Search

Simple Summary: Breast cancer patients often receive anti-hormonal treatment if their tumor is positive for the Estrogen Receptor (ER), but tumors may become resistant to this therapy and still metastasize. We studied 101 of such metastatic lesions and investigated these lesions for mutated genes and mutation patterns, in combination with the level of expression of relevant genes. Our aim was to better understand the mechanisms that are involved in the resistance to anti-hormonal treatment. The analyses showed two distinct groups of patients, each with specific mutations. One group clearly showed an ongoing, active ER and its associated signal route; these patients probably still would benefit from ER-targeting agents. We advocate for combining mutation and expression analyses on metastatic lesions, to maximize the group of patients that still may benefit from existing or new anti-hormonal treatments targeting ER or its signaling network. Mutations in the estrogen receptor gene (ESR1), its transcriptional regulators, and the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway are enriched in patients with endocrine-resistant metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Here, we integrated whole genome sequencing with RNA sequencing data from the same samples of 101 ER-positive/HER2-negative MBC patients who underwent a tumor biopsy prior to the start of a new line of treatment for MBC (CPCT-02 study, NCT01855477) to analyze the downstream effects of DNA alterations previously linked to endocrine resistance, thereby gaining a better understanding of the associated mechanisms. Hierarchical clustering was performed using expression of ESR1 target genes. Genomic alterations at the DNA level, gene expression levels, and last administered therapy were compared between the identified clusters. Hierarchical clustering revealed two distinct clusters, one of which was characterized by increased expression of ESR1 and its target genes. Samples in this cluster were significantly enriched for mutations in ESR1 and amplifications in FGFR1 and TSPYL. Patients in the other cluster showed relatively lower expression levels of ESR1 and its target genes, comparable to ER-negative samples, and more often received endocrine therapy as their last treatment before biopsy. Genes in the MAPK-pathway, including NF1, and ESR1 transcriptional regulators were evenly distributed. In conclusion, RNA sequencing identified a subgroup of patients with clear expression of ESR1 and its downstream targets, probably still benefiting from ER-targeting agents. The lower ER expression in the other subgroup might be partially explained by ER activity still being blocked by recently administered endocrine treatment, indicating that biopsy timing relative to endocrine treatment needs to be considered when interpreting transcriptomic data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Partial breast irradiation (PBI) is standard of care in low-risk breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Pre-operative PBI can result in tumor downstaging and more precise target definition possibly resulting in less treatment-related toxicity. This study aims to assess the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate one year after MR-guided single-dose pre-operative PBI in low-risk breast cancer patients. Methods: The ABLATIVE-2 trial is a multicenter prospective single-arm trial using single-dose ablative PBI in low-risk breast cancer patients. Patients ≥ 50 years with non-lobular invasive breast cancer ≤ 2 cm, grade 1 or 2, estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, and tumor-negative sentinel node procedure are eligible. A total of 100 patients will be enrolled. PBI treatment planning will be performed using a radiotherapy planning CT and -MRI in treatment position. The treatment delivery will take place on a conventional or MR-guided linear accelerator. The prescribed radiotherapy dose is a single dose of 20 Gy to the tumor, and 15 Gy to the 2 cm of breast tissue surrounding the tumor. Follow-up MRIs, scheduled at baseline, 2 weeks, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after PBI, are combined with liquid biopsies to identify biomarkers for pCR prediction. BCS will be performed 12 months after radiotherapy or after 6 months, if MRI does not show a radiologic complete response. The primary endpoint is the pCR rate after PBI. Secondary endpoints are radiologic response, toxicity, quality of life, cosmetic outcome, patient distress, oncological outcomes, and the evaluation of biomarkers in liquid biopsies and tumor tissue. Patients will be followed up to 10 years after radiation therapy. Discussion: This trial will investigate the pathological tumor response after pre-operative single-dose PBI after 12 months in patients with low-risk breast cancer. In comparison with previous trial outcomes, a longer interval between PBI and BCS of 12 months is expected to increase the pCR rate of 42% after 6–8 months. In addition, response monitoring using MRI and biomarkers will help to predict pCR. Accurate pCR prediction will allow omission of surgery in future patients. Trial registration: The trial was registered prospectively on April 28th 2022 at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05350722). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer develop brain metastases in up to 30% of cases. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effect of different systemic therapies in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and brain metastases, acknowledging the heterogeneity and sometimes low quality of 51 included studies. Tucatinib (combined with trastuzumab and capecitabine) and trastuzumab-deruxtecan appear to constitute the most effective systemic therapy, while pyrotinib might be an option in Asian patients. Preferably, future research will comprise of randomized controlled trials, including patients with active and/or inactive brain metastases. Aim: Patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) develop brain metastases (BM) in up to 30% of cases. Treatment of patients with BM can consist of local treatment (surgery and/or radiotherapy) and/or systemic treatment. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of different systemic therapies in patients with HER2+ mBC and BM. Methods: A systematic search was performed in the databases PubMed, Embase.com, Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science Core Collection and the Wiley/Cochrane Library. Eligible articles included prospective or retrospective studies reporting on the effect of systemic therapy on objective response rate (ORR) and/or median progression free survival (mPFS) in patients with HER2+ mBC and BM. The timeframe within the databases was from inception to 19 January 2022. Fixed-effects meta-analyses were used. Quality appraisal was performed using the ROBINS-I tool. Results: Fifty-one studies were included, involving 3118 patients. Most studies, which contained the largest patient numbers, but also often carried a moderate-serious risk of bias, investigated lapatinib and capecitabine (LC), trastuzumab-emtansine (T-DM1) or pyrotinib. The best quality data and/or highest ORR were described with tucatinib (combined with trastuzumab and capecitabine, TTC) and trastuzumab-deruxtecan (T-DXd). TTC demonstrated an ORR of 47.3% in patients with asymptomatic and/or active BM. T-DXd achieved a pooled ORR of 64% (95% CI 43–85%, I2 0%) in a heavily pretreated population with asymptomatic BM (3 studies, n = 96). Conclusions: Though our meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneity of included studies and a related serious risk of bias, this review provides a comprehensive overview of all currently available systemic treatment options. T-Dxd and TTC that appear to constitute the most effective systemic therapy in patients with HER2+ mBC and BM, while pyrotinib might be an option in Asian patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess information and communication priorities of patients and healthcare professionals in Shared Decision Making about adjuvant systemic treatment of primary breast cancer and identify key decision-relevant information accordingly. Patients (N = 122) and professionals working with breast cancer patients (N = 118), of whom 38 were nurse practitioners and 32 nurses, were recruited using convenience sampling, and surveyed about information/communication aspects key to decision-making, using ranking assignments. We further posed a simple open question, questions about receiving population-based statistics versus personalized statistics concerning treatment outcomes, and their attitude and experience concerning Shared Decision Making. Data were analyzed using descriptive analysis and a qualitative analysis. Both patients and professionals prioritized information about treatment outcomes (i.e., survival, recurrence) as key decision-relevant information for patients. Patients prioritized information about relatively severe treatment side-effects and late effects (e.g., blood clot, stroke), whilst professionals prioritized information about effects that occur relatively often (e.g., hair loss, fatigue). Patients specifically wanted to know if the benefit of treatment is worth the negative impact. Both groups prioritized personalized statistics over population-based statistics. Some differences between patients and professionals were found in information and communication priorities, specifically related to the different side-effects. It seems worthwhile to precisely address these side-effects in Shared Decision Making concerning adjuvant systemic treatment. Furthermore, it seems important to deliberate together on the question if expected benefit of treatment is worth the potential negative impact for the individual patient. • Shared Decision Making is vital for adjuvant systemic treatment for breast cancer. • What information is key to be communicated to patients is unknown. • Treatment outcomes were prioritized as key by patients and professionals. • Patients and professionals thought differently about several side-effects. • Patients wanted to know if the benefit of treatment is worth the negative impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose:Delivery of exercise interventions to patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy requires complex clinical decisions. The purpose of this study was to develop a framework to support clinical decisions for tailoring exercise interventions to common comorbidities and cancer treatment-induced adverse effects. Method:Tailored exercise prescriptions were developed in four steps, following the i3-S strategy. All steps were based on current best available evidence, complemented with expert opinions. First, common comorbidities and treatment-induced adverse effects were identified. In the subsequent steps, contra-indications and restrictions for exercise were described, along with possible exercise adaptations. In the final step, the obtained information was synthesized into a framework. Results:Prevalent comorbidities were hypertension, heart disease, diabetes mellitus, (osteo)arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and obesity. Adverse effects included conditions induced by pretreatment (e.g., lymphedema as a result of surgery) or by chemotherapy (e.g., reduced blood cell counts). Adaptations to the recommended exercise program were related to exercise tolerance, safety, and hygiene. A framework was proposed to guide clinical decisions during the exercise intervention. Conclusion:Comorbidities and adverse effects of breast cancer treatment require exercise adaptations. The proposed framework provides guidance on tailored exercise prescriptions in patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy.Implications for RehabilitationExercise is recommended for patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy, but requires complex clinical decisions of the health professional.We identified the most important comorbidities and adverse effects of breast cancer treatment, and the resultant contra-indications and restrictions to exercise.We incorporated these findings into a clinical decision framework that provides suggestions for exercise adaptations in patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]