Search

Background: EMIT-1 is a national, observational, single-arm trial designed to assess the value of the Prosigna, Prediction Analysis of Microarray using the 50 gene classifier (PAM50)/Risk of Recurrence (ROR), test as a routine diagnostic tool, examining its impact on adjuvant treatment decisions, clinical outcomes, side-effects and cost-effectiveness. Here we present the impact on treatment decisions., Patients and Methods: Patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative pT1-pT2 lymph node-negative early breast cancer (EBC) were included. The Prosigna test and standard histopathology assessments were carried out. Clinicians' treatment decisions were recorded before (pre-Prosigna) and after (post-Prosigna) the Prosigna test results were disclosed., Results: Of 2217 patients included, 2178 had conclusive Prosigna results. The pre-Prosigna treatment decisions were: no systemic treatment (NT) in 27% of patients, endocrine treatment alone (ET) in 38% and chemotherapy (CT) followed by ET (CT + ET) in 35%. Post-Prosigna treatment decisions were 25% NT, 51% ET and 24% CT + ET, respectively. Adjuvant treatment changed in 28% of patients, including 21% change in CT use. Among patients assigned to CT + ET pre-Prosigna, 45% were de-escalated to ET post-Prosigna. Of patients assigned to ET, 12% were escalated to CT + ET and 8% were de-escalated to NT; of those assigned to NT, 18% were escalated to ET/CT + ET. CT was more frequently recommended for patients aged ≤50 years. In the subgroup with pT1c-pT2 G2 and intermediate Ki67 (0.5-1.5× local laboratory median Ki67 score), the pre-Prosigna CT treatment decision varied widely across hospitals (3%-51%). Post-Prosigna, the variability of CT use was markedly reduced (8%-24%). The correlation between Ki67 and ROR score within this subgroup was poor (r = 0.25-0.39). The median ROR score increased by increasing histological grade, but the ROR score ranges were wide (for G1 0-79, G2 0-90, G3 16-94)., Conclusion: The Prosigna test result changed adjuvant treatment decisions in all EBC clinical risk groups, markedly decreased the CT use for patients categorized as higher clinical risk pre-Prosigna and reduced treatment decision discrepancies between hospitals., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cancer patients often use antioxidants that may interact with adjuvant treatments. The purpose was to investigate pre- and postoperative antioxidant use in relation to clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis in different breast cancer treatment groups., Methods and Patients: Pre- and postoperative antioxidant (vitamin A, C, E, carotenoids, or Q10) or multivitamin use was self-reported by patients from Lund (n = 1855) and Helsingborg (n=478), Sweden. Patients were followed for up to 15 years. Clinical data were obtained from patient charts. The aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) was evaluated in tumor tissue arrays from 915 patients from Lund and with Western blot in MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cells., Results: About 10% of patients used antioxidants. Nuclear AhR (AhR nuc ) positivity was twice as common in preoperative antioxidant users compared to non-users. In mechanistic studies vitamin C increased AhR levels and its downstream target CYP1B1, indicating AhR activation. There were significant interactions between tumor AhR nuc status and preoperative antioxidant use in relation to clinical outcome. In all patients, antioxidant use (other than multivitamins) at both visits was associated with poorer prognosis, while use only at the follow-up visit was associated with better prognosis, compared with no use at either visit., Conclusion: The clinical impact of antioxidants depended on antioxidant type, timing of use, and tumor AhR activation. Antioxidants may influence clinical outcome by activation of the master regulator AhR in addition to interference with free radicals. Further studies are needed to identify breast patients that might improve or worsen their prognosis when using antioxidants postoperatively., Competing Interests: Disclosure KI has received speaker honorarium from Pierre Fabre. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Summary: The emerging immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy has ushered the cancer therapeutics field into an era of immunotherapy. Although ICB treatment provides remarkable clinical responses in a subset of patients with cancer, this regimen fails to extend survival in a large proportion of patients. Here, we found that a combined treatment of estrogen receptor beta (ERβ) agonist and PD-1 antibody treatment improved therapeutic efficacy in mouse tumor models, compared with monotherapies, by reducing infiltration of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and increasing CD8+ T cells in tumors. Mechanistically, LY500307 treatment reduced tumor-derived CSF1 and decreased infiltration of CSF1R+ MDSCs in the tumor bed. CSF1 released by tumor cells induced CSF1R+ MDSC chemotaxis in vitro and blockade of CSF1R demonstrated similar therapeutic effects as ERβ activation in vivo. Collectively, our study proved combined treatment of ERβ agonist and PD-1 antibody reduced MDSC infiltration in the tumor and enhanced tumor response to ICB therapy.

Background: Several guidelines have been reported for bone-directed treatment in women with early breast cancer (EBC) for averting fractures, particularly during aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Recently, a number of studies on additional fracture related risk factors, new treatment options as well as real world studies demonstrating a much higher fracture rate than suggested by randomized clinical controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, this updated algorithm was developed to better assess fracture risk and direct treatment as a position statement of several interdisciplinary cancer and bone societies involved in the management of AI-associated bone loss (AIBL). Patients and methods: A systematic literature review identified recent advances in the management of AIBL. Results with individual agents were assessed based on trial design, size, follow-up, and safety. Results: Several fracture related risk factors in patients with EBC were identified. Although, the FRAX algorithm includes fracture risk factors (RF) in addition to BMD, it does not seem to adequately address the effects of AIBL. Several antiresorptive agents can prevent and treat AIBL. However, concerns regarding compliance and long-term safety remain. Overall, the evidence for fracture prevention is strongest for denosumab 60 mg s.c. every 6 months. Additionally, recent studies as well as an individual patient data meta-analysis of all available randomized trial data support additional anticancer benefits from adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in postmenopausal women with a 34% relative risk reduction in bone metastasis and 17% relative risk decrease in breast cancer mortality that needs to be taken into account when advising on management of AIBL. Conclusions: In all patients initiating AI treatment, fracture risk should be assessed and recommendation with regard to exercise and calcium/vitamin D supplementation given. Bone-directed therapy should be given to all patients with a T-score−1.5 SD and no risk factors should be managed based on BMD loss during the first year and the local guidelines for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Compliance should be regularly assessed as well as BMD on treatment after 12 - 24 months. Furthermore, because of the decreased incidence of bone recurrence and breast cancer specific mortality, adjuvant bisphosphonates are recommended for all postmenopausal women at significant risk of disease recurrence.

Estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer is the most common type of both early and advanced breast cancer. Estrogen receptor alpha (ER) is a nuclear hormone receptor and a key driver of tumorigenesis and tumor progression in these breast cancers. As such, it is a key treatment target and a biomarker predictive of response to endocrine therapy. Activating ESR1 ligand binding domain mutations engender constitutive/ligand independent transcriptional activities and emerge following prolonged first-line hormone therapy regimens, mainly from aromatase inhibitors. The full scale of the biological and clinical significance of these mutations continue to evolve and additional studies are required to further discern the multimodal effects of these mutations on ER transcription, metastatic propensity, and the tumor microenvironment. Furthermore, recent and ongoing studies highlight the potential clinical utility of these mutations as therapeutic targets and dynamic biomarkers. Herein, we review the structure, functional consequences, and clinical implications of the activating ESR1 mutations in advanced estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest RJ received research funding from Pfizer and Lilly and is an advisor for GE Health. SWF receives research funding and is a member of the scientific advisory board at Olema Oncology., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

High-grade serous ovarian cancers (HGSOCs) most commonly arise from the fimbrial end of the fallopian tube and harbor TP53 gene mutations. In contrast, low-grade serous ovarian cancers (LGSOCs) appear to have different pathological, epidemiological, and clinical features and should be seen as a distinct serous epithelial ovarian cancer subtype. Our current understanding of LGSOC is limited, and treatment has generally been derived from the more common HGSOCs due to a lack of separate trial data. LGSOCs are characterized by slow tumor growth and are assumed to develop from serous borderline ovarian tumors as precursors. These cancers are often estrogen-receptor positive and show an activated mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway together with KRAS and BRAF mutations and, rarely, TP53 mutations. These characteristics are now commonly used to guide therapeutical decision making and, consequently, a substantial part of treatment consists of maintenance with endocrine treatment, thus balancing disease stabilization and mild toxicity. Additionally, new trials are ongoing that examine the role of targeted therapies such as MEK inhibitors in combination with endocrine treatments. The purpose of this work is to summarize current knowledge and present ongoing trial efforts for LGSOCs., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: We evaluated real-world clinical outcomes and toxicity data and assessed treatment-related costs in patients with advanced breast cancer who received treatment with cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors (CDKi)., Patients and Methods: We conducted a prospective-retrospective analysis of patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer who received a CDKi, in combination with endocrine therapy, at any line of treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Cost analysis was conducted from a public third-payer (National Organization for Healthcare Services Provision (EOPYY)) perspective, assessing only costs related to direct medical care, including drug therapy costs and adverse drug reaction (ADR)-related costs., Results: From July 2015 to October 2019, 365 women received endocrine therapy combined with CDKi; median age was 61 years, postmenopausal 290 (80.6%) patients. CDKi were administered as first-line treatment in 149 (40.9%) patients, second-line treatment in 96 (26.4%) and third-line treatment and beyond in 119 (32.7%) patients. The most common adverse events were neutropenia, anaemia, thrombocytopenia and fatigue. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 86 (23.6%) patients, whereas 8 (2.2%) patients permanently discontinued treatment due to toxicity. The median PFS for patients who received CDKi as first-line, second-line and third-line treatment and beyond was 18.7, 12 and 7.4 months, respectively. The median overall survival since the initiation of CDKi treatment was 29.9 months (95% CI: 23.0-not yet reached (NR)). The mean pharmaceutical therapy cost estimated per cycle was 2 724.12 € for each patient, whereas the main driver of the ADR-related costs was haematological adverse events., Conclusions: Treatment with CDKi was well tolerated, with a low drug discontinuation rate. Patients who received CDKi as first-line treatment had improved PFS and OS compared with second-line treatment and beyond. The main component of direct medical costs assessed in the cost analysis comprises CDKi pharmaceutical therapy costs., Trial Registration Number: NCT04133207., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EF: stock ownership: GENPREX INC, ARIAD and Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Travel grant: Merck, Pfizer and K.A.M Oncology/Hematology. Advisory: LEO Pharma. Speaker fees: Roche and Pfizer. AV: advisory boards: Angelini and Takeda. Speaker fees: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche and MSD. Training programmes: Astellas, Genesis Pharma, Pfizer, LEO, Abbvie and TEVAAN. Travel fees: Pfizer, Merck, Hospira, Sanofi, Roche, Astra Zeneca, Kyowa Kirin-Anabiosis and Rafarm. AB: advisory role and honorarium: Pfizer and Novartis. SK: consultation/advisory: Astra Zeneca and Roche. Research: Novartis and Roche. Speaker: Astra Zeneca, Novartis and Roche. IB: advisory board: Pfizer and Novartis. Educational grant: Pfizer. Research Fund: Novartis and Lilly. AN: advisory board and speaker fees: Pfizer and Novartis. GA: advisory boards: Novartis, BMS, Roche Hellas, Astra Zeneca, Sanofi, Amgen, Genesis Pharma, Merck and Pfizer. AP: consultation fees: Amgen, Merck Serono, Roche, BMS, Astra Zeneca and MSD. Honoraria: Amgen, Merck Serono, Roche, BMS, Astra Zeneca and MSD. Research funds: BMS and Kura. AK: advisory role: Genesis Pharma. Honoraria: Pfizer. Speaker’s bureau: Roche. Research funding: Merck. Travel: MSD. Educational grants: Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, BMS, MSD, Genesis and Ipsen. GM: honoraria/consultancy: Astra Zeneca, Roche, Pfizer, BMS, MSD, Takeda, Boehringer, Merck, Novartis and Amgen. Travel fees: Astra Zeneca, Roche, Pfizer, BMS, MSD, Takeda, Boehringer, Merck, Novartis, Astellas and Pierre Fabre. ER: consulting or advisory role: Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Research funding: Novartis, Demo Pharmaceutical, EORTC, Radius Pharmaceuticals, Tesaro, Parexel and Anabiosis Pharmaceuticals. Travel: Sanofi, Ipsen, Genesis Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, Merck, Roche and Genekor. GF: advisory board: Pfizer, Sanofi and Roche. Honoraria: Astra Zeneca. Stock ownership: ARIAD and GENPREX. The rest of the authors declare no conflict of interest., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

For young patients with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer, tamoxifen for at least 5 years is the standard endocrine treatment. Prolonged endocrine treatment over 5 years is recommended for patients with high risk of late relapse. When adjuvant chemotherapy is indicated, prolonged iatrogenic amenorrhea is a strong pronostic factor. WIthout persistant amenorrhea after chemotherapy, it is indicated to associate ovarian suppression to the endocrine treatment. Optimal duration of this induced amenorrhea is unknown., (Copyright © 2019 Société Française du Cancer. Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.)

Background: Despite guideline recommendations, reports suggest that a proportion of patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (LA/MBC) might not receive endocrine therapy. The aims of this study were to estimate the proportion of postmenopausal patients with an initial (primary) diagnosis of HR-positive LA/MBC in Europe, and to assess the administration of endocrine treatment in these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen national and regional cancer registries across Europe were invited to participate in this observational study. Six registries each provided anonymized clinical information on > 5000 postmenopausal women with breast cancer diagnosed between January 2000 and December 2014, including age at diagnosis, estrogen and/or progesterone receptor status, disease stage, and receipt of endocrine therapy. The proportion of patients with an initial diagnosis of HR-positive LA/MBC and, of these, the proportion who received endocrine therapy, was calculated., Results: Registries from Belgium, England, Ireland, Norway, The Netherlands, and Munich, Germany provided data. In total, 316,680 postmenopausal women were diagnosed with breast cancer, including 244,268 with known HR status and disease stage. Of these patients, 19,002 (7.8%) had a primary diagnosis of HR-positive LA/MBC. This proportion ranged from 5.4% (N = 4484) in England to 12.7% (N = 4085) in Germany. Most of these patients (n = 14,157; 74.5%) received endocrine treatment, ranging from 55.5% (n = 445) in Norway to 88.1% (n = 443) in Belgium., Conclusion: These results indicate that a sizeable proportion of postmenopausal patients in Europe received a primary diagnosis of HR-positive LA/MBC, and that almost three-quarters received subsequent endocrine therapy as per guideline recommendations., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Bakground: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of body mass index (BMI) on the efficacy of endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with metastatic hormone receptor breast cancer (HR+BC) as well as to identify if the potential difference in efficacy was associated with Fulvestrant only or both aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and Fulvestrant., Methods: A consecutive cohort of postmenopausal women with HR+metastatic breast cancer that have received endocrine therapy including Fulvestrant as a metastatic treatment strategy at the Departments of Oncology in Eskilstuna and Uppsala, Sweden, between 2008 and 2016 were identified. The primary outcome of the study was time to disease progression (TTP) during the treatment with Fulvestrant in overweight and obese women compared to patient with normal BMI., Results: In total, 173 patients were enrolled in the study cohort, amongst these, 141 patients received both Fulvestrant and AIs and 32 received only Fulvestrant. No statistical significant association was observed between the three BMI categories and TTP, during Fulvestrant treatment (p = 0.136). The rates of objective response and clinical benefit due to Fulvestrant were similar among patients with normal weight, overweight and obesity, respectively., Conclusions: No difference in treatment efficacy was seen between normal, overweight and obese women with metastatic HR+BC, when treated with Fulvestrant. Until further research with prospective studies is available, there is no evidence to support any modification in how Fulvestrant treatment is used in patients with metastatic breast cancer in regard to BMI., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Endocrine responsiveness of primary breast cancers with borderline estrogen receptor expression (ER + [1%-9%]) remains unclear. We aimed at investigating differences in endocrine responsiveness, prognosis, and clinicopathological characteristics between the ER + (1%-9%) cohort and the ER - cohort or ER + (≥10%) cohort. Eligible literature published from inception to November 20, 2016 was retrieved from the PubMed database on the basis of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data on survival outcomes were extracted and pooled odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and 2-tailed P values are reported. P values of the χ 2 test for comparison of clinicopathological characteristics among included patients in the ER + (1%-9%) cohort and the other 2 cohorts were calculated respectively. The analysis included 6 studies with 16,606 patients. Significant differences were detected between the ER + (1%-9%) cohort and the other 2 cohorts on the basis of clinicopathological characteristics respectively. When taking all of the patients into analysis without consideration of treatment modality, the ER + (1%-9%) cohort presented better prognosis than the ER - group in terms of 5-year disease-free survival (OR, 1.47; P = .046) and 5-year overall survival (OR, 1.23; P = .046). However, patients with ER + (1%-9%) breast cancer who received endocrine therapy seemed to have a prognosis similar to those without any endocrine therapy (P = .684) and those with ER - carcinoma who received endocrine therapy (P = .145). Patients with ER + (≥10%) tumors had better endocrine responsiveness compared with their ER + (1%-9%) counterparts (OR, 0.52; P = .034, ER + [1%-9%] vs. ER + [≥10%]). Our results indicate that primary breast cancer patients with ER + (1%-9%) expression gained no significant survival benefit from endocrine therapy, but manifested overall better prognosis than those with ER - cancer., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Several guidelines have been reported for bone-directed treatment in women with early breast cancer (EBC) for averting fractures, particularly during aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Recently, a number of studies on additional fracture related risk factors, new treatment options as well as real world studies demonstrating a much higher fracture rate than suggested by randomized clinical controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, this updated algorithm was developed to better assess fracture risk and direct treatment as a position statement of several interdisciplinary cancer and bone societies involved in the management of AI-associated bone loss (AIBL)., Patients and Methods: A systematic literature review identified recent advances in the management of AIBL. Results with individual agents were assessed based on trial design, size, follow-up, and safety., Results: Several fracture related risk factors in patients with EBC were identified. Although, the FRAX algorithm includes fracture risk factors (RF) in addition to BMD, it does not seem to adequately address the effects of AIBL. Several antiresorptive agents can prevent and treat AIBL. However, concerns regarding compliance and long-term safety remain. Overall, the evidence for fracture prevention is strongest for denosumab 60 mg s.c. every 6 months. Additionally, recent studies as well as an individual patient data meta-analysis of all available randomized trial data support additional anticancer benefits from adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in postmenopausal women with a 34% relative risk reduction in bone metastasis and 17% relative risk decrease in breast cancer mortality that needs to be taken into account when advising on management of AIBL., Conclusions: In all patients initiating AI treatment, fracture risk should be assessed and recommendation with regard to exercise and calcium/vitamin D supplementation given. Bone-directed therapy should be given to all patients with a T-score<-2.0 or with a T-score of <-1.5 SD with one additional RF, or with ≥2 risk factors (without BMD) for the duration of AI treatment. Patients with T-score>-1.5 SD and no risk factors should be managed based on BMD loss during the first year and the local guidelines for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Compliance should be regularly assessed as well as BMD on treatment after 12 - 24 months. Furthermore, because of the decreased incidence of bone recurrence and breast cancer specific mortality, adjuvant bisphosphonates are recommended for all postmenopausal women at significant risk of disease recurrence.

Hormone receptor positive breast cancer (HR-positive BC) is the most frequent BC subtype (∼70%), with endocrine treatment constituting its therapeutic cornerstone; despite its efficacy, endocrine resistance can develop, clinically as a relapse or a progression of the early or advanced disease respectively, hence necessitating alternative treatments. Over the last two decades, improved understanding of the molecular mechanisms of endocrine resistance has been achieved, with numerous targeted agents undergoing clinical development. Despite the multifactorial genesis of endocrine resistance, fuelled not only by alternative oncogenic signaling pathways of tumor cells, but also by tumor microenvironment-mediated mechanisms, successful clinical development of new agents has been recently noted. However, predictive biomarkers for accurate 'navigation' across the different treatment options are urgently needed. In this article, we present a thorough overview of the different clinical scenarios of BC endocrine resistance, and the recent advances in endocrine treatment, we describe the basic molecular mediators of endocrine resistance and the respective targeted agents undergoing clinical development; finally, we provide our perspective on the future of BC endocrine treatment., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Neoadjuvant endocrine treatment has become of increasing interest for downstaging primary ER+ breast cancers as it has become clear that the pathologic complete response rate of luminal tumours to chemotherapy is much lower than that of non-luminal and differs little from that to endocrine therapy. There is much more experience in postmenopausal than premenopausal women. Aromatase inhibitors are generally the agent of choice. Responses are lower in those with the low levels of ER. While duration of endocrine treatment in clinical trials has usually been standardized at around three to four months it is clear that volume reductions continue to occur beyond that time in a large proportion of cases and routine clinical practice is often to treat to maximum response. This relatively slow emergence of downstaging relates to the absence of any increase in apoptosis with endocrine therapy and dependence of responses on the antiproliferative effects of oestrogen withdrawal: apoptosis occurs but at a slightly lower rate such that cell loss is attritional. The dependence of responses on the reduced proliferation underpins the value of Ki67 as an intermediate end-point for treatment benefit with multiple studies having found that relative effects on proliferation by different drugs in neoadjuvant trials match their relative impact on recurrence. While change in Ki67 is now accepted as a validated endpoint for comparing endocrine agents in the neoadjuvant scenario, on-treatment levels of Ki67 are related to long-term prognosis more closely than pretreatment Ki67. The Preoperative Endocrine Prognostic Index (PEPI) that combines residual Ki67 score with measures of on-treatment ER and other clinicopathologic factors has also found application in clinical trials. The potential to make longitudinal assessments of both clinical and biomarker responses has encouraged the development of novel clinical trial designs for assessing the impact of agents that aim to enhance response beyond that of endocrine agents alone. Such strategies include the early measurement of residual Ki67 levels after challenge with an endocrine agent alone and evaluation of the impact of the added agent on Ki67 or other agent-specific end-points., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Endocrine treatments are key component of the adjuvant strategy for pre-menopausal patients with luminal tumors. Treatment options should be based not only upon the risk of relapse and level of endocrine responsiveness, but also on co-morbidities, preferences of the patient and degree of side effects. Tamoxifen should still be considered as an appropriate endocrine therapy in a large group of premenopausal patients (e.g. lower risk patient, presence of co-morbidities, patient preference). However, the results of the SOFT and TEXT trials, evaluating the value of ovarian function suppression (OFS) as well as the role of adjuvant aromatase inhibitor (AI), raised questions about the use of tamoxifen alone in selected higher risk patient. In the SOFT study, premenopausal patients did not benefit from the addition of OFS, but for those women at sufficient risk of recurrence to deserve adjuvant chemotherapy and who maintained pre-menopausal estradiol, the addition of OFS to tamoxifen reduced the risk of recurrence. Moreover, in the TEXT trial, adjuvant treatment with exemestane plus OFS, as compared with tamoxifen plus OFS, significantly improved disease-free survival, breast cancer-free interval and distant disease-free survival, thus representing a new treatment option. Recent available information on endocrine options for younger patients with luminal tumors support the use of tailored endocrine treatments. Issues specific for younger patients related to pregnancies desire, family planning, safety, quality of life and subjective side effects should be a priority in the therapeutic algorithm., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Young patients with breast cancer (BC) are often concerned about treatment-induced infertility and express maternity desire. Conception after BC does not seem to affect outcome, but information in estrogen-receptor positive (ER+) disease is not definitive. From September 2012-March 2013, 212 evaluable patients with ER+ early BC, <37 years at diagnosis, from 5 regions (Europe/US/Canada/Middle-East/Australia) answered a survey about fertility concerns, maternity desire and interest in a study of endocrine therapy (ET) interruption to allow pregnancy. Overall, 37% of respondents were interested in the study; younger patients (≤30 years) reported higher interest (57%). Motivation in younger patients treated >30 months was higher (83%) than in older women (14%), interest was independent of age in patients treated for ≤30 months. A prospective study in this patient population seems relevant and feasible. The International-Breast-Cancer-Study-Group (IBCSG), within the Breast-International-Group (BIG) - North-American-Breast-Cancer-Groups (NABCG) collaboration, is launching a study (POSITIVE) addressing ET interruption to allow pregnancy., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Although selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), such as tamoxifen, or aromatase inhibitors (AIs), such as anastrozole, are the preferred endocrine treatment approach for most patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, many patients progress despite this therapy or become resistant. Fulvestrant is a selective estrogen receptor down-regulator (SERD) that has demonstrated activity and efficacy in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer previously untreated or treated with hormonal therapy. The efficacy of fulvestrant has been demonstrated in the neoadjuvant and metastatic settings, either alone or in combination with other therapies such as anastrozole or targeted drugs. Additionally, 500 mg of fulvestrant have been shown to be more effective than 250 mg, without significant differences in the toxicity profile. In this review, the unique mode of action of fulvestrant and the clinical data for different dosing regimens both alone or in combination with other drugs is critically assessed., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a heterogeneous, pre-malignant disease accounting for 10-20% of all new breast tumours. Evidence shows a statistically significant local control benefit for adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) following breast conserving surgery (BCS) for all patients. The baseline recurrence risk of individual patients varies according to clinical-pathological criteria and in selected patients, omission of RT may be considered, following a discussion with the patient. The role of adjuvant endocrine therapy remains uncertain. Ongoing studies are attempting to define subgroups of patients who are at sufficiently low risk of recurrence that RT may be safely omitted; investigating RT techniques and dose fractionation schedules; and defining the role of endocrine therapy. Future directions in the management of patients with DCIS will include investigation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers to inform individualised therapy tailored to the risk of recurrence., (Crown Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)