Search

Background: The monarchE and NATALEE trials demonstrated the benefit of CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) therapy in adjuvant breast cancer (BC) treatment. Patient selection, based on clinical characteristics, delineated those at high (monarchE) and high/intermediate recurrence risk (NATALEE). This study employed a historical patient cohort to describe the proportion and prognosis of patients eligible for adjuvant CDK4/6i trials., Methods: Between 2009 and 2011, 3529 patients were enrolled in the adjuvant PreFace clinical trial (NCT01908556). Eligibility criteria included postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive (HRpos) BC for whom a five-year upfront therapy with letrozole was indicated. Patients were categorized into prognostic groups according to monarchE and NATALEE inclusion criteria, and their invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed., Results: Among 2891 HRpos patients, 384 (13.3 %) met the primary monarchE inclusion criteria. The majority (n = 261) qualified due to having ≥ 4 positive lymph nodes. For NATALEE, 915 out of 2886 patients (31.7 %) met the eligibility criteria, with 126 patients (13.7 %) being node-negative. Patients from monarchE with ≥ 4 positive lymph nodes and NATALEE with stage III BC exhibited the poorest prognosis (3-year iDFS rate 0.87). Patients ineligible for the trials demonstrated prognoses similar to the most favorable patient groups within the eligibility criteria., Conclusion: Patient populations eligible for monarchE and NATALEE trials differed. Nearly a third of the postmenopausal HRpos population, previously under upfront letrozole treatment, met the NATALEE prognostic eligibility criteria. As certain eligible groups had a prognosis similar to non-eligible patients, it might be interesting to explore additional patient groups for CDK4/6i therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: P.A.F. reports grants from Biontech and Cepheid, personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eisai, MSD, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, Roche, Hexal, Agendia, Gilead. C.C.H. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Gilead and MSD, and travel grants from Daiichi-Sankyo. N.N. is an employee of Novartis Pharma GmbH. B.A. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Stemline, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. Received travel grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, Eisai, Stemline, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. Participated in the data safety monitoring board or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. S.K. received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis and Roche. C.T. received honoraria for advisory boards and lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Nanostring, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma, Roche, Seagen, Vifor. H.-C.K. received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, TEVA, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead and Zuellig, travel support from Carl Zeiss Meditec, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Zuellig, and Stemline, participated in data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, SurgVision, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Amgen, Onkowissen, MSD, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Agendia, Lilly and owns stock of Theraclion SA. W.J. has received research grants and/or honoraria from Sanofi-Aventis, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Chugai, GSK, Eisai, Celgene and Johnson&Johnson. A.S. reported grants from Celgene, Roche and AbbVie. Personal fees from Celgene, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, GSK, Bayer, Amgen, and Pierre Fabre, and travel grants from Celgene, Roche, Pfizer and AstraZeneca. F.M. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, CureVac, Eisai, Genomic Health, GSK, Immunomedics, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro. M.W.S. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Clovis, Mylan, Roche, Gedeon Richter, Carl Zeiss Meditec, travel support from Pfizer, Carl Zeiss Meditec. C.J. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Lilly, Novartis and Roche. V.M. received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, iMED Institut. Consultancy honoraria: Roche, Pierre Fabre, PINK, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, Stemline. Institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech, AstraZeneca. Travel grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead. C.R. received honoraria from MSD and AstraZeneca, travel expenses from the Swiss Society of Senology and the Swiss Society of Gynecology. P.D. received honoraria from MSD, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, Roche. E.B. received honoraria from Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Bayer, Ipsen, Bluebird, B. Braun and onkowissen.de for consulting, clinical research management or medical education activities. S.Y.B. has received honoraria from Roche Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, AstraZeneca. T.N.F. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, TEVA, Diachii Sankyo, AstraZeneca and MSD. All of the remaining authors have declared that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In MONALEESA-2, addition of ribociclib to letrozole resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) in postmenopausal women with HR+HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC). RIBociclib for the treatment of advanCed breast CAncer (RIBECCA) study investigated ribociclib plus letrozole in a patient population reflecting routine clinical practice., Patients and Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase 3b study, patients with HR+HER2- ABC not amenable to curative therapy and ECOG performance status ≤ 2 received ribociclib plus letrozole (cohort A: postmenopausal women and men in first-line; cohort B: pre-/perimenopausal women in first-line [B1], patients pretreated for advanced disease [B2]). The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) by week 24; secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), PFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. Association of patient and tumor characteristics with PFS was analyzed by multivariable Cox regression analysis., Results: Overall, 487 patients were evaluable for efficacy, 502 for safety. By week 24, CBR was 60.8 % (95 % CI, 56.3-65.1), ORR was 19.3 % (95 % CI, 15.9-23.1). Median PFS was 21.8 months (95 % CI, 13.9-25.3) in first-line postmenopausal patients and 11.0 months (95 % CI, 8.2-16.4) in premenopausal and pretreated patients. Median OS was not reached. Higher baseline ECOG performance status, higher histological grade, and negative progesterone receptor status showed an unfavorable effect on PFS. Most common adverse events were neutropenia (50.0 %), nausea (42.0 %), and fatigue (39.2 %)., Conclusion: In this broad population of patients with HR+HER2- ABC, efficacy and safety results of ribociclib plus letrozole were similar to those observed in pivotal trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Peter A. Fasching reports personal fees from Novartis, grants from Biontech, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, grants from Cepheid, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from SeaGen, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Hexal, personal fees from Agendia, personal fees from Sanofi Aventis, personal fees from Gilead, during the conduct of the study. Thomas Decker reports being on advisory board with Novartis, Lilly. Andreas Hartkopf reports consulting fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, Seattle Genetics, ExactSiences; honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche; travel expenses from Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca; grants or contracts from ExactSiences; writing Support from Novartis. Arnd Nusch has no conflict of interest to disclose. Bernhard J. Heinrich has received documentation fees from Novartis. Christian M. Kurbacher received grants or contracts from Astra Zeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Immunomedics, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Riemser, Roche, Seattle Genetics; consulting fees from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Riemser, Roche, GSK, Servier; honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, GSK; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Immunomedics, Pfizer, TEVA Oncology; has been on advisory board with Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Onkotrakt, PharmaMar, Riemser, Roche, GSK; has been on board of directors (unpaid) in Berufsverband niedergelassener gynäkologischer Onkologen in Deutschland e. V.(BNGO). Roswitha Fuchs has no conflict of interest to disclose. Hans Tesch has received consulting fees from Pierre Fabre, Pfizer Pharma, Mundipharma, ClinSol, Novartis, Lilly, Grünenthal, Vifor, AstraZeneca, Mylan, Amgen; honoraria from Vifor, Novartis, AstraZeneca, ClinSol, MundiPharma, Lilly, Amgen; travel expenses from Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Mundipharma, ClinSol, Novartis, Lilly, Grünenthal, Vifor, AstraZeneca, Mylan, Amgen; has been on advisory board with Novartis, BMS, Molecular Health GmbH, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Grünenthal, Mylan; has been in leadership or fiduciary role in Arbeitskreis KlinischeStudien e.V., ASCO, BNHO, DGHO, DKG, ESMO, Deutsche Ges. für Senologie. Petra Krabisch has no conflict of interest to disclose. Jens Huober reports research funding from Celgene, Novartis, Hexal; honoraria from Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Celgene, Eisai, Abbvie; consulting/advisory relationship with Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Hexal, AstraZeneca, MSD, Celgene, Abbvie; travel expenses from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Celgene, Daiichi. Sherko Kuemmel reports receiving consulting fees from Lilly, pfm medical, Somatex, MSD; honoraria from Roche, Genomic Health, Novartis, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer; travel expenses from Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Sonoscape; advisory board with Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer; leadership of fiduciary role in WSG (Co Director), AGO, NOGGOe.V, AGimed. Sara Y. Brucker reports receiving honoraria from Storz, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, MSD, AstraZeneca; travel expenses from Storz, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, MSD, AstraZeneca; advisory board with Storz, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, MSD, AstraZeneca. Wolfgang Janni received grants or contracts from Novartis; consulting fees from Novartis; honoraria from Novartis; payment for expert testimony from Novartis; travel expenses from Novartis. Andreas Schneeweiss received writing support from Roche; grants or contracts from Celgene, Roche, AbbVie; consulting fees from Celgene, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly; payment for expert testimony from Roche, AstraZeneca; travel expenses from Celgene, Roche, Pfizer. Martin Schuler reports receiving consultant fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Takeda; honoraria from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Novartis; research funding to institution from AstraZeneca, BMS. Tanja Fehm received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, MSD, TEVA; travel expenses from Daiichi Sankyo, Roche; was on advisory board with Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Pfizer., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pembrolizumab is approved for the neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment of early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients in combination with chemotherapy. The Keynote-522 trial used platinum chemotherapy. As neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel (nP) is also highly effective in triple-negative breast cancer patients, this study investigates the response to nP-containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy in combination with pembrolizumab., Patients and Methods: NeoImmunoboost (AGO-B-041/NCT03289819) is a multicenter, prospective single-arm phase II trial. Patients were treated with 12 weekly cycles of nP followed by four three-weekly cycles of epirubicin/cyclophosphamide. Pembrolizumab was given three-weekly in combination with these chemotherapies. The study was planned for 50 patients. After 25 patients, the study was amended to include a pre-chemotherapy single application of pembrolizumab. The primary aim was pathological complete response (pCR), and the secondary aims were safety and quality of life., Results: Of 50 included patients, 33 (66.0%; 95%confidence interval: 51.2%-78.8%) had a (ypT0/is ypN0) pCR. The pCR rate in the per-protocol population (n = 39) was 71.8% (95%confidence interval: 55.1%-85.0%). The most common adverse events of any grade were fatigue (58.5%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (54.7%) and neutropenia (52.8%). The pCR rate in the cohort of 27 patients with a pre-chemotherapy pembrolizumab dose was 59.3%, and 73.9% in the 23 patients without pre-chemotherapy dose., Conclusions: pCR rates after NACT with nP and anthracycline combined with pembrolizumab are encouraging. With acceptable side-effect profiles, this treatment might be a reasonable alternative to platinum-containing chemotherapy in cases of contraindications. However, without data from randomised trials and long-term follow up, platinum/anthracycline/taxane-based chemotherapy remains the standard combination chemotherapy for pembrolizumab., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer (dnMBC) may have different clinical and pathological characteristics. In studies concerned with first-line metastatic patients, the proportion of these patients without secondary resistance mechanisms may have a large influence ont the study results. The aim of this study was to identify patient and tumor characteristics that are associated with dnMBC vs. recurrent MBC (rMBC)., Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of data prospectively collected in the PRAEGNANT metastatic breast cancer registry (NCT02338167). Firs line treated patients were eligible. Patient and tumor characteristics were compared with common disease and tumor characteristics relative to de novo metastatic status, as well as early and late recurrences after primary disease without metastases., Results: Among the 947 patients identified, 355 were included with de novo metastatic disease (37.5%). Older age and HER2-positive disease were significantly associated with a higher frequency of dnMBC. Patients younger than 50, 50-69, or 70 years or older had dnMBC frequencies of 22.7%, 44.0%, and 57.6%, respectively. HER2-positive patients had dnMBC at initial presentation in 49.1% of cases, in comparison with 21.9%, 35.5%, and 37.6% in patients with triple-negative, luminal A-like and luminal B-like breast cancer, respectively., Conclusion: Age and breast cancer subtype are associated with the frequency of first-line MBC patients. Inclusion criteria concerning age or breast cancer subtype can influence the frequency of these patients in a selected patient population and can therefore modify the number of patients with secondary resistance to specific therapies in clinical trials., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement V.M. has received speaker honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seattle Genetics and consultancy honoraria from Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro and Nektar. A.D.H. has received honoraria from Teva, GenomicHealth, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen and Roche. P.A.F. received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck-Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma and Teva; his institution conducts research with funding from Novartis and Biontech. H.-C.K. has received honoraria from Carl Zeiss meditec, Theraclion, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GSK, SurgVision, Onkowissen and Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, travel support from Tesaro and Daiichi Sankyo and holds stock of Theraclion and Phaon scientific. H.T. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, TEVA, and Pfizer, and travel support from Roche, Celgene, and Pfizer. J.E. has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Tesaro; contracted research from Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Odonate; and travel support from Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and Tesaro. D.L. has received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Teva, Loreal, GSK, MSD, Roche, Astra Zeneca. M.W. received grants from Astra Zeneca, grants from Celgene, grants from Roche, grants from MSD and grants from Novartis during the conduct of the study. E.B. has received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, and onkowissen.de. P.W. has received honoraria for scientific talks or grants from Amgen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Teva, Eisai, Clovis and Tesaro. C.H. has received honoraria from Roche Pharma, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, and Onkovis. C.M.K. received honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Onkotrakt, PharmaMar, Riemser, Roche, Tesaro, Hilotherm, NewCo, research grants from Astra Zeneca, BMS, Immunomedics, MSD Sharp&Dohme (Merck), NewCo, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Reimser, Roche, Seattle Genetics and travel support from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Hexal, Immunomedics, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Tesaro, TEVA Oncology. R.W. has received honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Esai, Exact Science, Nanostring, GSK, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Odonate, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Teva, and Viatris. M.U. has received honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly Deutschland, Lilly Int., MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Odonate, Pfizer, PUMA Biotechnology, Roche Pharma, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland, TEVA Pharmaceuticals Ind Ltd, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Clovis Oncology, and Seattle Genetics. W.J. has received honoraria and research grants from Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Chugai, Astra Zeneca, MSD, and Daiichi-Sankyo. F.A.T. has received honoraria from Hexal, Novartis, Tesaro and travel expenses from GSK. M.P.L. has received honoraria from Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Hexal, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Pierre-Fabre, PharmaMar and medac for advisory boards, lectures, and travel support. S.Y.B. has received honoraria from Roche Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, Astra Zeneca. T.N.F. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, TEVA, Diachii Sankyo, Astra Zeneca and MSD. All remaining others (A.H., P.H., L.H., M.W.B, S.U., J.M., L.A.W., D.W., L.L.M.) have declared that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Predict Breast (www.predict.nhs.uk) is an online prognostication and treatment benefit tool for early invasive breast cancer. The aim of this study was to incorporate the prognostic effect of progesterone receptor (PR) status into a new version of PREDICT and to compare its performance to the current version (2.2)., Method: The prognostic effect of PR status was based on the analysis of data from 45,088 European patients with breast cancer from 49 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the hazard ratio for PR status. Data from a New Zealand study of 11,365 patients with early invasive breast cancer were used for external validation. Model calibration and discrimination were used to test the model performance., Results: Having a PR-positive tumour was associated with a 23% and 28% lower risk of dying from breast cancer for women with oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative and ER-positive breast cancer, respectively. The area under the ROC curve increased with the addition of PR status from 0.807 to 0.809 for patients with ER-negative tumours (p = 0.023) and from 0.898 to 0.902 for patients with ER-positive tumours (p = 2.3 × 10 -6 ) in the New Zealand cohort. Model calibration was modest with 940 observed deaths compared to 1151 predicted., Conclusion: The inclusion of the prognostic effect of PR status to PREDICT Breast has led to an improvement of model performance and more accurate absolute treatment benefit predictions for individual patients. Further studies should determine whether the baseline hazard function requires recalibration., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Inhibitors of the cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6i) have significantly improved clinical outcomes in patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer and have demonstrated favourable antitumour immune responses in preclinical studies., Methods: Here, we investigated peripheral immune responses to ribociclib in patients with metastatic HR+ breast cancer as a preplanned exploratory subanalysis of the RIBECCA trial (NCT03096847). Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were subjected to immune cell profiling, gene expression analysis of immune-related signatures, and deep T cell receptor profiling before treatment started and after 12 weeks of treatment with ribociclib., Results: Gene expression analysis revealed an upregulation of signatures associated with an activated adaptive immune system and a decrease in immunosuppressive cytokine signalling during treatment with ribociclib. Profiling of peripheral immune cell subpopulations showed a decrease in Treg cell frequencies, which was associated with treatment response. Furthermore, induction of CD4+ naive T cells could be seen, whereas effector and memory T cell populations remained largely unchanged. Correspondingly, T cell repertoire diversity remained mostly unchanged during treatment, although an increase in clonality could be observed in single patients., Conclusions: We show that treatment with ribociclib has significant effects on the peripheral innate and adaptive immune response in patients with HR+ breast cancer. Our data suggest that these effects lead to an activation of an already existing immune response rather than a de novo induction and make a strong case for future combination strategies of CDK4/6i with immunotherapies to enhance the adaptive immune response in HR+ 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: SB, TD, PF, TF, WJ, SK, AS, MS and DL are members of the RIBECCA trial consortium and received speaker and advisory board honoraria from Novartis for work related to the RIBECCA study. CAP received speaker honoraria from Novartis for work unrelated to this manuscript. UK received speaker and advisory board honoraria from Novartis for work unrelated to this manuscript. The other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The GAIN-2 trial was designed to identify a superior intense dose-dense (idd) strategy for high-risk patients with early breast cancer. Here, we report an interim analysis, at which the predefined futility boundary was crossed., Patients and Methods: GAIN-2 was an open-label, randomised, multicentre phase III trial. Two thousand eight hundred and eighty seven patients were randomised 1:1 between three courses each of idd epirubicin (E) 150 mg/m 2 , nab-paclitaxel (nP) 330 mg/m 2 and cyclophosphamide (C) 2000 mg/m 2 (iddEnPC) versus four cycles of leucocyte nadir-based tailored and dose-dense EC (dtEC) followed by four cycles of tailored and dose-dense docetaxel (dtD) (dtEC-dtD)., Results: The duration of median follow-up was 45.8 (range 0.0-88.3) months. Trial objectives included invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) as the primary end-point. A total of 593 patients received the treatment as neoadjuvant chemotherapy. At the time of futility interim analysis, 414 events for iDFS were reported. Overall, there was no difference in iDFS between iddEnPC and dtEC-dtD with 4-year iDFS rates of 84.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 82.0-86.4%). Among all predefined subgroups, hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-), lobular cancer and ≤50 years subgroups predicted for better iDFS in the dtEC-dtD arm. Overall, 88.1% of patients completed all treatment in both arms. Haematological toxicity grade 3/4 and grade 3/4 non-haematological adverse events were significantly higher with iddEnPC (iddEnPC 50.8% vs dtEC-dtD 45.1%, P = 0.002), especially arthralgia and peripheral sensory neuropathy. Two treatment-related deaths occurred during dtEC-dtD, corresponding to a low mortality rate of 0.07%., Conclusions: iDFS is equal in both regimens, but tailoring dose-dense chemotherapy improved outcomes in HR+/HER2-, lobular cancer and patients ≤50 years., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: AS reports grants from Celgene, grants from Roche, grants from AbbVie, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Pfizer, other from Roche, outside the submitted work; CD reports personal fees from Novartis, Roche, MSD Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, grants from Myriad Genetics, other from Sividon Diagnostics/Myriad, outside the submitted work and has a patent EP18209672 pending, a patent EP20150702464 pending and a patent Software (VMscope digital pathology) pending. CJ reports honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Novartis, Genomic Health and Amgen; compensation for consulting and advisory role from Roche, Novartis and Pfizer; travel expenses from Roche, Astra Zeneca and Genomic Health; CS reports compensation for consulting and advisory role from Olympus, Hologic; and travel expenses from imed, MedConcept, Medtronic, Diaglog Service, Mentor, mylan, GBG and Pfizer; ES reports honoraria from Roche, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, ESAI, Tesaro and MSD; compensation for consulting and advisory role from Roche and Tesaro; and travel expenses from Roche and Pfizer; FM reports personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Tesaro, Novartis, Amgen, PharmaMar, GenomicHealth, CureVac, EISAI, Celgene, Clovis, Janssen-Cilag, Immunomedics, GSK, MSD, Seagen and Lilly outside the submitted work; JH reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees and other from Pfizer, personal fees and other from Roche, personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Eisai, other from Daichii, grants, personal fees and other from Celgene, personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Hexal, outside the submitted work; JUB reports personal fees from AMGEN, personal fees from ASTRA Zeneca, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from SonoScape, from Sysmex, outside the submitted work; MR reports honoraria from MSD, Astra Zeneca, Lilly, Novartis and SOMATEX; compensation for consulting and advisory role from Roche, Novartis, MSD, Astra Zeneca and Lilly; and travel expenses from Pfizer, Novartis and Celgene; MU reports honoraria paid to his employer by Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Daiji Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Aventis and PUMA Biotechnology; compensation for consulting and advisory role to the employer from Amgen, Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Daiji Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Odonate, Pfizer, Roche, PUMA Biotechnology, Sanofi Aventis and Teva; SL reports grants and other from Roche during the conduct of the study; grants and other from Abbvie, grants and other from Amgen, grants and other from Celgene, grants and non-financial support from Immunomedics, grants and other from Novartis, grants and other from Pfizer, other from Seattle Genetics, other from PriME/Medscape, personal fees from Chugai, grants from Teva, grants from Vifor, grants and other from Daiichi-Sankyo, other from Lilly, other from Samsung, other from EirGenix, other from BMS, other from Puma, other from MSD and grants and other from AstraZeneca outside the submitted work; In addition, SL has a patent EP14153692.0 pending. TL reports honoraria from Lilly, Teva, Tesaro, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Amgen and Clovis; compensation for consulting and advisory role from Lilly, Roche, Tesaro, Amgen and MSD; travel expenses from Roche, Pfizer and Celgene; VM reports speaker honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Roche, TEVA and consultancy honoraria from Roche, Amgen, Tesaro and Myelo Therapeutics; WJ reports grants and personal fees from Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Chugai and AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Assessment of HER2 overexpression using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or in situ hybridisation (ISH) for the detection of HER2 amplifications is standard to identify patients for established HER2-directed treatments. Patients with lower HER2 expression levels have recently also become candidates for novel therapies targeting HER2. This study aimed to assess tumour and patient characteristics and prognosis in patients with advanced breast cancer (aBC), relative to low HER2 expression levels., Methods: PRAEGNANT is a prospective aBC registry (NCT02338167), focusing on molecular biomarkers. Patients in all therapy lines receiving any kind of treatment are eligible. This analysis includes patients with conventionally HER2-negative aBC. Clinical outcome was compared in the groups with no (IHC score 0) or with low HER2 expression (IHC 1+, or IHC 2+/ISH negative)., Results: Low HER2 expression levels in triple-negative aBC patients did not influence progression-free survival. Overall survival appeared poorer in patients with IHC 2+ compared with patients with no HER2 expression in the unadjusted analysis (hazard ratio 2.24, 95% confidence interval 0.1.12-4.47). However, this effect was not maintained in the adjusted analysis. In HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive patients, low HER2 expression appeared to have no effect on prognosis, neither progression-free survival nor overall survival., Conclusions: We could not demonstrate that HER2 expression at a low level and assessed in clinical routine can differentiate patients into prognostic groups. However, the prevalence of patients with a low expression makes this population interesting for clinical trials with potentially active treatments using HER2 as a target., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: A.D.H. has received honoraria from Teva, GenomicHealth, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; J.E. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Pfizer; M.P.L. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Lilly, Roche, MSD, Hexal, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eisai, medac and Exact Sciences for advisory boards, lectures and travel support; B.V. has received honoraria from Novartis; F.A.T. has received honoraria from Hexal, Novartis, Tesaro and travel expenses from GSK; F.O. received speaker and consultancy honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Cellex, Chugai, Gilead, Hexal, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Riemser, Roche, Tesaro and Teva; P.H. received honoraria, unrestricted educational grants and research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; H.T. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, TEVA and Pfizer, and travel support from Roche, Celgene and Pfizer; J.E. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Pfizer; D.L. has received honoraria from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Hexal, Novartis, AstraZeneca, TEVA, Celgene, Eisai, and Loreal. M.W. has received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene and Novartis; V.M. has received speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seattle Genetics and consultancy honoraria from Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro and Nektar; E.B. has received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo and onkowissen.de; C.H. has received honoraria from Roche Pharma, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis and Onkovis; C.M.K. received honoraria from Amgen, Axios, Roche, Teva, Novartis, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, NewCo, Pfizer, Riemser and ZytoService, research grants from Amgen, Axios, Novartis, MSD Sharp & Dohme, NewCo, Pfizer and ZytoService, and travel support from Amgen, Paxman Inc., PharmaMar and Pfizer; R.W. has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Esai, Exact Science, Nanostring, GSK, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Odonate, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Teva and Viatris; C.T. has received honoraria from Roche, Daiichi-Sankyo and AstraZeneca; M.U. has received honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly Deutschland, Lilly Int., MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Odonate, Pfizer, PUMA Biotechnology, Roche Pharma, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland, TEVA Pharmaceuticals Ind Ltd, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Clovis Oncology and Seattle Genetics; P.A.F. received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck-Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma and Teva, his institution conducts research with funding from Novartis and Biontech; W.J. has received honoraria and research grants from Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Chugai, AstraZeneca, MSD and Daiichi-Sankyo; T.N.F. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, TEVA, Diachii Sankyo, AstraZeneca and MSD; S.Y.B. has received honoraria from Roche Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva and AstraZeneca. A.S. has received honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed GmbH, Celgene, ClinSol Research GmbH, Connectmedica Sp.Z o.o., Deutsche Gesellschaft für Senologie GmbH, if-kongress management gmbh, I-MED Institute GmbH, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Medicultus GmbH, med publico GmbH, MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, onkowissen.de GmbH, Pfizer GmbH, Schattauer Verlag GmbH, Promedicis GmbH, Tesaro Bio Germany GmbH and W. Zuckschwerdt Verlag GmbH; H.-C.K. has received honoraria from Carl Zeiss Meditec, Theraclion, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GSK, SurgVision, Onkowissen and Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, travel support from Tesaro and Daiichi-Sankyo and holds stock of Theraclion and Phaon scientific. All remaining others (A.H., L.H., L.A.W., M.W.B., P.W., D.W.) have declared that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Presence of disseminated tumour cells (DTCs) in the bone marrow (BM) has been described as a surrogate of residual disease in patients with early breast cancer (EBC). PADDY (Pooled Analysis of DTC Detection in Early Breast Cancer) is a large international analysis of pooled data that aimed to assess the prognostic impact of DTCs in patients with EBC., Experimental Design: Individual patient data were collected from 11 centres. Patients with EBC and available follow-up data in whom BM sampling was performed at the time of primary diagnosis before receiving any anticancer treatment were eligible. DTCs were identified by antibody staining against epithelial cytokeratins. Multivariate Cox regression was used to compare the survival of DTC-positive versus DTC-negative patients., Results: In total, 10,307 patients were included. Of these, 2814 (27.3%) were DTC-positive. DTC detection was associated with higher tumour grade, larger tumour size, nodal positivity, oestrogen receptor and progesterone receptor negativity, and HER2 positivity (all p < 0.001). Multivariate analyses showed that DTC detection was an independent prognostic marker for overall survival, disease-free survival and distant disease-free survival with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of 1.23 (95% CI: 1.06-1.43, p = 0.006), 1.30 (95% CI: 1.12-1.52, p < 0.001) and 1.30 (95% CI: 1.08-1.56, p = 0.006), respectively. There was no association between locoregional relapse-free survival and DTC detection (HR 1.21; 95% CI 0.68-2.16; p = 0.512)., Conclusions: DTCs in the BM represent an independent prognostic marker in patients with EBC. The heterogeneous metastasis-initiating potential of DTCs is consistent with the concept of cancer dormancy., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: ADH, FAT and SYB report a grant from Exact Sciences. TNF received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Esai, Tesaro, Teva, Celgene, Daichi Sankyo, MSD, Menarini. PAF reports grants from Cepheid, Novartis and Biontech, personal fees from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, TEVA, Astra Zeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Myelo Therapeutics, Macrogenics, Eisai, Puma and Lilly. CAK is a member of the SAB of HiberCell, New York. All other authors declare no potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Endocrine treatment (ET) with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) is the treatment of choice in post-menopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer (EBC). However, adverse events (AEs) often lead to treatment discontinuation. This analysis aimed to identify side-effects that lead to patients failing to persist with letrozole treatment., Patients and Methods: Post-menopausal hormone receptor-positive EBC patients starting ET with letrozole were enroled in EvAluate-TM, a non-interventional study. Information regarding treatment compliance and persistence was gathered in months 6 and 12. Persistence was defined as the time from 30 d after the start to the end of treatment. The influence on persistence of musculoskeletal syndrome, menopausal disorder, sleep disorder and other AEs within the first 30 d was analysed using Cox regression analyses., Results: Among 3887 patients analysed, the persistence rate after 12 months was >85%. In all, 568 patients (14.6%) discontinued the treatment, 358 of whom (63.0%) did so only because of side-effects. The main AEs influencing persistence were musculoskeletal symptoms (hazard ratio [HR] 2.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.90-3.42), sleep disorders (HR 1.95; 95% CI, 1.41-2.70) and other AEs (HR 2.03; 95% CI, 1.51-2.73). Menopausal disorder was not associated with non-persistence (HR 1.17; 95% CI, 0.74-1.84)., Conclusions: These results suggest that side-effects of AIs such as musculoskeletal syndrome and sleep disorder lead to ET discontinuation within the first treatment year in significant numbers of EBC patients. Compliance programmes adapted for subgroups that are at risk for early non-persistence might help to ensure the recommended therapy duration., Clinical Trials Number: CFEM345DDE19., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

There is increasing evidence that breast cancer evolves over time under the selection pressure of systemic treatment. Today, treatment decisions in early breast cancer are based on primary tumour characteristics without considering the disease evolution. Chemoresistant micrometastatic disease is poorly characterised and thus it is not used in current clinical practice as a tool to personalise treatment approaches. The detection of chemoresistant circulating tumour cells (CTCs) has been shown to be associated with worse prognosis in early breast cancer. The ongoing Treat CTC trial is the first international, liquid biopsy-based trial evaluating the concept of targeting chemoresistant minimal residual disease: detection of CTCs following adjuvant chemotherapy (adjuvant cohort) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients who did not achieve pathological complete response (neoadjuvant cohort). This article presents the rational and design of this trial and the results of the pilot phase after 350 patients have been screened and provides insights that might provide information for future trials using the liquid biopsy approach as a tool towards precision medicine (NCT01548677)., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Adjuvant chemotherapy has changed dramatically in the last decades. Anthracycline-/Taxane-based and dose-dense chemotherapy regimens improved survival in node positive breast cancer. This study tries to answer the following questions:, Methods: This is a German multi-centre (17 participating hospitals all certified as breast cancer centres) retrospective cohort study. We included patients that received CMF-like (CMF) (n=1308), Anthracycline-based (A) (1046), Anthracycline-Taxane-based (AT) (1110) and dose-dense chemotherapy (DD) (213) into this analysis., Results: In case of N0 and 1-3 pos LN we did not observe statistically significant differences in overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between CMF/A/AT and (for 1-3 pos LN) DD. In the group of 4-10 pos LN we observe an improvement by the use of AT-based chemotherapy, which cannot further be improved by DD chemotherapy. However in the highest risk group, defined as ⩾11 pos LN, we observed a statistically significant improvement in survival by the use of DD chemotherapy. Also a statistically slightly non-significant trend towards improvement of survival parameters by the use of DD compared to AT chemotherapy could be observed. Only for G3 subtypes we could observe a survival benefit for DD. These results remain consistent after exclusion of non-guideline adherent patients (surgery, radiotherapy and endocrine therapy) in order to reduce the bias of guideline violations in other adjuvant treatment modalities., Conclusion: DD chemotherapy is associated with improved survival parameters in patients with ⩾11 positive LN., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The German, Austrian and Swiss (D.A.CH) Societies of Senology gathered together in 2012 to address dwelling questions regarding axillary clearance in breast cancer patients. The Consensus Panel consisted of 14 members of these societies and included surgical oncologists, gynaecologists, pathologists and radiotherapists. With regard to omitting axillary lymph node dissection in sentinel lymph node macrometastases, the Panel consensually accepted this option for low-risk patients only. A simple majority voted against extending radiotherapy to the axilla after omitting axillary dissection in N1 disease. Consensus was yielded for the use of axillary ultrasound and prospective registers for such patients in the course of follow-up. The questions regarding neoadjuvant therapy and the timing of sentinel lymph node biopsy failed to yield consensus, yet both options (before or after) are possible in clinically node-negative disease., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Recent single-institution reports have shown increased mastectomy rates during the last decade. Further studies aiming to determine if these reports could be reflecting a national trend in the United States of America (US) have shown conflicting results. We report these trends from a multi-institutional European database., Patients and Methods: Our source of data was the eusomaDB, a central data warehouse of prospectively collected information of the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA). We identified patients with newly diagnosed unilateral early-stage breast cancer (stages 0, I or II) to examine rates and trends in surgical treatment., Results: A total of 15,369 early-stage breast cancer cases underwent surgery in 13 Breast Units from 2003 to 2010. Breast conservation was successful in 11,263 cases (73.3%). Adjusted trend by year showed a statistically significant decrease in mastectomy rates from 2005 to 2010 (p = 0.003) with a progressive reduction of 4.24% per year. A multivariate model showed a statistically significant association of the following factors with mastectomy: age < 40 or ≥ 70 years, pTis, pT1mi, positive axillary nodes, lobular histology, tumour grade II and III, negative progesterone receptors and multiple lesions., Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that a high proportion of patients with newly diagnosed unilateral early-stage breast cancer from the eusomaDB underwent breast-conserving surgery. It also shows a significant trend of decreasing mastectomy rates from 2005 to 2010. Moreover, our study suggests mastectomy rates in the population from the eusomaDB are lower than those reported in the US., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)