Search

Fertility issues are of great concern for young women undergoing treatment for breast cancer (BC). Fertility preservation (FP) protocols using controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with letrozole have been widely used with overall good results. However, letrozole cannot be used in every country in this context. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of tamoxifen for COS in women with early BC undergoing FP. This multicentric prospective study included patients aged 18–40, diagnosed with stage I, II and III invasive BC, undergoing tamoxifen-COS before adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The primary endpoint was the efficacy of tamoxifen-COS protocol evaluated by the number of oocytes collected and vitrified. Secondary endpoints included the time interval before chemotherapy, breast cancer (BC) recurrence rates, and reproductive outcomes. Ninety-five patients were included between 2014 and 2017, aged 31.5 ± 4 years on average. 37.9 % received NAC and 62.1 % received adjuvant chemotherapy. FP procedure was successful in 89.5 % of the cycles. The mean number of collected and vitrified oocytes was 12.8 ± 7.9 and 9.8 ± 6.2, respectively. The mean duration of COS was 10.4 ± 1.9 days. Median time before chemotherapy initiation was 3.6 weeks (IQR 3.1; 4.1) for women receiving NAC. Five-year relapse-free and overall survival rates were in-line with those expected in this population. Twenty-one women had spontaneous full-term pregnancies, while 5 underwent IVF cycles with frozen-thawed oocytes, without pregnancy. Tamoxifen-COS protocols appear to be feasible before adjuvant or NAC treatment in young BC patients and efficient in terms of oocyte yield. • Fertility issues are of great concern for young women undergoing treatment for breast cancer. • In breast cancer (BC) patients, international guidelines advocate for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) or tamoxifen. • AI are not permitted in this indication in some countries and efficacy of tamoxifen-COS have been less evaluated at the time of initiating the study. • In this observational prospective study, 95 young women underwent tamoxifene-COS before BC chemotherapy and were followed for a period of 5 years. • Tamoxifen-COS protocols are feasible before adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy in young BC patients, and appear to be efficient in terms of oocyte yield. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/objectives: Nearly 10% of cancers could be prevented through dietary changes. In addition, breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in women worldwide. Inadequate diet may lead to several metabolic abnormalities, including metabolic syndrome (MS). The goal of our study is to evaluate the link between survival after BC and MS, as well as diet lipids and circulating lipids., Methods: This study was performed in an early-stage BC cohort (n = 73): MS, dietary lipids, and circulating biological parameters, including leucocyte expression in cholesterol carriers (ATP-binding cassette transporter ABCA1, ABCG1), were determined before any medication intervention. The data of each patient were analyzed using univariate logistic regression and are expressed by HR, 95%CI [5th-95th]. All these parameters were explored with survival parameters using Cox regression analyses., Results: Overall survival (OS) and invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) were significantly longer for the women without metabolic syndrome with HR 4.7 [1.11-19.92] and p = 0.036, and 3.58 [1.23-10.44] and p = 0.019, respectively. The expression of ABCG1 in peripheral leucocytes, an ATP-binding cassette transporter involved in cholesterol and phospholipid trafficking, is significantly associated with iDFS (1.38 [1.1-1.9], p = 0.0048). MS is associated with more pejorative survival parameters in early-stage breast cancer. Paraoxonase (or PON) activities differ according to PON gene polymorphism, but also diet. A link between PON activities and survival parameters was suggested and needs to be clarified., Conclusions: This study emphasizes the link between survival parameters of early-stage breast cancer, metabolic syndrome, and some parameters related to lipid metabolism.

Purpose: Long-term treatment-related toxicities, such as neurologic and metabolic toxicities, are major issues in breast cancer. We investigated the interest of metabolomic profiling to predict toxicities., Experimental Design: Untargeted high-resolution metabolomic profiles of 992 patients with estrogen receptor (ER)+/HER2- breast cancer from the prospective CANTO cohort were acquired (n = 1935 metabolites). A residual-based modeling strategy with discovery and validation cohorts was used to benchmark machine learning algorithms, taking into account confounding variables., Results: Adaptive Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection (adaptive LASSO) has a good predictive performance, has limited optimism bias, and allows the selection of metabolites of interest for future translational research. The addition of low-frequency metabolites and nonannotated metabolites increases the predictive power. Metabolomics adds extra performance to clinical variables to predict various neurologic and metabolic toxicity profiles., Conclusions: Untargeted high-resolution metabolomics allows better toxicity prediction by considering environmental exposure, metabolites linked to microbiota, and low-frequency metabolites., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Patients with IDH-mutant 1p/19q-codeleted grade 3 oligodendroglioma (O3 IDHmt/Codel ) benefit from adding alkylating agent chemotherapy to radiotherapy (RT). However, the optimal chemotherapy regimen between procarbazine, 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU), and vincristine (PCV) and temozolomide (TMZ) remains unclear given the lack of randomized trial data comparing both regimens., Methods: The objective was to assess the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) associated with first-line PCV/RT versus TMZ/RT in patients newly diagnosed with O3 IDHmt/Codel . We included patients with histologically proven O3 IDHmt/Codel (according to WHO criteria) from the French national prospective cohort Prise en charge des OLigodendrogliomes Anaplasiques (POLA). All tumors underwent central pathological review. OS and PFS from surgery were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model., Results: 305 newly diagnosed patients with O3 IDHmt/Codel treated with RT and chemotherapy between 2008 and 2022 were included, of which 67.9% of patients (n = 207) were treated with PCV/RT and 32.1% with TMZ/RT (n = 98). The median follow-up was 78.4 months (IQR, 44.3-102.7). The median OS was not reached (95% CI, Not reached [NR] to NR) in the PCV/RT group and was 140 months (95% CI, 110 to NR) in the TMZ/RT group (log-rank P = .0033). On univariable analysis, there was a significant difference in favor of PCV/RT in both 5-year (PCV/RT: 89%, 95% CI, 85 to 94; TMZ/RT: 75%, 95% CI, 66 to 84) and 10-year OS (PCV/RT: 72%, 95% CI, 61 to 85; TMZ/RT: 60%, 95% CI, 49 to 73), which was confirmed using the multivariable Cox model adjusted for age, type of surgery, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and CDKN2A homozygous deletion (hazard ratio, 0.53 for PCV/RT, 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.92, P = .025)., Conclusion: In patients with newly diagnosed O3 IDHmt/Codel from the POLA cohort, first-line PCV/RT was associated with better OS outcomes compared with TMZ/RT. Our data suggest that the improved safety profile associated with TMZ comes at the cost of inferior efficacy in this population. Further investigation using prospective randomized studies is warranted.

Background: Robust molecular subtyping of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a prerequisite for the success of precision medicine. Today, there is a clear consensus on three TNBC molecular subtypes: luminal androgen receptor (LAR), basal-like immune-activated (BLIA), and basal-like immune-suppressed (BLIS). However, the debate about the robustness of other subtypes is still open., Methods: An unprecedented number (n = 1942) of TNBC patient data was collected. Microarray- and RNAseq-based cohorts were independently investigated. Unsupervised analyses were conducted using k-means consensus clustering. Clusters of patients were then functionally annotated using different approaches. Prediction of response to chemotherapy and targeted therapies, immune checkpoint blockade, and radiotherapy were also screened for each TNBC subtype., Results: Four TNBC subtypes were identified in the cohort: LAR (19.36%); mesenchymal stem-like (MSL/MES) (17.35%); BLIA (31.06%); and BLIS (32.23%). Regarding the MSL/MES subtype, we suggest renaming it to mesenchymal-like immune-altered (MLIA) to emphasize its specific histological background and nature of immune response. Treatment response prediction results show, among other things, that despite immune activation, immune checkpoint blockade is probably less or completely ineffective in MLIA, possibly caused by mesenchymal background and/or an enrichment in dysfunctional cytotoxic T lymphocytes. TNBC subtyping results were included in the bc-GenExMiner v5.0 webtool ( http://bcgenex.ico.unicancer.fr )., Conclusion: The mesenchymal TNBC subtype is characterized by an exhausted and altered immune response, and resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Consensus for molecular classification of TNBC subtyping and prediction of cancer treatment responses helps usher in the era of precision medicine for TNBC patients., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Japanese Breast Cancer Society.)

Triple negative breast cancers (TNBC) present a poor prognosis primarily due to their resistance to chemotherapy. This resistance is known to be associated with elevated expression of certain anti-apoptotic members within the proteins of the BCL-2 family (namely BCL-xL, MCL-1 and BCL-2). These regulate cell death by inhibiting pro-apoptotic protein activation through binding and sequestration and they can be selectively antagonized by BH3 mimetics. Yet the individual influences of BCL-xL, MCL-1, and BCL-2 on the sensitivity of TNBC cells to chemotherapy, and their regulation by cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), major components of the tumor stroma and key contributors to therapy resistance remain to be delineated. Using gene editing or BH3 mimetics to inhibit anti-apoptotic BCL-2 family proteins in TNBC line MDA-MB-231, we show that BCL-xL and MCL-1 promote cancer cell survival through compensatory mechanisms. This cell line shows limited sensitivity to chemotherapy, in line with the clinical resistance observed in TNBC patients. We elucidate that BCL-xL plays a pivotal role in therapy response, as its depletion or pharmacological inhibition heightened chemotherapy effectiveness. Moreover, BCL-xL expression is associated with chemotherapy resistance in patient-derived tumoroids where its pharmacological inhibition enhances ex vivo response to chemotherapy. In a co-culture model of cancer cells and CAFs, we observe that even in a context where BCL-xL reduced expression renders cancer cells more susceptible to chemotherapy, those in contact with CAFs display reduced sensitivity to chemotherapy. Thus CAFs exert a profound pro-survival effect in breast cancer cells, even in a setting highly favoring cell death through combined chemotherapy and absence of the main actor of chemoresistance, BCL-xL., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Circadian rhythms regulate cellular physiology and could influence the efficacy of endocrine therapy (ET) in breast cancer (BC). We prospectively tested this hypothesis within the UNIRAD adjuvant phase III trial (NCT01805271)., Methods: 1278 patients with high-risk hormonal receptor positive (HR+)/HER2 negative (HER2-) primary BC were randomly assigned to adjuvant ET with placebo or everolimus. Patients prospectively reported in a diary the daily timing of ET intake among four 6-h slots (06:00-11:59 (morning), 12:00-17:59 (afternoon), 18:00-23:59 (evening), or 24:00-05:59 (nighttime). The association between ET timing and disease-free survival (DFS) was a prespecified secondary endpoint of the trial and the results of this observational study are reported here., Findings: ET timing was recorded by 855 patients (67.2%). Patients declaring morning (n = 465, 54.4%) or afternoon (n = 45, 5.4%) ET intake were older than those declaring evening (n = 339, 39.6%) or nighttime (n = 5, 0.6%) intake. With a median follow-up of 46.7 months, 118 patients had a local (n = 30) or metastasis relapse (n = 84), and 41 patients died. ET intake timing was not associated with DFS in the whole population (HR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.53-1.12]). The association between ET intake timing and DFS according to the stratification factors revealed interactions with ET agent (tamoxifen versus Aromatase inhibitors (AI) with an increased DFS in the group of evening/nighttime versus morning/afternoon tamoxifen intake (HR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.22-0.85]), while no association was found for AI intake (HR = 1.07, 95% CI [0.68-1.69]). The interaction between ET intake timing and ET agent remained in multivariable analysis (HR = 0.38 [0.16-0.91])., Interpretation: Tamoxifen intake in the evening/nighttime could be recommended in patients with high-risk HR+/HER2- BC while awaiting for results from further ET timing studies., Funding: UNIRAD was Supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health PHRC 2012 and received funding from La Ligue contre le Cancer, Cancer Research-UK, Myriad Genetics, and Novartis., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The authors declared no competing interest with this study. Dr Giacchetti declared travel expenses from MSD and Novartis to SABCS 2022 meeting and ASCO 2023 meeting where these data were presented (SABCS 2022 Abstract 1,305,036; ASCO 2023 Abstract 412,092)., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Previous studies have reported the benefit of dual HER2-targeting combined to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-amplified breast cancer (HER2 + BC). Moreover, besides the cardiac toxicity following their association to Trastuzumab, anthracyclines chemotherapy may not profit all patients. The NeoTOP study was designed to evaluate the complementary action of Trastuzumab and Pertuzumab, and the relevance of an anthracycline-based regimen according to TOP2A amplification status., Methods: Open-label, multicentre, phase II study. Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 with untreated, operable, histologically confirmed HER2 + BC. After centralized review of TOP2A status, TOP2A-amplified (TOP2A+) patients received FEC100 for 3 cycles then 3 cycles of Trastuzumab (8 mg/kg then 6 mg/kg), Pertuzumab (840 mg/kg then 420 mg/kg), and Docetaxel (75mg/m 2 then 100mg/m 2 ). TOP2A-not amplified (TOP2A-) patients received 6 cycles of Docetaxel (75mg/m 2 ) and Carboplatin (target AUC 6 mg/ml/min) plus Trastuzumab and Pertuzumab. Primary endpoint was pathological Complete Response (pCR) using Chevallier's classification. Secondary endpoints included pCR (Sataloff), Progression-Free Survival (PFS), Overall Survival (OS), and toxicity., Results: Out of 74 patients, 41 and 33 were allocated to the TOP2A + and TOP2A- groups respectively. pCR rates (Chevallier) were 74.4% (95%CI: 58.9-85.4) vs. 71.9% (95%CI: 54.6-84.4) in the TOP2A + vs. TOP2A- groups. pCR rates (Sataloff), 5-year PFS and OS were 70.6% (95%CI: 53.8-83.2) vs. 61.5% (95%CI: 42.5-77.6), 82.4% (95%CI: 62.2-93.6) vs. 100% (95%CI: 74.1-100), and 90% (95%CI: 69.8-98.3) vs. 100% (95%CI: 74.1-100). Toxicity profile was consistent with previous reports., Conclusion: Our results showed high pCR rates with Trastuzumab and Pertuzumab associated to chemotherapy. They were similar in TOP2A + and TOP2A- groups and the current role of neoadjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy remains questioned., Trial Registration Number: NCT02339532 (registered on 14/12/14)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Longer times between diagnosis and treatments of cancer patients have been estimated as effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, relatively few studies attempted to estimate actual delay to treatment at the patient level., Objective: To assess changes in delays to first treatment and surgery among newly diagnosed patients with localized breast cancer (BC) during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: We used data from the PAPESCO-19 multicenter cohort study, which included patients from 4 French comprehensive cancer centers. We measured the delay to first treatment as the number of days between diagnosis and the first treatment regardless of whether this was neoadjuvant chemotherapy or surgery. COVID-19 pandemic exposure was estimated with a composite index that considered both the severity of the pandemic and the level of lockdown restrictions. We ran generalized linear models with a log link function and a gamma distribution to model the association between delay and the pandemic., Results: Of the 187 patients included in the analysis, the median delay to first treatment was 42 (IQR:32-54) days for patients diagnosed before and after the start of the 1st lockdown (N = 99 and 88, respectively). After adjusting for age and centers of inclusion, a higher composite pandemic index (> = 50 V.S. <50) had only a small, non-significant effect on times to treatment. Longer delays were associated with factors other than the COVID-19 pandemic., Conclusion: We found evidence of no direct impact of the pandemic on the actual delay to treatment among patients with localized BC., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest with this research., (Copyright: © 2024 Zhou et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Purpose: To identify potential predictors of response and resistance mechanisms in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor abemaciclib ± endocrine therapy (ET), baseline and acquired genomic alterations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) were analyzed and associated with clinical outcomes., Experimental Design: MONARCH 3: postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC and no prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting were randomly assigned to abemaciclib or placebo plus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI). nextMONARCH: women with HR+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer that progressed on/after prior ET and chemotherapy were randomly assigned to abemaciclib alone (two doses) or plus tamoxifen. Baseline and end-of-treatment plasma samples from patients in MONARCH 3 and nextMONARCH (monotherapy arms) were analyzed to identify somatic genomic alterations. Association between genomic alterations and median progression-free survival (mPFS) was assessed., Results: Most patients had ≥1 genomic alteration detected in baseline ctDNA. In MONARCH 3, abemaciclib+NSAI was associated with improved mPFS versus placebo+NSAI, regardless of baseline alterations. ESR1 alterations were less frequently acquired in the abemaciclib+NSAI arm than placebo+NSAI. Acquired alterations potentially associated with resistance to abemaciclib ± NSAI included RB1 and MYC., Conclusions: In MONARCH 3, certain baseline ctDNA genomic alterations were prognostic for ET but not predictive of abemaciclib response. Further studies are warranted to assess whether ctDNA alterations acquired during abemaciclib treatment differ from other CDK4/6 inhibitors. Findings are hypothesis generating; further exploration is warranted into mechanisms of resistance to abemaciclib and ET. See related commentary by Wander and Bardia, p. 2008., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Most women with advanced breast cancer have skeletal metastases. Radium-223 is an alpha-emitting radionuclide that selectively targets areas of bone metastases., Methods: Two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of radium-223 were conducted in women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), bone-predominant metastatic breast cancer. All patients received endocrine therapy (ET), as a single agent of the investigator's choice (Study A) or exemestane + everolimus (Study B). Patients were randomized to receive radium-223 (55 kBq/kg) or placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for six doses. Accrual was halted following unblinded interim analyses per protocol amendments, and both studies were terminated. We report pooled analyses of symptomatic skeletal event-free survival (SSE-FS; primary endpoint), radiologic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS; secondary), and time to bone alkaline phosphatase (ALP) progression (exploratory)., Results: In total, 382 patients were enrolled, and 196 SSE-FS events (70% planned total) were recorded. Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) and nominal p values for radium-223 + ET versus placebo + ET were: SSE-FS 0.809 (0.610-1.072), p = 0.1389; rPFS 0.956 (0.759-1.205), p = 0.7039; OS 0.889 (0.660-1.199), p = 0.4410; and time to bone ALP progression 0.593 (0.379-0.926), p = 0.0195. Radium-223- or placebo-related treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 50.3% versus 35.1% of patients (grade 3/4: 25.7% vs. 8.5%), with fractures/bone-associated events in 23.5% versus 23.9%., Conclusions: In patients with HR+ bone-metastatic breast cancer, numeric differences favoring radium-223 + ET over placebo + ET for the primary SSE-FS endpoint were suggestive of efficacy, in line with the primary outcome measure used in the underlying phase 2 studies. No similar evidence of efficacy was observed for secondary progression or survival endpoints. Adverse events were more frequent with radium-223 + ET versus placebo + ET, but the safety profile of the combination was consistent with the safety profiles of the component drugs. Clinical trial registration numbers Study A: NCT02258464, registered October 7, 2014. Study B: NCT02258451, registered October 7, 2014., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: To identify patients most likely to respond to everolimus, a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, a prospective biomarker study was conducted in hormone receptor-positive endocrine-resistant metastatic breast cancer patients treated with exemestane-everolimus therapy., Methods: Metastatic tumor biopsies were processed for immunohistochemical staining (p4EBP1, PTEN, pAKT, LKB1, and pS6K). ESR1, PIK3CA and AKT1 gene mutations were detected by NGS. The primary endpoint was the association between the p4EBP1 expression and clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 6 months of everolimus plus exemestane treatment., Results: Of 150 patients included, 107 were evaluable for the primary endpoint. p4EBP1 staining above the median (Allred score ≥6) was associated with a higher CBR at 6 months (62% versus 40% in high-p4EBP1 versus low-p4EBP1, χ2 test, p = 0.026) and a longer progression-free survival (PFS) (median PFS of 9.2 versus 5.8 months in high-p4EBP1 versus low-p4EBP1; p = 0.02). When tested with other biomarkers, only p4EBP1 remained a significant predictive marker of PFS in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.591; p = 0.01)., Conclusions: This study identified a subset of patients with hormone receptor-positive endocrine-resistant metastatic breast cancer and poor outcome who would derive less benefit from everolimus and exemestane. p4EBP1 may be a useful predictive biomarker in routine clinical practice., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02444390., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Value-based healthcare (VBHC) is a conceptual framework to improve the value of healthcare by health, care-process and economic outcomes. Benchmarking should provide useful information to identify best practices and therefore a good instrument to improve quality across healthcare organizations. This paper aims to provide a proof-of-concept of the feasibility of an international VBHC benchmarking in breast cancer, with the ultimate aim of being used to share best practices with a data-driven approach among healthcare organizations from different health systems., Methods: In the VOICE community-a European healthcare centre cluster intending to address VBHC from theory to practice-information on patient-reported, clinical-related, care-process-related and economic-related outcomes were collected. Patient archetypes were identified using clustering techniques and an indicator set following a modified Delphi was defined. Benchmarking was performed using regression models controlling for patient archetypes and socio-demographic characteristics., Results: Six hundred and ninety patients from six healthcare centres were included. A set of 50 health, care-process and economic indicators was distilled for benchmarking. Statistically significant differences across sites have been found in most health outcomes, half of the care-process indicators, and all economic indicators, allowing for identifying the best and worst performers., Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first international experience providing evidence to be used with VBHC benchmarking intention. Differences in indicators across healthcare centres should be used to identify best practices and improve healthcare quality following further research. Applied methods might help to move forward with VBHC benchmarking in other medical conditions., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.)

Vepdegestrant (ARV-471) is an oral PROTAC ER degrader that binds an E3 ubiquitin ligase and ER to directly trigger ubiquitination of ER and its subsequent proteasomal degradation. In a first-in-human Phase I/II study, vepdegestrant monotherapy was well tolerated with clinical activity in pretreated patients with ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. The global, randomized Phase III VERITAC-2 study compares efficacy and safety of vepdegestrant versus fulvestrant in adults with ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer after treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor plus endocrine therapy. Progression-free survival by blinded independent central review (primary end point) will be assessed in the intention-to-treat population and ESR1 mutation-positive subpopulation. Secondary end points include overall survival, tumor response, safety, pharmacokinetics, patient-reported outcomes, and circulating tumor DNA biomarkers. Clinical trial registration: NCT05654623 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Purpose: Most oncological treatments for leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) do not cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB). One therapeutic option is intrathecal (IT) chemotherapy. Both the brain-implanted Omaya reservoir and lumbar puncture (LP) are classic routes for IT chemotherapy delivery. An intrathecal catheter (IC) connected to a subcutaneous port is a recently developed option for the management of chemotherapy infusions. It is essential to evaluate the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy infusion using such device., Methods: We conducted a retrospective monocentric study within Institut de cancerologie de l'Ouest at Angers, including all patients with advanced breast cancer (aBC) with LM implanted with an IT device for IT chemotherapy between January 2013 and May 2020. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints included surgical feasibility, patient safety, and progression-free survival (PFS). The catheter was inserted through an LP, the tip was positioned at the right level and connected to a subcutaneous port implanted under the skin of the anterior thoracic wall. IT chemotherapy is painless and easy for qualified nurses to administer on an outpatient basis., Results: Thirty women underwent the implantation. No failures occurred during the procedure. A total of 77% of patients reported no complications after implantation. Only three complications required surgical treatment. The median number of IT chemotherapy courses per patient was 8 (range, 2-27). The tolerance profile for iterative IT chemotherapy was manageable in ambulatory care. With a median follow-up of 76.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.6-not available), the median OS was 158 days (95% CI, 87-235), and the median PFS was 116 days (95% CI, 58-174)., Conclusion: Infusing chemotherapy using an implanted catheter is an efficient option for managing IT chemotherapy with a good tolerance profile. Patient-reported outcomes for the evaluation of IT chemotherapy toxicity are currently being developed., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© 2023 Korean Breast Cancer Society.)

Background: Window-of-opportunity (WOO) studies provide insights into the clinical activity of new drugs in breast cancer., Methods: AMEERA-4 (NCT04191382) was a WOO study undertaken to compare the pharmacodynamic effects of amcenestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader, with those of letrozole in postmenopausal women with newly diagnosed, operable estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2-) breast cancer. Women were randomized (1:1:1) to receive amcenestrant 400 mg, amcenestrant 200 mg, or letrozole 2.5 mg once daily for 14 days before breast surgery. The primary endpoint was change in Ki67 between baseline and Day 15 (i.e., day of surgery)., Results: Enrollment was stopped early because of slow recruitment, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The modified intent-to-treat population consisted of 95 study participants with baseline and post-treatment Ki67 values, whereas the safety population included 104 participants who had received at least one dose of study medication. Relative change from baseline in Ki67 was - 75.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] - 81.9 to - 67.9) for amcenestrant 400 mg, - 68.2% (- 75.7 to - 58.4) for amcenestrant 200 mg, and - 77.7% (- 83.4 to - 70.0) for letrozole (geometric least-squares mean [LSM] estimates). Absolute change in ER H-score from baseline (LSM estimate) was - 176.7 in the amcenestrant 400 mg arm, - 202.9 in the amcenestrant 200 mg arm, and - 32.5 in the letrozole arm. There were no Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events., Conclusions: Both amcenestrant and letrozole demonstrated antiproliferative activity in postmenopausal women with previously untreated, operable ER+/HER2- breast cancer and had good overall tolerability., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04191382 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04191382 . Registered 9 December 2019., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The EORTC-26101 study was a randomized phase II and III clinical trial of bevacizumab in combination with lomustine versus lomustine alone in progressive glioblastoma. Other than for progression-free survival (PFS), there was no benefit from addition of bevacizumab for overall survival (OS). However, molecular data allow for the rare opportunity to assess prognostic biomarkers from primary surgery for their impact in progressive glioblastoma., Experimental Design: We analyzed DNA methylation array data and panel sequencing from 170 genes of 380 tumor samples of the EORTC-26101 study. These patients were comparable with the overall study cohort in regard to baseline characteristics, study treatment, and survival., Results: Of patients' samples, 295/380 (78%) were classified into one of the main glioblastoma groups, receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK)1, RTK2 and mesenchymal. There were 10 patients (2.6%) with isocitrate dehydrogenase mutant tumors in the biomarker cohort. Patients with RTK1 and RTK2 classified tumors had lower median OS compared with mesenchymal (7.6 vs. 9.2 vs. 10.5 months). O6-methylguanine DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation was prognostic for PFS and OS. Neurofibromin (NF)1 mutations were predictive of response to bevacizumab treatment., Conclusions: Thorough molecular classification is important for brain tumor clinical trial inclusion and evaluation. MGMT promoter methylation and RTK1 classifier assignment were prognostic in progressive glioblastoma. NF1 mutation may be a predictive biomarker for bevacizumab treatment., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

In a multicenter prospective cohort of cancer patients (CP; n = 840) and healthcare workers (HCWs; n = 935) vaccinated against COVID-19, we noticed the following: i/after vaccination, 4.4% of HCWs and 5.8% of CP were infected; ii/no characteristic was associated with post-vaccine COVID-19 infections among HCWs; iii/CP who developed infections were younger, more frequently women (NS), more frequently had gastrointestinal, gynecological, or breast cancer and a localized cancer stage; iv/CP vaccinated while receiving chemotherapy or targeted therapy had (NS) more breakthrough infections after vaccination than those vaccinated after these treatments; the opposite was noted with radiotherapy, immunotherapy, or hormonotherapy; v/most COVID-19 infections occurred either during the Alpha wave (11/41 HCW, 20/49 CP), early after the first vaccination campaign started, or during the Omicron wave (21/41 HCW, 20/49 CP), more than 3 months after the second dose; vi/risk of infection was not associated with values of antibody titers; vii/the outcome of these COVID-19 infections after vaccination was not severe in all cases. To conclude, around 5% of our CPs or HCWs developed a COVID-19 infection despite previous vaccination. The outcome of these infections was not severe.

Background: Many patients receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) for breast cancer experience side effects and reduced quality of life (QoL) and discontinue ET. We sought to describe these issues and develop a prediction model of early discontinuation of ET., Methods: Among patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative stage I-III breast cancer of the Cancer Toxicities cohort (NCT01993498) who were prescribed adjuvant ET between 2012 and 2017, upon stratification by menopausal status, we evaluated adjuvant ET patterns including treatment change and patient-reported discontinuation and ET-associated toxicities and impact on QoL. Independent variables included clinical and demographic features, toxicities, and patient-reported outcomes. A machine-learning model to predict time to early discontinuation was trained and evaluated on a held-out validation set., Results: Patient-reported discontinuation rate of the first prescribed ET at 4 years was 30% and 35% in 4122 postmenopausal and 2087 premenopausal patients, respectively. Switching to a new ET was associated with higher symptom burden, poorer QoL, and higher discontinuation rate. Early discontinuation rate of adjuvant ET before treatment completion was 13% in postmenopausal and 15% in premenopausal patients. The early discontinuation model obtained a C index of 0.62 in the held-out validation set. Many aspects of QoL, most importantly fatigue and insomnia (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire 30), were associated with early discontinuation., Conclusion: Tolerability and adherence to ET remains a challenge for patients who switch to a second ET. An early discontinuation model using patient-reported outcomes identifies patients likely to discontinue their adjuvant ET. Improved management of toxicities and novel more tolerable adjuvant ETs are needed for maintaining patients on treatment., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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.

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.)

Introduction: Everolimus is an oral drug that inhibits mTOR with immunosuppressive and antiproliferative characteristics. It is commonly used in association with exemestane in hormone receptor (HR)-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC)., Areas Covered: The current review summarizes the publications relating to everolimus from clinical research in breast cancer. Everolimus showed treatment efficacy and an acceptable safety tolerance with the prevention of side effects in Phase II/III studies. BOLERO-2 study showed a progression-free survival improvement in patients with HR - positive ABC previously treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI) and leading to its acceptance in this indication. The absence of a post-CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i.) study and the arrival of new drugs may raise questions about its current place in the therapeutic strategy., Expert Opinion: Everolimus is relevant in the management of HR - positive ABC. Because of its efficacy, acceptable tolerability and the absence of drugs that have shown a greater benefit, it remains a second-line treatment option in HR-positive, HER2 negative (score 0) patients without BRCA mutation or visceral crisis and can be discussed with fulvestrant in second line after CDK4-6i. It is likely that within 5 years this treatment will be replaced in second-line HR-positive breast cancer by new emerging treatments: drug-conjugated antibodies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy.

Background: More than 10% of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) will develop Central Nervous System (CNS) metastases as first and isolated site of relapse on trastuzumab and pertuzumab first-line therapy. However, few clinical data are available to guide the best strategy in this setting., Methods: Patients experiencing isolated CNS progression on trastuzumab and pertuzumab first-line therapy were retrospectively identified from the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) real-life database between 2008 and 2016., Results: Among 995 patients treated with first-line trastuzumab and pertuzumab for HER2-positive mBC, 132 patients (13%) experienced isolated CNS progression with a median time of 12 months after mBC diagnosis. Twelves patients did not receive any treatment and were excluded from the analysis. Among the 120 patients considered, 76 (63%) received CNS-directed local therapy, 73 (60%) continued trastuzumab and pertuzumab, whereas 47 (39%) started another systemic treatment. After a median follow-up of 21 months, there was no difference in progression-free survival for patient who continued trastuzumab-pertuzumab or switched to another systemic treatment. In multivariate analysis, trastuzumab-pertuzumab continuation was associated with longer OS (HR 0,28 IC 95%: 0,14-0,54 p < 0,001). mOS was not reached (95% 37.6-NE) and was 23.2 months (95% CI 15.5-53.6) in patients who continued trastuzumab and pertuzumab therapy and in patients who switched for another systemic therapy, respectively., Conclusion: In this real-life cohort, trastuzumab-pertuzumab continuation after local treatment for isolated CNS progression did not negatively impact PFS and OS. Prospective trials and assessment of new strategies are warranted in this specific situation., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Japanese Breast Cancer Society.)

Big Data and Artificial Intelligence can profoundly transform medical practices, particularly in oncology. Comprehensive Cancer Centers have a major role to play in this revolution. With the purpose of advancing our knowledge and accelerating cancer research, it is urgent to make this pool of data usable through the development of robust and effective data warehouses. Through the recent experience of Comprehensive Cancer Centers in France, this article shows that, while the use of hospital data warehouses can be a source of progress by taking into account multisource, multidomain and multiscale data for the benefit of knowledge and patients, it nevertheless raises technical, organizational and legal issues that still need to be addressed. The objectives of this article are threefold: 1. to provide insight on public health stakes of development in Comprehensive Cancer Centers to manage cancer patients comprehensively; 2. to set out a challenge of structuring the data from within them; 3. to outline the legal issues of implementation to carry out real-world evidence studies. To meet objective 1, this article firstly proposed a discussion on the relevance of an integrated approach to manage cancer and the formidable tool that data warehouses represent to achieve this. To address objective 2, we carried out a literature review to screen the articles published in PubMed and Google Scholar through the end of 2022 on the use of data warehouses in French Comprehensive Cancer Centers. Seven publications dealing specifically with the issue of data structuring were selected. To achieve objective 3, we presented and commented on the main aspects of French and European legislation and regulations in the field of health data, hospital data warehouses and real-world evidence.

Objective: The aim was to evaluate the impact of local surgery performed during the year after MBC diagnosis on patients' outcomes from a large reallife cohort., Summary Background Data: Locoregional treatment for patients with MBC at the time of diagnosis remains debated., Methods: Women with newly diagnosed, de novo stage IV MBC and who started MBC treatment between January 2008 and December 2014 in one of the 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centers were included (NCT03275311). The impact of local surgery performed during the first year on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was evaluated by the Cox proportional hazards model in a 12 month-landmark analysis., Results: Out of 16,703 patients in the ESME database, 1977 had stage IV MBC at diagnosis, were alive and progression-free at 12 months and eligible for this study. Among them, 530 (26.8%) had received primary breast cancer surgery within 12 months. A greater proportion of patients who received surgery had less than 3 metastatic sites than the no-surgery group (90.8% vs 78.2%, P < 0.0001). Surgery within 12 months was associated with treatment with chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapy (89.1% vs 69.6%, P < 0.0001) and locoregional radiotherapy (81.7% vs 32.5%, P < 0.0001). Multivariable analyses showed that surgery performed within 12 months was associated with longer OS and PFS (adjusted HR [95%CI] = 0.75 [0.61-0.92] and 0.72 [0.63-0.83], respectively), which were also affected by pattern and number of metastatic sites, histological subtype, and age., Conclusions: In the large ESME cohort, surgery within 1 year after de novo MBC diagnosis was associated with a significantly better OS and PFS., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adjuvant abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy previously showed a significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2; also known as ERBB2)-negative, node-positive, high-risk, early breast cancer. Here, we report updated results from an interim analysis to assess overall survival as well as invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival with additional follow-up., Methods: In monarchE, an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at a high risk of recurrence with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were recruited from 603 sites including hospitals and academic and community centres in 38 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive web-based response system (block size of 4), stratified by previous chemotherapy, menopausal status, and region, to receive standard-of-care endocrine therapy of physician's choice for up to 10 years with or without abemaciclib 150 mg orally twice a day for 2 years (treatment period). All therapies were administered in an open-label manner without masking. High-risk disease was defined as either four or more positive axillary lymph nodes, or between one and three positive axillary lymph nodes and either grade 3 disease or tumour size of 5 cm or larger (cohort 1). A smaller group of patients were enrolled with between one and three positive axillary lymph nodes and Ki-67 of at least 20% as an additional risk feature (cohort 2). This was a prespecified overall survival interim analysis planned to occur 2 years after the primary outcome analysis for invasive disease-free survival. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all treated patients. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03155997, and is ongoing., Findings: Between July 17, 2017, and Aug 12, 2019, 5637 patients were randomly assigned (5601 [99·4%] were women and 36 [0·6%] were men). 2808 were assigned to receive abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy and 2829 were assigned to receive endocrine therapy alone. At a median follow-up of 42 months (IQR 37-47), median invasive disease-free survival was not reached in either group and the invasive disease-free survival benefit previously reported was sustained: HR 0·664 (95% CI 0·578-0·762, nominal p<0·0001). At 4 years, the absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival between the groups was 6·4% (85·8% [95% CI 84·2-87·3] in the abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy group vs 79·4% [77·5-81·1] in the endocrine therapy alone group). 157 (5·6%) of 2808 patients in the abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy group died compared with 173 (6·1%) of 2829 patients in the endocrine therapy alone group (HR 0·929, 95% CI 0·748-1·153; p=0·50). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (in 548 [19·6%] of 2791 patients receiving abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy vs 24 [0·9%] of 2800 patients in the endocrine therapy alone group), leukopenia (318 [11·4%] vs 11 [0·4%]), and diarrhoea (218 [7·8%] vs six [0·2%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 433 (15·5%) of 2791 patients receiving abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy versus 256 (9·1%) of 2800 receiving endocrine therapy. There were two treatment-related deaths in the abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy group (diarrhoea and pneumonitis) and none in the endocrine therapy alone group., Interpretation: Adjuvant abemaciclib reduces the risk of recurrence. The benefit is sustained beyond the completion of treatment with an absolute increase at 4 years, further supporting the use of abemaciclib in patients with high-risk hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. Further follow-up is needed to establish whether overall survival can be improved with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy in these patients., Funding: Eli Lilly., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SRDJ reports grants or contracts from Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche–Genentech for research funding to institute for laboratory studies and clinical trials; consulting fees from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Pfizer, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme for consulting or an advisory role; and payment or honoraria from Pfizer, Eisai, AstraZeneca, and Roche–Genentech for speaker's bureau. MT reports grants or contracts from Chugai, Takeda, Pfizer, Taiho, JBCRG, KBCRN, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Shimadzu, Yakult, Nippon Kayaku, AFI technology, Luxonus, Shionogi, GL Science, and Sanwa Shurui for research grants to their department; payment or honoraria from Chugai, Takeda, Pfizer, Kyowa-Kirin, Taiho, Eisai, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Exact Science, Novartis, Shimadzu, Yakult, Nippon Kayaku, Devicore Medical Japan, and Sysmex for lecture honoraria or honoraria for lecture chair; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Athenex Oncology, Bertis, Terumo, and Kansai Medical Net; and other financial or non-financial interest from British Journal of Cancer, Scientific Reports, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Cancer Science, Frontiers in Women's Cancer, Asian Journal of Surgery, and Asian Journal of Breast Surgery for his role as Associate Editor. JO'S reports consulting fees and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from from AbbVie, Agendia, Amgen Biotechnology, Aptitude Health, AstraZeneca, Athenex, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Carrick Therapeutics, Celgene Corporation, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Genzyme, Gilead Sciences, GRAIL, Halozyme Therapeutics, Heron Therapeutics, Immunomedics, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Merck, Myriad, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Ontada, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals, Puma Biotechnology, Prime Oncology, Roche, Samsung Bioepsis, Sandoz, Sanofi, Seagen, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Oncology, Takeda, Theralink, and Synthon. MC reports personal payment support from Eli Lilly for the present article, advisory board, and speaker's bureau; payment or honoraria to institution from Novartis; support for attending meetings from Eli Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; and payment to institution from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board. C-SH reports research grants to institution from Eli Lilly for the present article; research grants to institution or contracts from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, EirGenix, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp and Dohme, OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, and Novartis; payment or honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and Eli Lilly for speaker's bureau; support for attending meetings or travel from Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Roche, and Novartis; and participation on advisory boards from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and Roche. JH reports institutional grants or contracts from Celgene, Novartis, Hexal, and Eli Lilly; consulting fees paid to self from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Hexal, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Celgene, AbbVie, and Daiichi-Sankyo; honoraria or payments to self for lectures, presentation, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Celgene, Eisai, Abbvie, Seagen, and Gilead; and support for attending meetings or travel paid to self from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Gilead. SMT reports institutional funding for study, consulting work to personal (honorariums), and manuscript preparation from Eli Lilly; institutional grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Merck, Mektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech–Roche, Gilead, Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Nanostring, Cyclacel, Sanofi, and Seagen; and honoraria payments to self for participation in advisory boards or consulting from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech–Roche, Gilead, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Sanofi, Seagen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Athenex, OncoPep, Kyowa Kirin Pharma, CytomX, Certara, Mersana Therapeutics, Ellipses Pharma, 4D Pharma, OncoSec, Infinity Therapeutics, BeyondSpring Pharma, OncXerna, Zymeworks, Zentalis, ARC Therapeutics, Reveal Genomics, Blueprint Medicines, Myovant, Umoja Biopharma, and Menarini–Stemline. MPG reports institutional grants or contracts from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Sermonix; consulting fees to institution from Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Biovica, Novartis, Sermonix, Pfizer, and ARC Therapeutics; honoraria or payment to self for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Research to Practice, Clinical Education Alliance, Medscape, Total Health Conferencing, Curio Science, and MJH Life Sciences; and support to institution from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Biotheranostics, Blueprint Medicines, Sanofi Genzyme, and ARC Therapeutics for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board. HSR reports institutional research support from Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Genentech–Roche, OBI, Merck, Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Seattle Genetics, Sermonix, AstraZeneca, and Astellas; travel support to academic meetings from Merck, AstraZeneca, and Gilead; and consulting or advisory support from Puma, NAPO, and Blueprint. ES reports support from Eli Lilly for the present article including investigator fees and medical writing; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Cancérodigest, Curio, Science, Egis, Eli Lilly and Company, Exact Sciences, Gilead, high5md, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre; support for attending meetings or travel from Egis, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from AstraZeneca, Egis, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, and Pfizer; a leadership or fiduciary role from Stowarzyszenie Różowy Motyl as Chair (unpaid); stock or stock options from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer; receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services from Astellas, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly; and other financial or non-financial interests from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, and Samsung for contracted research. LT reports support from Eli Lilly as the trial sponsor for the study; grants or contracts from Novartis for clinical research; consulting fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Eli Lilly, and Novartis for advisory board; payment or honoraria from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and AstraZeneca for medical education; and support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer and AstraZeneca. LDM reports an institutional research grant from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seagen; consulting fees paid to self from Eli Lilly; honoraria or payment to self from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisa, Exact Sciences, and Ipsen for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events; support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, Pfizer, and Eisai; and fees paid to self for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory Board from Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, AstraZeneca, and Agendia. CS reports research grants from Eli Lilly, and honoraria for lectures from Pfizer and Eli Lilly. RW, AS, MMu, BSA, VA are employees and stock shareholders of Eli Lilly. NH reports support for the present article (medical writing) from Eli Lilly; consulting fees from Gilead, Sandoz, and Seagen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, AsraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Roche; and a leadership or fiduciary role with the West German Study Group and ESMO. MMa reports institutional grants from Roche, Novartis, and Puma; consulting fees paid to self from Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Novartis; payment or honoraria to self for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, Eli Lilly, Astrazeneca, and Pfizer; support paid to self for attending meetings or travel from Daiichi-Sankyo and Roche; and support paid to self for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Novartis. PR, PN, GGJ, and IC declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is a poor prognostic disease with limited treatments and uncertain therapeutic algorithms. We performed a systematic review and multiple Bayesian network meta-analyses according to treatment line to establish an optimal therapeutic sequencing strategy for this lethal disease. We included 125 first-line trials (37,812 patients) and 33 s/further-lines trials (11,321 patients). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall response rates (ORR), overall survival (OS) and safety, for first and further lines, separately. We also estimated separate treatment rankings for the first and subsequent lines according to each endpoint, based on (surface under the cumulative ranking curve) SUCRA values. No first-line treatment was associated with superior PFS and OS than paclitaxel ± bevacizumab. Platinum-based polychemotherapies were generally superior in terms of ORR, at the cost of higher toxicity.. PARP-inhibitors in germline-BRCA1/2-mutant patients, and immunotherapy + chemotherapy in PD-L1-positive mTNBC, performed similar to paclitaxel ± bevacizumab. In PD-L1-positive mTNBC, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy was better than atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel in terms of OS according to SUCRA values. In second/further-lines, sacituzumab govitecan outperformed all other treatments on all endpoints, followed by PARP-inhibitors in germline-BRCA1/2-mutant tumors. Trastuzumab deruxtecan in HER2-low mTNBC performed similarly and was the best advanced-line treatment in terms of PFS and OS after sacituzumab govitecan, according to SUCRA values. Moreover, comparisons with sacituzumab govitecan, talazoparib and olaparib were not statistically significant. The most effective alternatives or candidates for subsequent lines were represented by nab-paclitaxel (in ORR), capecitabine (in PFS) and eribulin (in PFS and OS)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr Giuliano, Arpino and De Placido S have declared honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Amgen, and Eisai, outside of the submitted work. Dr Lambertini has declared personal fees (advisory role and/or speaker honoraria) from Roche, Takeda, Sandoz, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis Exact Sciences and Ipsen, outside of the submitted work. Dr Bartsch has declared honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichy Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, research funding from Daiichi-Sankyo, travel, accommodations, expenses from Roche, Pfizer, outside of the submitted work. Dr Pinato has received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare and Bayer Healthcare and travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, and Astra Zeneca; research funding (to institution) from MSD and BMS, outside of the submitted work. Dr Harbeck has declared stocks and other ownership interests in the West German Study Group, honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Amgen, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen; consulting or advisory role for Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Sandoz, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sandoz, SeaGen, Pierre Fabre and research funding to institution from Roche/Genentech, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, outside of the submitted work. Dr Lüftner has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Eisai, Genomic Health, Eli Lilly, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Tesaro, Teva, outside of the submitted work. Dr Denys has reported consulting fees (advisory role) paid to her institution by Pfizer, Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro; grants from Research Funding institutional Roche; and other fees (travel, accommodations, expenses) by Pfizer, Roche, PharmaMar, Teva, AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. Dr Zaman has reported travel, accommodation and expenses from Roche, Pierre Fabri and MSD Oncology, research funding from Roche/Genentech consulting/advisory role for Roche, Eli Lilly, MSD Oncology, Mylan, Novartis, Daiichy and Pierre Fabre, and other relationships with Pierre Fabre, all outside the submitted work. Dr Gligorov has declared speakers’ bureau honoraria from Roche-Genentech, Novartis, Eisai, Genomic Health, Ipsen, Pfizer, Mylan, Eli Lilly, Sandoz, and Pierre-Fabre; consultant/advisory board member for Roche-Genentech, Novartis, Onxeo, Daichii Sanyo, MSD, Eisai, Genomic Health, Ipsen, Macrogenics, Pfizer, Mylan, Eli Lilly, Immunomedics, Pierre-Fabre; grant support from Roche-Genetech, Eisai, Genomic Health, Pfizer, Mylan; travel, accommodation paid by Roche-Genentech, Novartis, Eisai, Genomic Health, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Pierre-Fabre; personal fees and non-financial support from Daichii Sanyo, MSD, outside of the submitted work. Dr Awada reports advisory roles, travel grants, and speaker fees from Roche, Eli Lilly, Amgen, ESAI, BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Ipsen, and Leopharma. Dr Campone has declared honoraria from Novartis, Eli Lilly, GT1, Consulting or Advisory Role from Novartis, Servier, Menarini, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Abbvie, Pierre Fabre, Accord Healthcare, Sandoz-Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Speakers' Bureau from Novartis, Amgen, Research Funding from Novartis, Travel, Accommodations, Expenses from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Other Relationship from Roche, outside of the submitted work. Dr Wildiers has declared Consulting or Advisory Role from Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sirtex Medical, Orion Corporation, Puma Biotechnology, AstraZeneca, Biocartis, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Research Funding from Roche, Novartis, Travel, Accommodations, Expenses from Pfizer, Roche, outside of the submitted work. Dr Gennari has declared consulting/advisory role for Roche, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, EISAI, and Daichii Sankyo; speakers bureau for Eisai, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Teva, Gentili, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, and Daichii Sankyo; research funds from EISAI, Eli Lilly, and Roche, outside of the submitted work. Dr Tjan-Heijnen has declared Honoraria and Travel expenses from Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Honoraria from Daichii Sankyo, as well as Research Funding from Roche, Eisai, Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca and Daichii Sankyo, outside of the submitted work. Dr Cortes has declared Stock and Other Ownership Interests from MedSIR, Honoraria from Novartis, Eisai, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo, Consulting or Advisory Role from Celgene, Cellestia Biotech, AstraZeneca, Biothera, Merus, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, ERYTECH Pharma, Polyphor, Athenex, Eli Lilly, Servier, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, Leuko, Clovis Oncology, Bioasis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Research Funding from ARIAD, Astrazeneca, Baxalta, Bayer, Eisai, Guardant Health, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Queen Mary University of London, Roche, Piqur, Travel, Accommodations, Expenses from Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, outside of the submitted work. Dr Del Mastro acted as a consultant for Roche, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Eli Lilly, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Pierre Fabre, and Daiichi Sankyo, received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly and MSD, and travel grants from Roche, Pfizer and Celgene, outside the submitted work. Dr Martin has declared Honoraria from Roche/Genentech, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Consulting or Advisory Role from Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Taiho Pharmaceutical, PharmaMar, Speakers' Bureau from Eli Lilly/ImClone, Roche/Genentech, Pierre Fabre, Research Funding from Novartis, Roche, Puma Biotechnology, outside of the submitted work. Dr Curigliano has reported personal fees from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Foundation Medicine, BMS, Samsung, Astra Zeneca, Daichii Sankyo Boeringer, GSK, Seagen, non-financial support from Roche, Pfizer, grants from Merck, other from Ellipsis, outside the submitted work. Dr Jerusalem has reported grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, Roche and Pfizer, personal fees and non-financial support from Eli Lilly, Amgen, BMS and Astra-Zeneca, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo and Abbvie, non-financial support from Medimmune and MerckKGaA, outside the submitted work. Dr Prat reports grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from Nanostring tecnologies, grants and personal fees from Amgen, grants from Roche, personal fees from Oncolytics Biotech, Daiichi Sankyo, PUMA, BMS, consulting/advisory role for NanoString Technologies, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb and patent PCT/EP2016/080056, outside of the submitted work. Dr Prat is also an equity stockholder, founder and consultant of Reveal Genomics and has a patent HER2DX and WO 2018/103834 licensed to Reveal Genomics, all outside of the submitted work. Dr Generali has declared Honoraria from Novartis and Eli Lilly, Research Funding from Novartis and Astra-Zeneca, outside of the submitted work. All other authors declared nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)