety Monitoring Boards or Advisory Boards paid to institution for Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eirgenix, GSK, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and Seagen, and medical writing (non-financial) for Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen. NM declares grants or contracts from Chugai, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Eisai, Novartis, Sanofi, Kyowa-Kirin, and Nippon-Kayaku, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Chugai, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Eisai, and is a representative director (unpaid) of JBCRG (Japan Breast Cancer Research Group). KP has received consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, and MSD, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Gilead. DDP is a full-time employee at Puma Biotechnology Inc., and has ownership interest (stock, stock options) in Puma Biotechnology Inc. AW is a full-time employee at Puma Biotechnology Inc., and has ownership interest (stock, stock options) in Puma Biotechnology Inc. MM declares an institutional grant from Puma Biotechnology Inc. for work completed for the present manuscript, consulting fees from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Lilly, and Sanofi, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Seagen, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche, and that he is Chairman of GEICAM, and Member of Board of Directors of TRIO. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the Phase III OlympiAD study, olaparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC). In the final pre-specified analysis (64% maturity), median overall survival (OS) was 19.3 months for olaparib and 17.1 months for TPC (P = 0.513). Post-hoc extended follow-up, 25.7 months longer than previously reported for OS, is reported., Patients and Methods: Patients with gBRCAm, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative mBC, who had received ≤2 lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease, were randomised 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg bid) or TPC. During extended follow-up, OS was analysed every 6 months using the stratified log-rank test (overall population) and Cox proportional hazards model (pre-specified subgroups)., Results: In the overall population (302 patients; 76.8% maturity), median OS was 19.3 months for olaparib and 17.1 months for TPC (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.67-1.18); median follow-up was 18.9 and 15.5 months, respectively. Three-year survival was 27.9% for olaparib versus 21.2% for TPC. With olaparib, 8.8% of patients received study treatment for ≥3 years versus none with TPC. In first-line mBC, median OS was longer for olaparib than TPC (22.6 versus 14.7 months; hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.95) and 3-year survival was 40.8% for olaparib versus 12.8% for TPC. No new serious adverse events related to olaparib were observed., Conclusions: OS was consistent with previous analyses from OlympiAD. These findings support the possibility of meaningful long-term survival benefit with olaparib, particularly in first-line mBC., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Nutrition is one of the fundamentals of cancer prevention. Knowing what are the patients' needs and beliefs in terms of "nutrition and cancer" information helps tailor future nutritional interventions. The aim of this study was to evaluate specific information needs about "nutrition in relation to cancer prevention", including primary and tertiary prevention, among cancer patients, cancer-free individuals, and genetic high cancer risk individuals., Methods: This online survey was shared within two large National cancer social networks and proposed to all attendees and carers of a comprehensive cancer center., Results: 2887 individuals answered the survey (of whom 33% were cancer patients, 13% high-risk individuals and 55% participants of the general population). More than 80% of participants were women, had at least a high school degree. Median body mass index was 23.2 kg/m 2 . Eleven percent (n = 321) were following a diet, mostly low carbohydrate and weight-loss diets. Around 70% of all categories felt they lacked information on nutrition and cancer interplays. Only 12% of cancer patients (n = 108) considered they had received enough information on nutrition during their care pathway. A majority of participants agreed that food can modify cancer risk (93%, n = 2526) and 66% (n = 1781) considered that nutrition should be personalized according to the risk of cancer. Only twenty-nine percent (n = 792) believed that eating 5 fruits and vegetables a day was enough to avoid cancer, but 64% (n = 1720) thought that dietary supplements could help obtain a better health. All proposed nutrition topics were considered important by the participants., Conclusions: Although cancer patients and cancer-free respondents, whether at high risk of cancer or not, share a common broad interest on the interplay between nutrition and cancer and seek after more information on this topic, some false beliefs are observed. Healthcare providers could successfully propose more evidence-based information to these populations., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest This study was supported by Odyssea (charity)., (Copyright © 2023 European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Formyl peptide receptor-1 (FPR1) is a pathogen recognition receptor involved in the detection of bacteria, in the control of inflammation, as well as in cancer immunosurveillance. A single nucleotide polymorphism in FPR1 , rs867228, provokes a loss-of-function phenotype. In a bioinformatic study performed on The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), we observed that homo-or heterozygosity for rs867228 in FPR1 (which affects approximately one-third of the population across continents) accelerates age at diagnosis of specific carcinomas including luminal B breast cancer by 4.9 years. To validate this finding, we genotyped 215 patients with metastatic luminal B mammary carcinomas from the SNPs To Risk of Metastasis (SToRM) cohort. The first diagnosis of luminal B breast cancer occurred at an age of 49.2 years for individuals bearing the dysfunctional TT or TG alleles ( n  = 73) and 55.5 years for patients the functional GG alleles ( n  = 141), meaning that rs867228 accelerated the age of diagnosis by 6.3 years ( p =0.0077, Mann & Whitney). These results confirm our original observation in an independent validation cohort. We speculate that it may be useful to include the detection of rs867228 in breast cancer screening campaigns for selectively increasing the frequency and stringency of examinations starting at a relatively young age., Competing Interests: GK has been holding research contracts with Daiichi Sankyo, Eleor, Kaleido, Lytix Pharma, PharmaMar, Osasuna Therapeutics, Samsara Therapeutics, Sanofi, Sotio, Tollys, Vascage and Vasculox/Tioma. GK has been consulting for Reithera. GK is on the Board of Directors of the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation France. GK is a scientific co-founder of everImmune, Osasuna Therapeutics, Samsara Therapeutics and Therafast Bio. GK is the inventor of patents covering therapeutic targeting of aging, cancer, cystic fibrosis and metabolic disorders. FA has grants and advisory roles (compensated to the hospital) for Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Lilly, Roche. SD reports grants and non-financial support from Pfizer, grants from Novartis, grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants and non-financial support from Roche Genentech, grants from Lilly, grants from Puma, grants from Myriad, grants from Orion, grants from Amgen, grants from Sanofi, grants from Genomic Health, grants from GE, grants from Servier, grants from MSD, grants from BMS, grants from Pierre Fabre, grants from Seagen, grants from Exact Sciences, grants from Rappta, grants from Besins, grants from European Commission, grants from French government grants, grants from Fondation ARC, outside the submitted work. Dr Bachelot reports personal fees from Seagen, grants from Seagen to institution, personal fees from Pfizer, grants from Pfizer to institution, personal fees from AstraZeneca/Daiichi, grants from AstraZeneca/Daiichi to institution, personal fees from Novartis, grants from Novartis to institution, personal fees from Lilly, and non-financial support from Pfizer, all outside the submitted work. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.GK is supported by the Ligue contre le Cancer (équipe labellisée); Agence National de la Recherche (ANR) – Projets blancs; AMMICa US23/CNRS UMS3655; Association pour la recherche sur le cancer (ARC); Cancéropôle Ile-de-France; European Research Council Advanced Investigator Grand “ICD-Cancer”, Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale (FRM); a donation by Elior; Equipex Onco-Pheno-Screen; European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases (EJPRD); European Research Council (ICD-Cancer), European Union Horizon 2020 Projects Oncobiome and Crimson; Fondation Carrefour; Institut National du Cancer (INCa); Institut Universitaire de France; LabEx Immuno-Oncology (ANR-18-IDEX-0001); a Cancer Research ASPIRE Award from the Mark Foundation; the RHU Immunolife; Seerave Foundation; SIRIC Stratified Oncology Cell DNA Repair and Tumor Immune Elimination (SOCRATE); and SIRIC Cancer Research and Personalized Medicine (CARPEM). This study contributes to the IdEx Université de Paris ANR-18-IDEX-0001., (© 2023 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.)

Background: Overall survival (OS) is the gold standard endpoint to assess treatment efficacy in cancer clinical trials. In metastatic breast cancer (mBC), progression-free survival (PFS) is commonly used as an intermediate endpoint. Evidence remains scarce regarding the degree of association between PFS and OS. Our study aimed to describe the individual-level association between real-world PFS (rwPFS) and OS according to first-line treatment in female patients with mBC managed in real-world setting for each BC subtype (defined by status for both hormone-receptor [HR] expression and HER2 protein expression/gene amplification)., Methods: We extracted data from the ESME mBC database (NCT03275311) which gathers deidentified data from consecutive patients managed in 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centers. Adult women diagnosed with mBC between 2008 and 2017 were included. Endpoints (PFS, OS) were described using the Kaplan-Meier method. Individual-level associations between rwPFS and OS were estimated using the Spearman's correlation coefficient. Analyses were conducted by tumor subtype., Results: 20,033 women were eligible. Median age was 60.0 years. Median follow-up duration was 62.3 months. Median rwPFS ranged from 6.0 months (95% CI 5.8-6.2) for HR-/HER2 - subtype to 13.3 months (36% CI 12.7-14.3) for HR + /HER2 + subtype. Correlation coefficients were highly variable across subtypes and first-line (L1) treatments. Among patients with HR - /HER2 - mBC, correlation coefficients ranged from 0.73 to 0.81, suggesting a strong rwPFS/OS association. For HR + /HER2 + mBC patients, the individual-level associations were weak to strong with coefficients ranging from 0.33 to 0.43 for monotherapy and from 0.67 to 0.78 for combined therapies., Conclusions: Our study provides comprehensive information on individual-level association between rwPFS and OS for L1 treatments in mBC women managed in real-life practice. Our results could be used as a basis for future research dedicated to surrogate endpoint candidates., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

The outcomes and best treatment strategies for germline BRCA1/2 mutation (gBRCAm) carriers with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remain uncertain. We compared the overall survival and the first line progression free survival (PFS1) of patients with a gBRCAm identified at initiation of first-line treatment with those of BRCA wild-type (WT) and not-tested (NT) individuals in the ESME real-world database of MBC patients between 2008 and 2016 (NCT03275311). Among the 20 624 eligible patients, 325 had a gBRCAm, 1138 were WT and 19 161 NT. Compared with WT, gBRCAm carriers were younger, and had more aggressive diseases. At a median follow-up of 50.5 months, median OS was 30.6 (95%CI: 21.9-34.3), 35.8 (95%CI: 32.2-37.8) and 39.3 months (95% CI: 38.3-40.3) in the gBRCAm, WT and NT subgroups, respectively. Median PFS1 was 7.9 (95%CI: 6.6-9.3), 7.8 (95%CI: 7.3-8.5) and 9.7 months (95%CI, 9.5-10.0). In the multivariable analysis conducted in the whole cohort, gBRCAm status had however no independent prognostic impact on OS and PFS1. Though, in the triple-negative subgroup, gBRCAm patients had better OS and PFS1 (HR vs WT = 0.76; 95%CI: 0.60-0.97; P = .027 and 0.69; 95% CI: 0.55-0.86; P = .001, respectively). In contrast, in patients with HR+/HER2 negative cancers, PFS1 appeared significantly and OS non significantly lower for gBRCAm carriers (PFS1: HR vs WT = 1.23; 95%CI: 1.03-1.46; P = .024; OS:HR = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.97-1.52, P = .089). In conclusion, gBRCA1/2 status appears to have divergent survival effects in MBC according to IHC subtype., (© 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Objective: To study whether fertility preservation strategies using ovarian stimulation or without using it impact long-term disease-free survival of patients with breast cancer., Design: Retrospective bicentric cohort study., Setting: Two university hospitals., Patient(s): In this study, 740 women with breast cancer, aged 18-43 years, who received primary fertility preservation between 2013 and 2019 after a diagnosis of localized breast cancer were included., Intervention(s): Overall, 328 patients underwent at least 1 ovarian stimulation cycle (STIM group) and 412 had a technique without hormonal administration (no STIM group)., Main Outcome Measure(s): Disease-free survival and overall survival up to May 2021 were compared between the 2 groups by log-rank test. Cox proportional-hazard regression model was used for multivariable analyses., Result(s): Out of the 740 women who underwent fertility preservation, follow-up data were available for 269 women in the STIM group (82%) and 330 (80%) in the no STIM group. Kaplan-Meier estimates of disease-free survival at 4 years were 87.9% (82.8%-92.2%) and 83.1% (78.4%-87.3%) in the STIM and no STIM groups, respectively. After adjustment on prognostic parameters, no significant difference in breast cancer recurrence rate was observed between the STIM and no STIM groups (hazard ratios, 0.83 [0.64-1.08]). Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival at 4 years was 97.6% (95.3%-99.2%) and 93.6% (90.9%-95.9%) in the STIM and no STIM groups, respectively. Overall survival was higher in the STIM group than no STIM group (log-rank test). After adjustment on prognostic parameters, the risk of death remained significantly lower in the STIM group (Hazard Ratio, 0.55 [0.35-0.85])., Conclusion(s): In our cohort, STIM for fertility preservation in breast cancer did not significantly impact disease-free survival but was associated with higher overall survival. The disease-free survival and overall survival of young patients with breast cancer were not impacted by fertility preservation techniques irrespective of the timing of chemotherapy (neoadjuvant or adjuvant) and the use of ovarian stimulation. Nevertheless, because death and recurrence were rare events, these results should be taken with caution., (Copyright © 2022 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) for 5-10 years is the backbone of the therapeutic strategy in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) early breast cancer (BC). However, long-term adherence to adjuvant ET represents a major challenge for most patients. According to prior studies, side effects of adjuvant ET are an important reason for poor adherence. In contrast, better communication and relational bond between patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) may improve adherence. The FOR-AD (Focus on non-adherence) study aimed at better understanding the representation of adjuvant ET by patients and their HCPs, in order to improve the care process., Methods: Three focus groups of premenopausal women (receiving adjuvant ET for variable amount of time) and two focus groups of HCPs (including oncologists, pharmacists, and nurses) were conducted, each including around ten participants. Thematic analyses using a general inductive approach were constructed to report participants' representations., Results: Two main themes emerged across groups, and appeared of major importance. Representations on adjuvant ET were often homogenous within each group, but differed between patients and their HCPs. The relationship between both groups was considerably discussed, particularly its importance in facilitating adherence to adjuvant ET. Suggestions on improving the care process were also given, such as systematically including psychologists in follow-up care paths and having a nurse navigator follow patients under treatment with adjuvant ET., Conclusion: The present qualitative exploration may help buildi future tailored interventions to improve adherence to adjuvant ET, in particular regarding the role of nurse navigators., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors declare no potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)