Search

GIM 13-AMBRA is a longitudinal cohort study aimed at describing therapeutic strategies and the relative outcome parameters in 939 HER2-ve MBC patients. Taxanes-based regimens, or taxanes + targeted agents, mainly Bevacizumab, were the preferred first choice in both Luminal (30.2%) and TNBC (33.3%) patients. The median PFS1 was 12.5 months (95% CI 16.79-19.64), without any significant difference according to subtypes, while the median Time to first Treatment Change (TTC1) was significantly lower in TNBC patients (7.7 months-95% CI 5.7-9.2) in comparison to Luminal A (13.2 months, 95% CI 11.7-15.1) and Luminal B patients (11.8 months, 95% CI 10.3-12.8). PFS2 was significantly shorter in TNBC patients (5.5 months, 95% CI 4.3-6.5 vs. Luminal A-9.4, 95% CI 8.1-10.7, and Luminal B-7.7 95% CI 6.8-8.2, F-Ratio 4.30, p = 0.014). TTC2 was significantly lower in patients with TNBC than in those with the other two subtypes. The median OS1 was 35.2 months (95% CI 30.8-37.4) for Luminal A patients, which was significantly higher than that for both Luminal B (28.9 months, 95% CI 26.2-31.2) and TNBC (18.5 months, 95% CI 16-20.1, F-ratio 7.44, p = 0.0006). The GIM 13-AMBRA study is one of the largest collections ever published in Italy and provides useful results in terms of time outcomes for first, second, and further lines of treatment in HER2- MBC patients.

Background: In triple negative breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, residual disease at surgery is the most relevant unfavorable prognostic factor. Current guidelines consider the use of adjuvant capecitabine, based on the results of the randomized CREATE-X study, carried out in Asian patients and including a small subset of triple negative tumors. Thus far, evidence on Caucasian patients is limited, and no real-world data are available., Methods: We carried out a multicenter, observational study, involving 44 oncologic centres. Triple negative breast cancer patients with residual disease, treated with adjuvant capecitabine from January 2017 through June 2021, were recruited. We primarily focused on treatment tolerability, with toxicity being reported as potential cause of treatment discontinuation. Secondarily, we assessed effectiveness in the overall study population and in a subset having a minimum follow-up of 2 years., Results: Overall, 270 patients were retrospectively identified. The 50.4% of the patients had residual node positive disease, 7.8% and 81.9% had large or G3 residual tumor, respectively, and 80.4% a Ki-67 >20%. Toxicity-related treatment discontinuation was observed only in 10.4% of the patients. In the whole population, at a median follow-up of 15 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 62%, 2 and 3-year overall survival 84.0% and 76.2%, respectively. In 129 patients with a median follow-up of 25 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 43.4%, 2 and 3-year overall survival 78.0% and 70.8%, respectively. Six or more cycles of capecitabine were associated with more favourable outcomes compared with less than six cycles., Conclusion: The CaRe study shows an unexpectedly good tolerance of adjuvant capecitabine in a real-world setting, although effectiveness appears to be lower than that observed in the CREATE-X study. Methodological differences between the two studies impose significant limits to comparability concerning effectiveness, and strongly invite further research., Competing Interests: LP received speaker fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. UDG: Pfizer, BMS, MSD, PharmaMAR, AStellas, Bayer, Ipsen, Novartis; Invited speaker Roche, BMS, SAnofi, AstraZeneca; received research grants from AstraZeneca, SAnofi, Roche, outside the submitted work. AF received honoraria as a speaker from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. GT: advisory boards from Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. DS: advisory boards from Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. NLV: Roche, MSD, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, Gentili, Daiichi Sankyo, Dephaforum, outside the submitted work. OG: Eisai, MSD, Gilead, Seagen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. IM: advisory boards from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Gentili, Roche, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. GD’A: Novartis, Amgen, Eli Lilly outside the submitted work. TG received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. MPi Consultant/advisory boards from Gilead, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, MSD, outside the submitted work. RB received research grant/advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, MSD, Otsuka, Eli Lilly, Roche, Amgen, GSK, Eisai, outside the submitted work. FGi: advisory boards from Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, outside the submitted work. MEC consultant/advisory role for Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Celgene, outside the submitted work. RT: AstraZeneca, Eisai, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, MSD, Exact Science, outside the submitted work. AB: MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche outside the submitted work. AM received travel grants from Eisai, Celgene, and Novartis Ipsen; personal fees/advisory boards from Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, and Celgene, outside the submitted work. IP received personal fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Italfarmaco, Gentili, and Pierre-Fabre. LG received congress travel accomodation from Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis; advisory role for Astra Zeneca outside the submitted work. MMin: Novartis, MSD, Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. LM received personal fees/advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. EC: Astellas, Roche, BMS, Jansen, MSD, Sirtex, Merck, Bayer, Servier, Novartis, outside the submitted work. PM has/had a consultant/advisory role for BMS, Roche, Genentech, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre and Incyte, outside the submitted work. PV received speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Di Lisa, Krasniqi, Pizzuti, Barba, Cannita, De Giorgi, Borella, Foglietta, Cariello, Ferro, Picardo, Mitidieri, Sini, Stani, Tonini, Santini, La Verde, Gambaro, Grassadonia, Tinari, Garrone, Sarobba, Livi, Meattini, D’Auria, Vergati, Gamucci, Pistelli, Berardi, Risi, Giotta, Lorusso, Rinaldi, Artale, Cazzaniga, Zustovich, Cappuzzo, Landi, Torrisi, Scagnoli, Botticelli, Michelotti, Fratini, Saltarelli, Paris, Muratore, Cassano, Gianni, Gaspari, Veltri, Zoratto, Fiorio, Fabbri, Mazzotta, Ruggeri, Pedersini, Valerio, Filomeno, Minelli, Scavina, Raffaele, Astone, De Vita, Pozzi, Riccardi, Greco, Moscetti, Giordano, Maugeri-Saccà, Zennaro, Botti, Pelle, Cappelli, Cavicchi, Vizza, Sanguineti, Tomao, Cortesi, Marchetti, Tomao, Speranza, Sperduti, Ciliberto and Vici.)

Background: The evolution of therapeutic landscape of human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC) has led to an unprecedented outcome improvement, even if the optimal sequence strategy is still debated. To address this issue and to provide a picture of the advancement of anti-HER2 treatments, we performed a large, multicenter, retrospective study of HER2-positive BC patients., Methods: The observational PANHER study included 1,328 HER2-positive advanced BC patients treated with HER2 blocking agents since June 2000 throughout July 2020. Endpoints of efficacy were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: Patients who received a first-line pertuzumab-based regimen showed better PFS ( p < 0.0001) and OS ( p = 0.004) than those receiving other treatments. Median PFS and mOS from second-line starting were 8 and 28 months, without significant differences among various regimens. Pertuzumab-pretreated patients showed a mPFS and a mOS from second-line starting not significantly affected by type of second line, that is, T-DM1 or lapatinib/capecitabine ( p = 0.80 and p = 0.45, respectively). Conversely, pertuzumab-naïve patients receiving second-line T-DM1 showed a significantly higher mPFS compared with that of patients treated with lapatinib/capecitabine ( p = 0.004). Median OS from metastatic disease diagnosis was higher in patients treated with trastuzumab-based first line followed by second-line T-DM1 in comparison to pertuzumab-based first-line and second-line T-DM1 ( p = 0.003), although these data might be partially influenced by more favorable prognostic characteristics of patients in the pre-pertuzumab era . No significant differences emerged when comparing patients treated with 'old' or 'new' drugs ( p = 0.43), even though differences in the length of the follow-up between the two cohorts should be taken into account., Conclusion: Our results confirmed a relevant impact of first-line pertuzumab-based treatment and showed lower efficacy of second-line T-DM1 in trastuzumab/pertuzumab pretreated, as compared with pertuzumab-naïve patients. Our findings may help delineate a more appropriate therapeutic strategy in HER2-positive metastatic BC. Prospective randomized trials addressing this topic are awaited., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: EK, IS, MB, MM, MMaz, EMV, IM, RB, FSDL, MP, LI, ER, NDO, ST, CF, KC, FR, AC, MAF, GB, AB, GDA, AC, AR, BTS, GS, FG, RS, DM, DC, EMC, VS, LMe, GT, MR, LM, MMi, EMR, PS, NS, LL, NT, AG, AFS, RR, MRV, EL, SS, BF, MMS, MDT, AM, AO, VL, EC, GS, PP, FC, LL, CB, FT, SC, GB, FP, FCav, OB, EF, JF, SS, and GC declare no conflicts of interest. LP received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speaker fees from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, and Gentili. TG received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, and Lilly. CN received travel grants/personal fees from Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and AstraZeneca. EB is supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research AIRC-IG 20583; he was supported by the International Association for Lung Cancer (IASLC), the LILT (Lega Italiana per la Lotta contro I Tumori), and Fondazione Cariverona; he received speakers’ and travels’ fee from MSD, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Pfizer, Helsinn, Eli Lilly, BMS, Novartis, and Roche; consultant’s fee from Roche, Pfizer; institutional research grants from AstraZeneca and Roche. AM received travel grants from Eisai, Celgene, and Novartis Ipsen; personal fees, advisory boards from Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, and Celgene. IP received personal fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Italfarmaco, Gentili, and Pierre Fabre. LM received personal fees/advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, and Pfizer. GT and DS: advisory board Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, and Eli Lilly. PM has/had a consultant/advisory role for BMS, Roche Genentech, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, and Incyte. PV received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, and Eli Lilly., (© The Author(s), 2021.)

Importance: Many patients with cancer who would benefit from psychosocial care do not receive it. Implementation strategies may favor the integration of psychosocial care into practice and improve patient outcomes., Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Humanization in Cancer Care (HuCare) Quality Improvement Strategy vs standard care as improvement of at least 1 of 2 domains (emotional or social function) of patient health-related quality of life at baseline and 3 months. A key secondary aim included investigation of the long-term effect., Design, Setting, and Participants: HuCare2 was a multicenter, incomplete, stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial, conducted from May 30, 2016, to August 28, 2019, in three 5-center clusters of cancer centers representative of hospital size and geographic location in Italy. The study was divided into 5 equally spaced epochs. Implementation sequence was defined by a blinded statistician; the nature of the intervention precluded blinding for clinical staff. Participants included consecutive adult outpatients with newly diagnosed cancer of any type and stage starting medical cancer treatment., Interventions: The HuCare Quality Improvement Strategy comprised (1) clinician communication training, (2) on-site visits for context analysis and problem-solving, and (3) implementation of 6 evidence-based recommendations., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the difference between the means of changes of individual scores in emotional or social functions of health-related quality of life detected at baseline and 3-month follow-up (within each group) and during the postintervention epoch compared with control periods (between groups). Long-term effect of the intervention (at 12 months) was assessed as a secondary outcome. Intention-to-treat analysis was used., Results: A total of 762 patients (475 [62.3%] women) were enrolled (400 HuCare Quality Improvement Strategy and 362 usual care); mean (SD) age was 61.4 (13.1) years. The HuCare Quality Improvement Strategy significantly improved emotional function during treatment (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.22; P = .008) but not social function (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.89-1.09; P = .80). Effect on emotional function persisted at 12 months (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.10; P = .04)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, the HuCare Quality Improvement Strategy significantly improved the emotional function aspect of health-related quality of life during cancer treatment and at 12 months, indicating a change in clinician behavior and in ward organization. These findings support the need for strategies to introduce psychosocial care; however, more research is needed on factors that may maximize the effects., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03008993.

In metastatic breast cancer (mBC), the change of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status between primary and metastatic lesions is widely recognized, however clinical implications are unknown. Our study address the question if relevant differences exist between subjects who preserve the HER2 status and those who gain the HER2 positivity when relapsed. Data of patients affected by HER2-positive mBC, treated with pertuzumab and/or trastuzumab-emtansine (T-DM1) in a real-world setting at 45 Italian cancer centers were retrospectively collected and analyzed. From 2003 to 2017, 491 HER2-positive mBC patients were included. Of these, 102 (20.7%) had been initially diagnosed as HER2-negative early BC. Estrogen and/or progesterone receptor were more expressed in patients with HER2-discordance compared to patients with HER2-concordant status (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.006, respectively). HER2-discordant tumors were characterized also by a lower rate of brain metastases (p = 0.01) and a longer disease free interval (p < 0.0001). Median overall survival was longer, although not statistically significant, in the subgroup of patients with HER2-discordant cancer with respect to patients with HER2-concordant status (140 vs 78 months, p = 0.07). Our findings suggest that patients with HER2-positive mBC with discordant HER2 status in early BC may have different clinical, biological and prognostic behavior compared to HER2-concordant patients.

Background: HER2-targeting agents have dramatically changed the therapeutic landscape of HER2+ advanced breast cancer (ABC). Within a short time frame, the rapid introduction of new therapeutics has led to the approval of pertuzumab combined with trastuzumab and a taxane in first-line, and trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in second-line. Thereby, evidence of T-DM1 efficacy following trastuzumab/pertuzumab combination is limited, with data from some retrospective reports suggesting lower activity. The purpose of the present study is to investigate T-DM1 efficacy in pertuzumab-pretreated and pertuzumab naïve HER2 positive ABC patients. We also aimed to provide evidence on the exposure to different drugs sequences including pertuzumab and T-DM1 in HER2 positive cell lines., Methods: The biology of HER2 was investigated in vitro through sequential exposure of resistant HER2 + breast cancer cell lines to trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and their combination. In vitro experiments were paralleled by the analysis of data from 555 HER2 + ABC patients treated with T-DM1 and evaluation of T-DM1 efficacy in the 371 patients who received it in second line. Survival estimates were graphically displayed in Kaplan Meier curves, compared by log rank test and, when possibile, confirmed in multivariate models., Results: We herein show evidence of lower activity of T-DM1 in two HER2+ breast cancer cell lines resistant to trastuzumab+pertuzumab, as compared to trastuzumab-resistant cells. Lower T-DM1 efficacy was associated with a marked reduction of HER2 expression on the cell membrane and its nuclear translocation. HER2 downregulation at the membrane level was confirmed in biopsies of four trastuzumab/pertuzumab-pretreated patients. Among the 371 patients treated with second-line T-DM1, median overall survival (mOS) from diagnosis of advanced disease and median progression-free survival to second-line treatment (mPFS2) were 52 and 6 months in 177 patients who received trastuzumab/pertuzumab in first-line, and 74 and 10 months in 194 pertuzumab-naïve patients (p = 0.0006 and 0.03 for OS and PFS2, respectively)., Conclusions: Our data support the hypothesis that the addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab reduces the amount of available plasma membrane HER2 receptor, limiting the binding of T-DM1 in cancer cells. This may help interpret the less favorable outcomes of second-line T-DM1 in trastuzumab/pertuzumab pre-treated patients compared to their pertuzumab-naïve counterpart.

We analyzed data from 738 HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mbc) patients treated with pertuzumab-based regimens and/or T-DM1 at 45 Italian centers. Outcomes were explored in relation to tumor subtype assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC). The median progression-free survival at first-line (mPFS1) was 12 months. Pertuzumab as first-line conferred longer mPFS1 compared to other first-line treatments (16 vs. 9 months, p = 0.0001), regardless of IHC subtype. Median PFS in second-line (mPFS2) was 7 months, with no difference by IHC subtype, but it was more favorable with T-DM1 compared to other agents (7 vs. 6 months, p = 0.03). There was no PFS2 gain in patients with tumors expressing both hormonal receptors (HRs; p = 0.17), while a trend emerged for tumors with one HR (p = 0.05). Conversely, PFS2 gain was significant in HRs-negative tumors (p = 0.04). Median overall survival (mOS) was 74 months, with no significant differences by IHC subtypes. Survival rates at 2 and 3 years in patients treated with T-DM1 in second-line after pertuzumab were significantly lower compared to pertuzumab-naïve patients (p = 0.01). When analyzed by IHC subtype, the outcome was confirmed if both HRs or no HRs were expressed (p = 0.02 and p = 0.006, respectively). Our results confirm that HRs expression impacts the clinical behavior and novel treatment-related outcomes of HER2-positive tumors when treatment sequences are considered. Moreover, multivariate analysis showed that HRs expression had no effect on PFS and OS. Further studies are warranted to confirm our findings and clarify the interplay between HER2 and estrogen receptor pathways in HER2-positive (mbc) patients., (© 2019 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Background: To provide further information on the clinical and pathological prognostic factors in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), for which limited and inconsistent data are available., Methods: Pathological characteristics and clinical records of 841 TNBCs diagnosed between 1994 and 2015 in four major oncologic centers from Sardinia, Italy, were reviewed. Multivariate hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality and recurrence according to various clinicopathological factors were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models., Results: After a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, 275 (33.3%) TNBC patients had a progression of the disease and 170 (20.2%) died. After allowance for study center, age at diagnosis, and various clinicopathological factors, all components of the TNM staging system were identified as significant independent prognostic factors for TNBC mortality. The HRs were 3.13, 9.65, and 29.0, for stage II, III and IV, respectively, vs stage I. Necrosis and Ki-67 > 16% were also associated with increased mortality (HR: 1.61 and 1.99, respectively). Patients with tumor histotypes other than ductal invasive/lobular carcinomas had a more favorable prognosis (HR: 0.40 vs ductal invasive carcinoma). No significant associations with mortality were found for histologic grade, tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, and lymphovascular invasion. Among lymph node positive TNBCs, lymph node ratio appeared to be a stronger predictor of mortality than pathological lymph nodes stage (HR: 0.80 for pN3 vs pN1, and 3.05 for >0.65 vs <0.21 lymph node ratio), respectively. Consistent results were observed for cancer recurrence, except for Ki-67 and necrosis that were not found to be significant predictors for recurrence., Conclusions: This uniquely large study of TNBC patients provides further evidence that, besides tumor stage at diagnosis, lymph node ratio among lymph node positive tumors is an additional relevant predictor of survival and tumor recurrence, while Ki-67 seems to be predictive of mortality, but not of recurrence.

Background: Activation of oncogenes downstream the EGFR gene contributes to colorectal tumorigenesis and determines the sensitivity to anti-EGFR treatments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of KRAS, BRAF, NRAS and PIK3CA mutations in a large collection of CRC patients from genetically-homogeneous Sardinian population., Methods: A total of 1284 Sardinian patients with histologically-proven diagnosis of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) and presenting with metastatic disease were included into the study. Genomic DNA was isolated from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded primary tumour tissue samples of CRC patients and screened for mutations in RAS and BRAF genes, using pyrosequencing assays, and in PIK3CA gene, using automated DNA sequencing assays., Results: Overall, mutation rates were 35.6 % for KRAS, 4.1 % for NRAS, and 2.1 % for BRAF. Among available DNA samples, 114/796 (14.3 %) primary CRCs were found to carry a mutation in the PIK3CA gene. In this subset of patients analysed in all four genes, a pathogenetic mutation of at least one gene was discovered in about half (378/796; 47.5 %) of CRC cases. A mutated BRAF gene was found to steadily act as a negative prognostic factor for either time to progression as metastatic disease (from detection of primary CRC to diagnosis of first distant metastasis; p = 0.009) or partial survival (from diagnosis of advanced disease to the time of death or last control; p = 0.006) or overall survival (p < 0.001). No significant impact on prognosis was observed for mutated KRAS, NRAS, and PIK3CA genes or combined RAS mutations (all RAS)., Conclusions: Our study defines both prevalence and prognostic role of main activated oncogenes in a population-based large collection of CRC patients.