Search

Purpose: The CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib inhibits cyclin A, which is overexpressed in endometrial cancer. Combining palbociclib with endocrine therapy improves efficacy in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. We investigated palbociclib combined with endocrine therapy for estrogen receptor-positive advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer., Patients and Methods: This placebo-controlled double-blind, randomized phase II screening trial (NCT02730429) enrolled women with measurable/evaluable estrogen receptor-positive endometrioid endometrial cancer that was primary metastatic or had relapsed after ≥1 prior systemic therapy. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by number of prior chemotherapy lines, measurable versus evaluable non-measurable disease, and prior medroxyprogesterone/megestrol acetate treatment, to receive oral letrozole 2.5 mg on days 1-28 plus either oral palbociclib 125 mg or placebo on days 1-21, repeated every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: Among 77 patients randomized between February 16, 2017, and December 21, 2018, 73 were treated (36 with palbociclib-letrozole, 37 with placebo-letrozole). Median follow-up was 21.9 (95 % CI, 16.7 to 22.3) months. Median PFS was 8.3 (95 % CI, 4.6 to 11.2) versus 3.1 (95 % CI, 2.7 to 6.8) months, respectively. In a landmark analysis at 12 months the PFS hazard ratio was 0.57 (95 % CI, 0.32 to 0.99; P = .044). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were more common with palbociclib-letrozole (67 %) than placebo-letrozole (30 %), most commonly neutropenia (44 % v 0 %, respectively)., Conclusion: These results support a potential role of the palbociclib-letrozole combination as treatment for hormone receptor-positive advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer. Based on these encouraging results, phase III evaluation of letrozole combined with a CDK4/6 inhibitor is planned., Clinical Trial Information: NCT02730429., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest MRM reports leadership roles and stock for Karyopharm Therapeutics and Sera Prognostics; honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, GSK, Merck, Mersana, Takeda, Zai Lab, Geneos, and Allarity Therapeutics; consulting/advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Genmab, Karopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer, and GSK; research funding (to institution) from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Ultimovacs, Apexigen, and GSK; grants and personal fees from Tesaro, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Clovis Oncology; travel/accommodation/expenses from AstraZeneca, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro, and SeraCare; and other relationships with ENGOT, GCIG, and ESGO. LB reports speaker's bureau participation for GSK and MSD and research funding from AstraZeneca. FM reports honoraria from Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genomic Health, PharmaMar, Amgen, MSD Oncology, Seagen, Myriad Genetics, Pierre Fabre, GSK, Agendia, Lilly, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Immunomedics; consulting/advisory roles for Pfizer, Genomic Health, CureVac, Amgen, Eisai, GSK, Gilead, Seagen, Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Roche, Vaccibody, and Immunomedics; research funding from Roche/Genentech, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, MSD Oncology, Vaccibody, Gilead, and GSK; and travel/accommodation/expenses from Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Gilead Sciences. RdPC reports employment and stock ownership from Y-mAbs Therapeutics and consulting/advisory role for Karyopharm. MGM reports consulting/advisory roles for AstraZeneca; speakers' bureau for GSK and MSD Oncology; and travel/accommodation/expenses from AstraZeneca, GSK, and MSD Oncology. AA reports consulting/advisory roles and travel/accommodation/expenses from GSK and MSD. BA reports honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, GSK, Eisai Europe, Novartis, Lilly, and Pfizer; consulting/advisory roles for Roche, MSD, Sanofi Aventis GmbH, GSK, and Eisai Europe; and travel/accommodation/expenses from Roche, AstraZeneca, GSK, Lilly, and Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca. VS reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, GSK, PharmaMar, and Novocure; consulting/advisory roles for AstraZeneca and Novocure; and travel/accommodation/expenses from GSK and PharmaMar. AR reports consulting/advisory roles for AstraZeneca, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, and Pharma&; speakers' bureau for AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, and Pharma&; and travel/accommodation/expenses from AstraZeneca. KL reports honoraria from AstraZeneca; consulting/advisory roles for Eisai, MSD, GSK, and Nycode; research funding (inst) from GSK; and is Deputy Medical Director of NSGO-CTU. FT reports research funding and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, ImmunoGen, MSD, SAGA diagnostics, and Tesaro/GSK. MPBG reports consulting/advisory roles for AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD Oncology, Eisai Europe, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, and Pharma&; speakers' bureau for AstraZeneca Spain, GSK, Eisai Europe, and MSD Oncology; and travel/accommodation/expenses from AstraZeneca, GSK, and MSD Oncology. JEK reports employment (immediate family member) with MSD; consulting/advisory roles for AstraZeneca, MSD, and GSK; and travel/accommodation from AstraZeneca, Eisai, PharmaMar, and GSK. JS reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Clovis Oncology, Olympus Medical Systems, Johnson & Johnson, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Teva, Tesaro, MSD Oncology, GSK, and Bayer; consulting/advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Merck, Pfizer, Tesaro, MSD Oncology, Lilly, Novocure, Johnson & Johnson, Roche Diagnostics, NGRESS-Health, Riemser, Sobi, GSK, Novartis, and Alkermes; research funding (inst) from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Merck, Bayer, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Tesaro, MSD Oncology, and Roche; travel/accommodation/expenses from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Roche Pharma AG, Tesaro, MSD Oncology, and Olympus. No other potential conflicts of interest were reported., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: At the time of AtTEnd trial design, standard treatment for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer included carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy. This trial assessed whether combining atezolizumab with chemotherapy might improve outcomes in this population., Methods: AtTEnd was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done in 89 hospitals in 11 countries across Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Asia. Enrolled patients were aged 18 years or older, and had advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma or carcinosarcoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and received no previous systemic chemotherapy for recurrence. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using an interactive web response system (block size of six) to either atezolizumab 1200 mg or placebo given intravenously with chemotherapy (carboplatin at area under the curve of 5 or 6 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 1 every 21 days) for 6-8 cycles, then continued until progression. Stratification factors were country, histological subtype, advanced or recurrent status, and mismatch repair (MMR) status. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The hierarchically tested co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (in patients with MMR-deficient [dMMR] tumours, and in the overall population) and overall survival (in the overall population). Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who gave their full consent to participation in the study and data processing. Safety was assessed in all patients included in the intention-to-treat population who received at least one dose of study treatment. Here, we report the primary progression-free survival and the interim overall survival results. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03603184., Findings: Between Oct 3, 2018, and Jan 7, 2022, 551 patients were randomly assigned to atezolizumab (n=362) or placebo (n=189). Two patients in the atezolizumab group were excluded from all analyses due to lack of consent. Median follow-up was 28·3 months (IQR 21·2-37·6). 81 (23%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 44 (23%) patients in the placebo group had dMMR disease by central assessment. In the dMMR population, median progression-free survival was not estimable (95% CI 12·4 months-not estimable [NE]) in the atezolizumab group and 6·9 months (6·3-10·1) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·36, 95% CI 0·23-0·57; p=0·0005). In the overall population, median progression-free survival was 10·1 months (95% CI 9·5-12·3) in the atezolizumab group and 8·9 months (8·1-9·6) in the placebo group (HR 0·74, 95% CI 0·61-0·91; p=0·022). Median overall survival was 38·7 months (95% CI 30·6-NE) in the atezolizumab group and 30·2 months (25·0-37·2) in the placebo group (HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·63-1·07; log-rank p=0·048). The p value for the interim analysis of overall survival did not cross the stopping boundary; therefore, the trial will continue until the required number of events are recorded. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (97 [27%] of 356 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 51 [28%] of 185 in the placebo group) and anaemia (49 [14%] vs 24 [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 46 (13%) patients in the atezolizumab group and six (3%) patients in the placebo group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in two patients (pneumonia in one patient in each group)., Interpretation: Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy increased progression-free survival in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma, particularly in those with dMMR carcinomas, suggesting the addition of atezolizumab to standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment in this specific subgroup., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EB, FG, ER, and SU report grants from Roche to their institution to support the conduct of the study. NC reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD/Merck, Nuvation Bio, OncXerna, Pieris, Pfizer, Roche, and Novocure; and grants or research support from GSK and AstraZeneca. KH reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Eisai, MSD/Merck, Taiho, and Takeda; and grants or research support from MSD/Merck, Chugai, Takeda, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo. EH reports personal fees from GSK and Clovis. FM reports personal fees from Roche, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD/Merck, GSK, Clovis, Gilead, Myriad Genetics, Seagen, and Stemline Menarini; grants or research support from Roche; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Immutep, Amgen, and Palleos Healthcare. CM reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, MSD/Merck, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PharmaMar, ImmunoGen, Daiichi Sankyo, Novocure, BioNTtech, Eisai, and GSK. LF-M reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD/Merck, Eisai, and Pharma&. YCL reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, and grants or research support from BeiGene. EP reports personal fees from GSK and AstraZeneca. BP reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD/Merck, and Pharma&. CZ reports personal fees from Roche, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, QuintilesIMS, Clovis, Eli Lilly, Istituto Gentili, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, MSD/Merck, GSK, and Gilead; and grants or research support from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eisai, Clovis, Gilead, Seagen, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, and MSD/Merck. KT reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, Takeda, MSD/Merck, Nippon Kayaku, Eisai, and Sanofi; and grants or research support from Chugai Pharma. AF reports personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, and MSD/Merck. MP reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, and MSD/Merck. MPBG reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD/Merck, PharmaMar, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Pharma&, and Kyowa Kirin; and a leadership role for Geico. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: The capsule formulation of CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib has reduced solubility at gastric pH > 4.5 and may have decreased activity when used with proton-pump inhibitors (PPI). Herein, we report the effect of PPI on palbociclib capsule activity and safety in the PARSIFAL study., Methods: First-line endocrine-sensitive, hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients received palbociclib capsules plus fulvestrant or letrozole. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). This post-hoc analysis compared PPI use. Patients were PPI-naïve (N-PPI) if not on PPI during the study, and either early (E-PPI) or long-term PPI (LT-PPI) if on PPI at study entry or for at least ≥⅔ of treatment, respectively. PPI groups were not mutually exclusive., Results: Among 486 patients, 66.9 % were N-PPI, 13.2 % E-PPI, 18.7 % LT-PPI, and 11.5 % of the PPI users were defined as neither. Median PFS (mPFS) was 29.6 months in the study population, 28.7 months in N-PPI, 23.0 months in E-PPI (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.5; 95%Confidence Interval [CI] 1.1-2.2; p = 0.024), and 23.0 months in LT-PPI (HR 1.4; 95%CI 1.0-1.9; p = 0.035). By landmark analysis, PPI use was associated with poorer mPFS at 3 and 12 months. Grade ≥3 hematological adverse events occurred in 71.7 % of N-PPI, 57.8 % of E-PPI (p = 0.021), and 54.9 % of LT-PPI (p = 0.003). Dose reductions and dosing delays due to hematological toxicity occurred in 70.8 % of N-PPI, 56.3 % of E-PPI (p = 0.018), and 52.7 % of LT-PPI (p = 0.002)., Conclusions: PPI use may reduce palbociclib capsule toxicity, dose modifications, and clinical activity in HR+/HER2- ABC., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest SDC reports consulting for MEDSIR and IQVIA and honoraria from Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. JMPG reports consulting for Roche, Eiasi, Daichii Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead, MSD and Seagen and travel expenses from Roche. MB reports consulting fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and Steamline-Menarini; honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly; and trave support from Pfizer. FD reports travel grants for Daichii, Novartis, and Pfizer, and participation in monitor/advisory boards for Daiichi, Seagen, Novartis, Gilead, Lilly, and MSD. MGG reports honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, and AstraZeneca, travel grants from Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Pfizer, and participation in monitoring/advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Seagen, and Gilead. MRB reports honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZenca, and Daiichi Sankyo. JG reports consulting fees from Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca; honoraria from Novartis; and travel support from Roche and AstraZeneca. EAO reports consulting for AstraZeneca, Daichii, Gilead, MSD, and Seagen; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daichii, Lilly, MSD, and Seagen; travel support from Daichii, Lilly, Gilead, and AstraZeneca; and participation in monitor/advisory boards for Gilead, AstraZeneca, Seagen, and Dachii. PS reports honoraria from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim; a consulting role for Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, and Puma; and institutional grants from Roche, Genentech, Oncogenex, and Novartis. FM reports grants from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, Clovis, Vaccibody, Gilead Sciences, and Esai; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Roche; honoraria from AstraZeneca, MSD, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, GSK, Clovis, Myriad, Daiich Sankyo, Seagen, Pierre-Fabre, and Agendia; travel support from AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, and Roche; and participation in advisory boards for Palleos and Amgen. JG reports grant/research support from Roche, Eiasi, and Exact Science; honoraria or consultation fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Eisai, Exact Science, Evapharm, GE Healthcare, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen, Sothema and participation in company sponsored speaker's bureaus for Exact Science, Lilly, and Novartis. AS reports grants from Celgene, Roche, Abbvie; travel grants from Celgene, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, GSK, Bayer, Amgen, Pierre Fabre. JA reports trial funding from MEDSIR and consulting for Pfizer, Lilly, and Novartis. PZ reports honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and Pierre Fabre; and travel support from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and Lilly. DW reports honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca and travel grants from Roche, and Novartis. JC reports consulting for Roche, Celgene, Cellestia, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Erytech, Athenex, Polyphor, Lilly, Merck Sharp&Dohme, GSK, Leuko, Bioasis, Clovis Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses, Hibercell, BioInvent, Gemoab, Gilead, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal Genomics, Expres2ion Biotechnologies; honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Eisai, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Lilly, Merck Sharp&Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo.; research funding to the Institution from Roche, Ariad pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Baxalta GMBH/Servier Affaires, Bayer healthcare, Eisai, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Guardanth health, Merck Sharp&Dohme, Pfizer, Piqur Therapeutics, Puma C, Queen Mary University of London; stock shares for MEDSIR, Nektar Pharmaceuticals, Leuko (relative); Travel, accommodation, expenses from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Astrazeneca, Gilead; and Patents: Pharmaceutical Combinations of A Pi3k Inhibitor And A Microtubule Destabilizing Agent. Javier Cortés Castán, Alejandro Piris Giménez, Violeta Serra Elizalde. WO 2014/199294 A. ISSUED Her2 as a predictor of response to dual HER2 blockade in the absence of cytotoxic therapy. Aleix Prat, Antonio Llombart, Javier Cortés. US 2019/0338368 A1. LICENSED. ALC reports research support from Roche, Agendia, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Gilead, and Daichii-Sanyo; consulting for Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; participation in speakers' bureaus for Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme; travel support from Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca; and stock or other ownership in MEDSIR and Initia-Research. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: PHERGain was designed to assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a chemotherapy-free treatment based on a dual human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC). It used an 18 fluorine-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET-based, pathological complete response (pCR)-adapted strategy., Methods: PHERGain was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial that took place in 45 hospitals in seven European countries. It randomly allocated patients in a 1:4 ratio with centrally confirmed, HER2-positive, stage I-IIIA invasive, operable breast cancer with at least one PET-evaluable lesion to either group A, where patients received docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 , intravenous), carboplatin (area under the curve 6 mg/mL per min, intravenous), trastuzumab (600 mg fixed dose, subcutaneous), and pertuzumab (840 mg loading dose followed by 420 mg maintenance doses, intravenous; TCHP), or group B, where patients received trastuzumab and pertuzumab with or without endocrine therapy, every 3 weeks. Random allocation was stratified by hormone receptor status. Centrally reviewed PET was conducted at baseline and after two treatment cycles. Patients in group B were treated according to on-treatment PET results. Patients in group B who were PET-responders continued with trastuzumab and pertuzumab with or without endocrine therapy for six cycles, while PET-non-responders were switched to receive six cycles of TCHP. After surgery, patients in group B who were PET-responders who did not achieve a pCR received six cycles of TCHP, and all patients completed up to 18 cycles of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. The primary endpoints were pCR in patients who were group B PET-responders after two treatment cycles (the results for which have been reported previously) and 3-year invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in patients in group B. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03161353) and is ongoing., Findings: Between June 26, 2017, and April 24, 2019, a total of 356 patients were randomly allocated (71 patients in group A and 285 patients in group B), and 63 (89%) and 267 (94%) patients proceeded to surgery in groups A and B, respectively. At this second analysis (data cutoff: Nov 4, 2022), the median duration of follow-up was 43·3 months (range 0·0-63·0). In group B, the 3-year iDFS rate was 94·8% (95% CI 91·4-97·1; p=0·001), meeting the primary endpoint. No new safety signals were identified. Treatment-related adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs) were numerically higher in patients allocated to group A than to group B (grade ≥3 62% vs 33%; SAEs 28% vs 14%). Group B PET-responders with pCR presented the lowest incidence of treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (1%) without any SAEs., Interpretation: Among HER2-positive EBC patients, a PET-based, pCR-adapted strategy was associated with an excellent 3-year iDFS. This strategy identified about a third of patients who had HER2-positive EBC who could safely omit chemotherapy., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JMP-G reports consulting roles for Roche, Lilly, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead, MSD, and Seattle Genetics and travel expenses from Roche. JC reports consulting roles for Roche, Celgene, Cellestia, AstraZeneca, Biothera Phgroupaceutical, Merus, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Erytech, Athenex, Polyphor, Lilly, Servier, MSD, GSK, Leuko, Bioasis, and Clovis Oncology; honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Eisai, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Lilly, MSD, and Daiichi Sankyo; research funding to their institution from Roche, Ariad pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Baxalta GMBH/Servier Affaires, Bayer healthcare, Eisai, F Hoffman-La Roche, Guardanth health, MSD, Pfizer, Piqur Therapeutics, Puma C, and Queen Mary University of London; and intellectual property for Medica Scientia Innovation Research (MEDSIR). MR-B reports membership of a speaker bureau and advisory board for Novartis. MC reports a research grant to their institution from Roche and the role of co-chair of the scientific committee of the International Breast Cancer Study Group. AS reports consulting roles for Roche, AstraZeneca, Seagen, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim; to be part of a speaker bureau for Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, and Novartis; and travel expenses from Pfizer, Novartis, and Eisai. BB reports receiving fees for medical education in a consulting or advisory role with MSD, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Seagen; participating in a speakers bureau for Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Palex, Eisai, Daichii Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and Seagen. SE-d-R reports consulting roles for Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre; to be part of a speaker bureau for Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen; to have received research funding from Roche, Synthon, Byondis, MEDSIR, SOLTI, Zymeworks, and Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca; and travel, accommodation, or expenses from Pfizer, Kern Pharma, and Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca. NR reports research funding from Pfizer; and to be part of speaker bureau for Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, and Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca. FM reports grants from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, Clovis, Vaccibody, Gilead Sciences, and Esai; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Roche; honoraria from AstraZeneca, MSD, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, GSK, Clovis, Myriad, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Pierre Fabre, and Agendia; travel support from AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, and Roche; and participation in advisory boards for Palleos and Amgen. AC reports consulting or advisory roles for Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre; being part of a speakers bureau for Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and Seagen; institutional research funding from Roche, Synthon, Byondis, MEDSIR, SOLTI, Zymeworks, and Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca; and expert testimony and travel or accommodations expenses from Pfizer, Kern Pharma, and Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca. AP reports honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, MSD Oncology, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, and Amgen; to have consulting roles for Roche, AstraZeneca, Peptomyc, Novartis, and Daiichi Sankyo; research funding to their institution from Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Reveal Genomics; to have intellectual property (ERBB2 and HER2DX patents); travel expenses from Daiichi Sankyo; and a share in ownership at Reveal Genomics. PS reports honoraria from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim; a consulting role in Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, and Puma; and grants to their institution from Roche, Genentech, Oncogenex, and Novartis. SB reports a consulting or advisory board role at Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche; speaker or conference fees from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche; and travel fees from Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche. SDC reports receiving fees for medical education from Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and IQVIA; institutional grant IG 20774 of Fondazione AIRC per la Ricerca sul Cancro; Cancer Can.Heal European EU4 Health Programme 101080009–European Commission; and serving as an ad hoc medical advisor for MEDSIR. MG reports honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Gilead, and AstraZeneca; travel grants and accommodation from Roche, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca; and an advisory role at Gilead. GA reports honoraria from MEDSIR. AL-C reports leadership roles at Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, and MSD; intellectual property for MEDSIR and Initia Research; to have consulting roles for Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, GenomicHealth, and GSK; to be part of a speakers bureau for Lilly, AstraZeneca, and MSD; research funding from Roche, Foundation Medicine, Pierre Fabre, and Agendia; and travel expenses from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. CP, ES, DA-L, PG, JR-M, LM, and MS-C are employees of MEDSIR. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: The development of anti-HER2 antibody-drug conjugates opens new therapeutic options for patients with breast cancer, including patients with low expression of HER2. To characterise this new breast cancer subtype, we have compared the clinical and molecular characteristics of HER2-low-positive and HER2-zero breast cancer, including response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and prognosis., Methods: In this pooled analysis of individual patient data, we evaluated a cohort of 2310 patients with HER2-non-amplified primary breast cancer that were treated with neoadjuvant combination chemotherapy in four prospective neoadjuvant clinical trials (GeparSepto, NCT01583426; GeparOcto, NCT02125344; GeparX, NCT02682693; Gain-2 neoadjuvant, NCT01690702) between July 30, 2012, and March 20, 2019. Central HER2 testing was done prospectively before random assignment of participants in all trials. HER2-low-positive status was defined as immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or IHC2+/in-situ hybridisation negative and HER2-zero was defined as IHC0, based on the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines. Disease-free survival and overall survival data were available for 1694 patients (from all trials except GeparX) with a median follow-up of 46·6 months (IQR 35·0-52·3). Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models and Cox-proportional hazards models were performed based on a predefined statistical analysis plan for analysis of the endpoints pathological complete response, disease-free survival, and overall survival., Findings: A total of 1098 (47·5%) of 2310 tumours were HER2-low-positive and 1212 (52·5%) were HER2-zero. 703 (64·0%) of 1098 patients with HER2-low-positive tumours were hormone receptor positive, compared with 445 (36·7%) of 1212 patients with HER2-zero tumours (p<0.0001). HER2-low-positive tumours had a significantly lower pathological complete response rate than HER2-zero tumours (321 [29·2%] of 1098 vs 473 [39·0%] of 1212, p=0·0002). Pathological complete response was also significantly lower in HER2-low-positive tumours versus HER2-zero tumours in the hormone receptor-positive subgroup (123 [17·5%] of 703 vs 105 [23·6%] of 445, p=0·024), but not in the hormone receptor-negative subgroup (198 [50·1%] of 395 vs 368 [48·0%] of 767, p=0·21). Patients with HER2-low-positive tumours had significantly longer survival than did patients with HER2-zero tumours (3-year disease-free survival: 83·4% [95% CI 80·5-85·9] vs 76·1% [72·9-79·0]; stratified log-rank test p=0·0084; 3-year overall survival: 91·6% [84·9-93·4] vs 85·8% [83·0-88·1]; stratified log-rank test p=0·0016). Survival differences were also seen in patients with hormone receptor-negative tumours (3-year disease-free survival: 84·5% [95% CI 79·5-88·3] vs 74·4% [70·2-78.0]; stratified log-rank test p=0·0076; 3-year overall survival: 90·2% [86·0-93·2] vs 84·3% [80·7-87·3], stratified log-rank test p=0·016), but not in patients with hormone receptor-positive tumours (3-year disease-free survival 82·8% [79·1-85·9] vs 79·3% [73·9-83·7]; stratified log-rank test p=0·39; 3-year overall survival 92·3% [89·6-94·4] vs 88·4% [83·8-91·8]; stratified log-rank test p=0·13)., Interpretation: Our results show that HER2-low-positive tumours can be identified as new subgroup of breast cancer by standardised IHC, distinct from HER2-zero tumours. HER2-low-positive tumours have a specific biology and show differences in response to therapy and prognosis, which is particularly relevant in therapy-resistant, hormone receptor-negative tumours. Our results provide a basis for a better understanding of the biology of breast cancer subtypes and the refinement of future diagnostic and therapeutic strategies., Funding: German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CD reports grants from European Commission H2020, German Cancer Aid Translational Oncology, German Breast Group, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Novartis, Roche, MSD Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Molecular Health, and Merck, and grants from Myriad, outside the submitted work. CD is the cofounder of Sividon diagnostics. CD has a patent VMScope digital pathology software with royalties paid, a patent WO2020109570A1-cancer immunotherapy pending, and a patent WO2015114146A1 and WO2010076322A1-therapy response issued. AS reports grants from Celgene, Roche, and AbbVie; personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly, and Roche, outside the submitted work. TL receives payment or honoraria from Tesaro, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Clovis, and Lilly; receives support for travel costs from Roche, Pfizer, MSD, Celgene, and Clovis; reports participation on an Advisory Board from Roche, Tesaro, Amgen, MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Myriad, Esai, and GSK, outside the submitted work. J-UB reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Amgen, MSD Oncology, Lilly, Novartis, Sysmex, Roche, and Sonoscape, outside the submitted work. PW reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Teva, Eisai, Clovis, and Tesaro, outside the submitted work. HT reports consulting fees and travel costs from Pierre Fabre, Pfizer Pharma, Mundipharma, ClinSol, Novartis, Lilly, Grünenthal, Vifor, AstraZeneca, Mylan, and AMGEN; payment or honoraria from Vifor, Novartis, AstraZeneca, ClinSol, Mundipharma, Lilly, and Amgen; participation on an Advisory Board from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Molecular Health, Pfizer, Roche, Grünenthal, and Mylan; and is part of a leadership or fiduciary role in Arbeitskreis klinische Studien. ASCO, BNHO, DGHO, DKG, ESMO, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Senelogie. CJ receives payment or honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lilly, Exact Sciences, and Pierre Fabre; recieves support for travel costs from Roche and AstraZeneca, reports participation on an Advisory Board from Roche, Lilly, and AstraZeneca. MR reports consulting fees from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, and Somatex; receives payment or honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Somatex, and AstraZeneca; recieves support for travel costs from Novartis, Pfizer, and Celgene. EFS receives payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Celgene, Roche, and Amgen; support for travel costs from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Erbe, Gedeon, Richter, Genomic Health, Jenapharm, Johnson Johnson, KLS Martin, Matramed, Medac, Mentor, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, MSD, Roche, Samsung, Storz, Tewa, Vifor, Medconcept, and Thieme; is part of a leadership or fiduciary role of University of Saarland, Germany, society for German Gynecological Endoscopy. CH reports personal fees from Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Celgene, outside the submitted work. PAF reports personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Seattle Genetics, Roche, and Hexal, and grants from Biontech and Cepheid, during the conduct of the study. KL receives payment from Roche, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Lilly, and Genomic Health, support for travel costs from Roche, and reports participation on an Advisory Board from Roche, MSD, and Esai. JH reports research grants to institution from Celgene, Novartis, and Hexal; consulting fees from Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Hexal, AstraZeneca, MSD, Celgene, and Abbvie; receives payment from Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Celgene, Eisai, and Abbvie; recieves support for travel costs from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Celgene, and Daiichi. TR reports consulting fees from Pfizer, honoraria for presentations from AstraZeneca and receives payment from Pfizer, Roche, and Novartis. MS reports grants from AstraZeneca, BioNtech, Eisai, German Breast Group, Genentech, Novartis, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and SeaGen; receives payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and SeaGen; support for travel costs from Pfizer and Roche; has planned patents, issued or pending from EP 2951317 B1 and EP 2390370 B1; reports participation on an Advisory Board from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and SeaGen; medical writing support from Roche. WJ reports grants and personal fees from Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Chugai, AstraZeneca, MSD, and Daiichi Sankyo, during the conduct of the study. ES reports consulting fees from Roche and AstraZeneca; receives payment or honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, and Astra Zeneca; support for travel costs from Roche, Pfizer, and Daiko. SSe reports reimbursement of travel costs from Novartis and personal fees from Roche, Mundipharma, and Amgen, outside the submitted work. MU reports personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly Int, MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Odonate, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland, TEVA Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Clovis Oncology; personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly Deutschland, PUMA Biotechnology, Pierre Fabre, Seattle Genetics, outside the submitted work. SL reports grants or fundings from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Immunomedics, Pfizer, Roche, DSI Trevor, Vifor, Abbvie, Cepheid, Seagen, and VM Scope; receives payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Prime/Medscape, Puma, and Samsung; has planned patents, issued or pending from EP14153692.0; reports participation on an Advisory Board from Amgen, AstraZeneca, DSI, Roche, Merck, Pfizer, BMS, SeaGen, Eirgenix, Celgene, Abbvie, Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pierre Fabre; is part of a leadership or fiduciary role from BIG. All other authors report no conflicts of interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Young women receiving chemotherapy for early breast cancer (EBC) have a high probability for ovarian failure, defined by chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea (CIA) as a surrogate. CIA is insufficiently reliable and reproducible. We analysed chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure (CIOF) by assessing hormone parameters, CIA, and antral follicle count (AFC)., Methods: Blood samples of women aged ≤45 years treated with anthracycline/taxane-based chemotherapy for EBC from four neoadjuvant/adjuvant trials were collected at baseline, at the end of treatment (EOT), and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after EOT. Centrally assessed oestradiol (cutoff <52.2 ng/L) and follicle-stimulating hormone (cutoff >12.4IU/L) were used to define CIOF for patients with baseline premenopausal hormone levels, anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), and AFC to assess ovarian reserve. Further analyses included CIA, regain of premenopausal hormone levels, and disease-free survival (DFS) also in subgroups., Results: Six hundred ninety-six patients aged ≤45 years had premenopausal hormone levels at baseline. Overall, 85.1% (592/696) experienced CIOF at EOT, and 147 of 592 had further hormone measurements after EOT. Of those, 32.7% (48/147) regained premenopausal hormone levels after 6 months, 57.9% (66/114) regained premenopausal hormone levels after 12 months, 83.0% (73/88) regained premenopausal hormone levels after 18 months, and 89.2% (74/83) regained premenopausal hormone levels after 24 months. After 24 months, 72.4% (21/29) of patients without CIOF and 100% (14/14) with CIOF had low AMH levels. Four-year DFS without CIOF versus CIOF was 65.9% versus 84.6% (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.37-3.19; P < 0.001); in hormone receptor positive 61.8% versus 87.5% (HR = 2.69, 95% CI: 1.57-4.60; P < 0.001); in <30 years 68.3% versus 92.6% (HR = 4.87, 95% CI: 1.05-22.63; P = 0.026)., Conclusion: Most premenopausal women experienced CIOF after chemotherapy for EBC. After 2 years, nearly all regain premenopausal hormone levels. CIOF was associated with better DFS, especially in patients with hormone receptor-positive EBC or aged <30 years., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement M.F. reports personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Tesaro, Novartis, Amgen, PharmaMar, GenomicHealth, CureVac, EISAI, Celgene, Clovis, Janssen-Cilag, Immunomedics, GSK, MSD, Lilly, outside the submitted work. U.M. reports personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, Amgen GmbH, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Celgene GmbH, Daiji Sankyo, Eisai GmbH, Lilly Deutschland, Lilly Int., MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Odonate, and Pfizer GmbH; personal fees from PUMA Biotechnology; personal fees and non-financial support from Roche Pharma AG, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland GmbH, TEVA Pharmaceuticals Ind Ltd, Novartis; personal fees from Pierre Fabre; and personal fees and non-financial support from Clovis Oncology, outside the submitted work. S.A. reports grants from Celgene, Roche, and AbbVie; personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly; and others from Roche, outside the submitted work. F.P.A. reports personal fees from Novartis; grants from BioNTech; personal fees from Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Astra Zeneca, Eisai, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; grants from Cepheid; personal fees from Lilly, Pierre Fabre, and Seattle Genetics, during the conduct of the study. D.C. reports personal fees from Novartis, Roche, MSD Oncology, and Daiichi Sankyo; grants from Myriad Genetics; and others from Sividon Diagnostics/Myriad, outside the submitted work. In addition, D.C. has a patent EP18209672 pending, a patent EP20150702464 pending, and a patent software (VMscope digital pathology) pending. V.M.M. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Novartis, Genomic Health, Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche, outside the submitted work. M.V. reports grants and personal fees from Roche, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Teva, and Seattle Genetics; consultancy honoraria from Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro, and Nektar; personal fees from Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro, and Nektar; and others from Novartis, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Genentech, outside the submitted work. L.S. reports grants and others from Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, and Roche; others from Seattle Genetics, PriME/Medscape; personal fees from Chugai; grants and others from Daiichi-Sankyo; others from Lilly, Samsung, BMS, and Puma; others from MSD; grants from Immunomedics; grants and others from AstraZeneca and Pfizer; others from Pierre Fabre; and others from Merck outside the submitted work. In addition, L.S. has a patent EP14153692.0 pending. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Several de-escalation approaches are under investigation in patients with HER2-positive, early-stage breast cancer. We assessed early metabolic responses to neoadjuvant trastuzumab and pertuzumab using 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose ( 18 F-FDG)-PET ( 18 F-FDG-PET) and the possibility of chemotherapy de-escalation using a pathological response-adapted strategy., Methods: We did a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-comparative, phase 2 trial in 45 hospitals in Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, the UK, Italy, and Portugal. Eligible participants were women aged 18 years or older with centrally confirmed, HER2-positive, stage I-IIIA, invasive, operable breast cancer (≥1·5 cm tumour size) with at least one breast lesion evaluable by 18 F-FDG-PET, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and a baseline left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55%. We randomly assigned participants (1:4), via an interactive response system using central block randomisation with block sizes of five, stratified by hormone receptor status, to either docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 intravenous), carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve 6 mg/mL  per  min intravenous), trastuzumab (subcutaneous 600 mg fixed dose), and pertuzumab (intravenous 840 mg loading dose, 420 mg maintenance doses; group A); or trastuzumab and pertuzumab (group B). Hormone receptor-positive patients allocated to group B were additionally given letrozole if postmenopausal (2·5 mg/day orally) or tamoxifen if premenopausal (20 mg/day orally). Centrally reviewed 18 F-FDG-PET scans were done before randomisation and after two treatment cycles. Patients assigned to group A completed six cycles of treatment (every 3 weeks) regardless of 18 F-FDG-PET results. All patients assigned to group B initially received two cycles of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. 18 F-FDG-PET responders in group B continued this treatment for six further cycles; 18 F-FDG-PET non-responders in this group were switched to six cycles of docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab. Surgery was done 2-6 weeks after the last dose of study treatment. Adjuvant treatment was selected according to the neoadjuvant treatment administered, pathological response, hormone receptor status, and clinical stage at diagnosis. The coprimary endpoints were the proportion of 18 F-FDG-PET responders in group B with a pathological complete response in the breast and axilla (ypT0/is ypN0) as determined by a local pathologist after surgery after eight cycles of treatment, and 3-year invasive disease-free survival of patients in group B, both assessed by intention to treat. The definitive assessment of pathological complete response was done at this primary analysis; follow-up to assess invasive disease-free survival is continuing, hence these data are not included in this Article. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. Health-related quality-of-life was assessed with EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires at baseline, after two cycles of treatment, and before surgery. This trial is registered with EudraCT (2016-002676-27) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03161353), and is ongoing., Findings: Between June 26, 2017, and April 24, 2019, we randomly assigned 71 patients to group A and 285 to group B. Median follow-up was 5·7 months (IQR 5·3-6·0). 227 (80%) of 285 patients in group B were 18 F-FDG-PET responders, of whom 86 (37·9%, 95% CI 31·6-44·5; p<0·0001 compared with the historical rate) of 227 had a pathological complete response. The most common haematological grade 3-4 adverse events were anaemia (six [9%] of 68 patients in group A vs four [1%] of 283 patients in group B), neutropenia (16 [24%] vs ten [4%]), and febrile neutropenia (14 [21%] vs 11 [4%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (29%) of 68 patients in group A versus 13 (5%) of 283 patients in group B. No deaths were reported during neoadjuvant treatment. Global health status declined by at least 10% in 65·0% (95% CI 46·5-72·4) and 35·5% (29·7-41·7) of patients in groups A and B, respectively INTERPRETATION: 18 F-FDG-PET identified patients with HER2-positive, early-stage breast cancer who were likely to benefit from chemotherapy-free dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab, and a reduced impact on global health status. Depending on the forthcoming results for the 3-year invasive disease-free survival endpoint, this strategy might be a valid approach to select patients not requiring chemotherapy., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JMP-G reports a consulting role for Roche and Lilly, travel expenses from Roche, and is a part-time employee of Medica Scientia Innovation Research. GG reports research funding from Roche paid to their institution and that an immediate family member received personal fees from Roche. MRB reports a consulting role for Novartis, Pfizer, and Merck-Sharpe & Dohme (MSD), and being part of the speaker bureau for Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Lilly, and AstraZeneca. AS reports a consulting role for Roche and Eisai, being part of the speaker bureau for Roche and Eisai, and reports expert testimony for Eisai and Roche, and travel expenses from Roche and Pfizer. BB reports a consulting role for Genentech and MSD, being part of the speaker bureau for Genentech, and travel expenses from Pfizer. PS reports honoraria from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim; a consulting role for Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Eisai, Celgene, and Puma; and a grant to their institution from Roche, Genentech, Oncogenex, and Novartis. FM reports honoraria from Roche–Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Celgene, Genomic Health, PharmaMar, Amgen, CureVac, MSD Oncology, Janssen-Cilag, and ImmunoMedics (to their institution); research funding to their institution from Roche–Genentech, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Tesaro, Clovis, MSD Oncology, and Vaccibody; travel compensations from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, PharmaMar, and AstraZeneca; and a consulting role for Tesaro, Pfizer, Novartis, GenomicHealth, CureVac, Amgen, Celgene, Eisai, Janssen-Cilag, AstraZeneca (to their institution), Roche (to their institution), Vaccibody (to their institution), and Immunomedics (to their institution) during this study. SE-d-R reports a consulting role for Roche, Pierre-Fabre, and Eisai; research funding from Synthon and Roche; and travel expenses from Roche, Pierre-Fabre, and Daiichi Sankyo. AP reports honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, MSD Oncology, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, and Amgen; a consulting role for Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Boehringer, PUMA Biotechnology, Oncolytics Biotech, Daiichi Sankyo, Abbvie, and NanoString Technologies; research funding to their institution from Roche, Novartis, Incyte, and PUMA Biotechnology; intellectual property (PCT/EP2016/080056: HER2 as a predictor of response to dual HER2 blockade in the absence of cytotoxic therapy; WO/2018/096191: Chemoendocrine score based on PAM50 for breast cancer with positive hormone receptors with an intermediate risk of recurrence); travel expenses from Daiichi Sankyo; other funding from Oncolytics, and Peptomyc; and that an immediate family member is an employee of Novartis. MC reports a consulting role for Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, OBI Pharma, Celldex, and AstraZeneca; and honoraria from Novartis. NA reports a consulting role for Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Lilly; and travel expenses from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and AstraZeneca. SDC reports fees for medical education from Novartis and Pierre-Fabre; being a recipient of the IG20774 grant from Fondazione Associazione Italiana Ricerca contro il Cancro), and is a part-time employee of MEDSIR during this study. MS-C reports honoraria and a consulting role for from MEDSIR, Syntax for Science, and Nestlé; being part of the speaker bureau for MEDSIR, Syntax for Science, and Roche; research funding from MEDSIR, Syntax for Science, and Roche; travel expenses from MEDSIR, Syntax for Science, and Roche; and is a part-time employee of MEDSIR during this study. AM is a full-time employee of MEDSIR. JC reports a consulting role for Roche, Celgene, Cellestia, AstraZeneca, Biothera Pharmaceutical, Merus, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Erytech, Athenex, Polyphor, Lilly, Servier, MSD, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Leuko, Bioasis, and Clovis Oncology; honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Eisai, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Lilly, MSD, and Daiichi Sankyo; research funding to their institution from Roche, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Baxalta GMBH–Servier Affaires, Bayer healthcare, Eisai, F Hoffman-La Roche, Guardant Health, MSD, Pfizer, Piqur Therapeutics, Puma C, and Queen Mary University of London; and intellectual property for MEDSIR. AL-C reports leadership for Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, and MSD; intellectual property for MEDSIR and Initia-Research; a consulting role for Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, GenomicHealth, and GSK; being part of the speaker bureau for Lilly, AstraZeneca, and MSD; research funding from Roche, Foundation Medicine, Pierre-Fabre, and Agendia; and travel expenses from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. LC, NR, NM, CA, FD, and KK declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To evaluate HER2-negative breast cancer (BC) with a low hormone receptor (HR) expression, with regard to pathological complete response (pCR) and survival, in comparison to triple-negative BC (TNBC) and strong HR-positive BC., Methods: We compared negative [oestrogen (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) <1%], low-positive (ER and/or PR 1-9%) and strong-positive (ER or PR 10-100%) HR-expression in neoadjuvant clinical trial cohorts (n = 2765) of BC patients. End-points were disease-free survival (DFS), distant-disease free survival (DDFS) and overall survival (OS). We performed RNA sequencing on available tumour tissue samples from patients with low-HR expression (n = 38)., Results: Ninety-four (3.4%) patients had low HR-positive tumours, 1769 (64.0%) had strong HR-positive tumours, and 902 (32.6%) had TNBC. There were no significant differences in pCR rates between women with low HR-positive tumours (27.7%) and women with TNBC (35.5%). DFS and DDFS were also not different [for DFS, hazard ratio 1.26, 95%-CI (confidence interval) : 0.87-1.83, log-rank test p = 0.951; for DDFS, hazard ratio 1.17, 95%-CI: 0.78-1.76, log-rank test p = 0.774]. Patients with strong HR-positive tumours had a significantly lower pCR rate (pCR 9.4%; odds ratio 0.38, 95%-CI: 0.23-0.63), but better DFS (hazard ratio 0.48, 95%-CI: 0.33-0.70) and DDFS (hazard ratio 0.49, 95%-CI: 0.33-0.74) than patients with low HR-positive tumours. Molecular subtyping (RNA sequencing) of low HR-positive tumours classified these predominantly into a basal subtype (86.8%)., Conclusion: Low HR-positive, HER2-negative tumours have a similar clinical behaviour to TNBC showing high pCR rates and poor survival and also a basal-like gene expression signature. Patients with low HR-positive tumours should be regarded as candidates for therapy strategies targeting TNBC., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: AS reports grants from Celgene, grants from Roche, grants from AbbVie, grants from Molecular Partner, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Pfizer, other from Roche, outside the submitted work. CD reports grant support from the European Commission (Responsify and Oncobiome project) as well as from the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe, TransLuminal-B and Integrate-TN project) during the conduct of the study; ownership interest in Sividon Diagnostics outside the submitted work; and honoraria from Pfizer, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, Myriad, Teva, Celgene, Roche, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. CH reports personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. CJ reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Celegen, personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. FM reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from PharmaMar, personal fees from GenomicHealth, personal fees from CureVac, personal fees from EISAI, personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from Celgene, outside the submitted work. HT reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. JH reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, grants and personal fees from Celgene, outside the submitted work. KEW reports personal fees and other from Myriad, outside the submitted work. MK reports grants from Deutsche Krebshilfe (German Cancer Aid), grants from DFG/BMBF, grants from Senator Roesner Foundation, grants from Dr. Pommer-Jung Foundation, personal fees from Springer Press, personal fees from Biermann Press, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Myriad Genetics, personal fees from TEVA, personal fees from Bavarian KVB, personal fees from DKMS Life, personal fees from BLÄK, other from Therawis Diagnostics GmbH, other from Busenfreundin GmbH, outside the submitted work. MU reports personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen GmbH, personal fees and non-financial support from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from Celgene GmbH, personal fees and non-financial support from Daiji Sankyo, personal fees and non-financial support from Eisai GmbH, personal fees from Lilly Deutschland, personal fees and non-financial support from Lilly Int., personal fees and non-financial support from MSD Merck, personal fees and non-financial support from Mundipharma, personal fees and non-financial support from Myriad Genetics, personal fees and non-financial support from Odonate, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer GmbH, personal fees from PUMA Biotechnology, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche Pharma AG, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi Aventis Deutschland GmbH, personal fees and non-financial support from TEVA Pharmaceuticals Ind Ltd, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work. MVM reports personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Genomic Health, non-financial support from Novartis, non-financial support from Lilly, outside the submitted work. NP reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. PAF reports grants from Novartis, grants from BioNTech, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, personal fees from TEVA, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, personal fees from Myelo Therapeutics, personal fees from Macrogenics, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Puma, grants from Cepheid, personal fees from Lilly, during the conduct of the study. SL reports grants and other from Abbvie, grants and other from Amgen, grants and other from AstraZeneca, grants and other from Celgene, grants and other from Novartis, grants and other from Pfizer, grants and other from Roche, other from Seattle Genetics, other from Prime/Medscape, personal fees from Chugai, grants from Teva, grants from Vifor, grants and other from Daiichi-Sankyo, other from Lilly, other from Samsung, other from Eirgenix, outside the submitted work; In addition, Dr. Loibl has a patent EP14153692.0 pending. WDS reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. WW reports personal fees from Roche, MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, Boehringer, Novartis, Takeda, Amgen, Astellas and grants from Roche, MSD, BMS, Bruker outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Preclinical studies show that adavosertib, a WEE1 kinase inhibitor, sensitizes TP53 -mutant cells to chemotherapy. We hypothesized that adavosertib, plus chemotherapy, would enhance efficacy versus placebo in TP53 -mutated ovarian cancer., Patients and Methods: Following safety run-in, this double-blind phase II trial (NCT01357161) randomized women with TP53 -mutated, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer to oral adavosertib (225 mg twice daily for 2.5 days/21-day cycle) or placebo, plus carboplatin (AUC5) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m 2 ), until disease progression or for six cycles. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) by enhanced RECIST v1.1 [ePFS (volumetric)] and safety. Secondary/exploratory objectives included PFS by RECIST v1.1 (single dimension), objective response rate, overall survival, and analysis of tumor gene profile versus sensitivity to adavosertib., Results: A total of 121 patients were randomized to adavosertib (A+C; n = 59) and placebo (P+C; n = 62) plus chemotherapy. Adding adavosertib to chemotherapy improved ePFS [median, 7.9 (95% confidence interval (CI), 6.9-9.9) vs. 7.3 months (5.6-8.2); HR 0.63 (95% CI, 0.38-1.06); two-sided P = 0.080], meeting the predefined significance threshold ( P < 0.2). Clinical benefit was observed following A+C for patients with different TP53 mutation subtypes, identifying possible response biomarkers. An increase in adverse events was seen with A+C versus P+C: greatest for diarrhea (adavosertib 75%; placebo 37%), vomiting (63%; 27%), anemia (53%; 32%), and all grade ≥3 adverse events (78%; 65%)., Conclusions: Establishing an optimal strategy for managing tolerability and identifying specific patient populations most likely to benefit from treatment may increase clinical benefit. Future studies should consider additional adavosertib doses within the chemotherapy treatment cycle and the potential for maintenance therapy., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: State-of-the art therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer suitable for platinum-based re-treatment includes bevacizumab-containing combinations (eg, bevacizumab combined with carboplatin-paclitaxel or carboplatin-gemcitabine) or the most active non-bevacizumab regimen: carboplatin-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. The aim of this head-to-head trial was to compare a standard bevacizumab-containing regimen versus carboplatin-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin combined with bevacizumab., Methods: This multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, was done in 159 academic centres in Germany, France, Australia, Austria, and the UK. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had histologically confirmed epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma with first disease recurrence more than 6 months after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were stratified by platinum-free interval, residual tumour, previous antiangiogenic therapy, and study group language, and were centrally randomly assigned 1:1 using randomly permuted blocks of size two, four, or six to receive six intravenous cycles of bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, day 1) plus carboplatin (area under the concentration curve [AUC] 4, day 1) plus gemcitabine (1000 mg/m 2 , days 1 and 8) every 3 weeks or six cycles of bevacizumab (10 mg/kg, days 1 and 15) plus carboplatin (AUC 5, day 1) plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (30 mg/m 2 , day 1) every 4 weeks, both followed by maintenance bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks in both groups) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. There was no masking in this open-label trial. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Efficacy data were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01837251., Findings: Between Aug 1, 2013, and July 31, 2015, 682 eligible patients were enrolled, of whom 345 were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin-bevacizumab (experimental group) and 337 were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin-gemcitabine-bevacizumab (standard group). Median follow-up for progression-free survival at data cutoff (July 10, 2018) was 12·4 months (IQR 8·3-21·7) in the experimental group and 11·3 months (8·0-18·4) in the standard group. Median progression-free survival was 13·3 months (95% CI 11·7-14·2) in the experimental group versus 11·6 months (11·0-12·7) in the standard group (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·68-0·96; p=0·012). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hypertension (88 [27%] of 332 patients in the experimental group vs 67 [20%] of 329 patients in the standard group) and neutropenia (40 [12%] vs 73 [22%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 33 (10%) of 332 patients in the experimental group and 28 (9%) of 329 in the standard group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in one patient in the experimental group (<1%; large intestine perforation) and two patients in the standard group (1%; one case each of osmotic demyelination syndrome and intracranial haemorrhage)., Interpretation: Carboplatin-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin-bevacizumab is a new standard treatment option for platinum-eligible recurrent ovarian cancer., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In breast cancer, bevacizumab increased pCR rate but not long-term survival and no predictive markers are available to identify patients with long-term benefit from the drug., Experimental Design: We profiled 289 pretherapeutic formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) biopsies of HER2-negative patients from the GeparQuinto trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy ± bevacizumab by exome-capture RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq). In a prospectively planned study, we tested molecular signatures for response prediction. IHC validation was performed using tissue microarrays., Results: We found strong agreement of molecular and pathologic parameters as hormone receptors, grading, and lymphocyte infiltration in 221 high-quality samples. Response rates (49.3% pCR overall) were higher in basal-like (68.9%) and HER2-enriched (45.5%) than in luminal B (35.7%), luminal A (17.9%), and normal-like (20.0%) subtypes. T-cell (OR = 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.12; P = 0.001), proliferation (OR = 2.88; 95% CI, 2.00-4.15; P < 0.001), and hypoxia signatures (OR = 1.92; 95% CI, 1.41-2.60; P < 0.001) significantly predicted pCR in univariate analysis. In a prespecified multivariate logistic regression, a small hypoxia signature predicted pCR (OR = 2.40; 95% CI, 1.28-4.51; P = 0.006) with a significant interaction with bevacizumab treatment ( P = 0.020). IHC validation using NDRG1 as marker revealed highly heterogenous expression within tissue leading to profound loss of sensitivity in TMA analysis, still a significant predictive value for pCR was detected ( P = 0.025)., Conclusions: Exome-capture RNA-seq characterizes small FFPE core biopsies by reliably detecting factors as for example ER status, grade, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes levels. Beside molecular subtypes and immune signatures, a small hypoxia signature predicted pCR to bevacizumab, which could be validated by IHC. The signature can have important applications for bevacizumab treatment in different cancer types and might also have a role for novel combination therapies of bevacizumab with immune checkpoint inhibition., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Olaparib has shown significant clinical benefit as maintenance therapy in women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a BRCA mutation. The effect of combining maintenance olaparib and bevacizumab in patients regardless of BRCA mutation status is unknown., Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, international phase 3 trial. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer and were having a response after first-line platinum-taxane chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Patients were eligible regardless of surgical outcome or BRCA mutation status. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo for up to 24 months; all the patients received bevacizumab at a dose of 15 mg per kilogram of body weight every 3 weeks for up to 15 months in total. The primary end point was the time from randomization until investigator-assessed disease progression or death., Results: Of the 806 patients who underwent randomization, 537 were assigned to receive olaparib and 269 to receive placebo. After a median follow-up of 22.9 months, the median progression-free survival was 22.1 months with olaparib plus bevacizumab and 16.6 months with placebo plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.72; P<0.001). The hazard ratio (olaparib group vs. placebo group) for disease progression or death was 0.33 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.45) in patients with tumors positive for homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD), including tumors that had BRCA mutations (median progression-free survival, 37.2 vs. 17.7 months), and 0.43 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.66) in patients with HRD-positive tumors that did not have BRCA mutations (median progression-free survival, 28.1 vs. 16.6 months). Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profiles of olaparib and bevacizumab., Conclusions: In patients with advanced ovarian cancer receiving first-line standard therapy including bevacizumab, the addition of maintenance olaparib provided a significant progression-free survival benefit, which was substantial in patients with HRD-positive tumors, including those without a BRCA mutation. (Funded by ARCAGY Research and others; PAOLA-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477644.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: This multicenter, double-blind phase II study assessed the antitumor activity and toxicity profile of docetaxel with the antiangiogenic multikinase inhibitor sorafenib or matching placebo as a first-line treatment in patients with metastatic or locally advanced HER2-negative breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive docetaxel 100 mg/m 2 on day 1 every 3 weeks in combination with sorafenib 400 mg bid or placebo on days 2-18 of each cycle until tumor progression, or unacceptable toxicity. Sorafenib/placebo could be continued at the investigator's discretion if docetaxel was stopped due to toxicity. Primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS)., Results: From October 2008 to December 2013, 102 patients were randomized; 98 patients were evaluable. The trial was prematurely terminated due to slow accrual. Due to increased toxicity the dose of docetaxel was reduced to 75 mg/m 2 and an increasing sorafenib dosing schedule was implemented as part of a protocol amendment. The addition of sorafenib to docetaxel did not improve PFS (8.2 vs. 7.3 months for docetaxel/placebo; HR 0.84, log rank p = 0.43), but led to higher rates of early treatment discontinuation. There were no statistically significant differences between sorafenib dosing schedules., Conclusions: Addition of sorafenib to taxane-based first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer failed to improve PFS and resulted in increased toxicity., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The E-VITA study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of two schedules of eribulin and lapatinib in patients with trastuzumab-pretreated HER-2-positive metastatic breast cancer. This multicenter, open-label phase II trial, randomly assigned patients with trastuzumab-pretreated HER-2-positive metastatic breast cancer to lapatinib 1000 mg daily with eribulin 1.23 mg/m (equivalent to 1.4 mg/m eribulin mesylate) days 1+8 every 21 days (split-dose arm) or eribulin 1.76 mg/m (equivalent to 2.0 mg/m eribulin mesylate) day 1 every 21 days (3-weekly arm). Time to progression and tolerability were defined as primary end points; no sample size calculation for formal comparison of efficacy data has been performed. Secondary end points included objective response rate, clinical benefit rate, and overall survival. Overall, 43 patients of a planned number of 80 patients were recruited. At a median follow-up of 28.7 months, the median time to progression was 8.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.8-9.4] in the split-dose arm and 6.5 months (95% CI: 4.6-13.4) in the 3-weekly arm. Objective response rate was 52.4% (95% CI: 31.0-73.7) in the split-dose arm and 45.0% (95% CI: 23.2-66.8) in the 3-weekly arm, and clinical benefit rate was 71.4% (95% CI: 52.1-90.8) and 75.0% (95% CI: 56.0-94.0), respectively. Overall survival was also similar in both arms. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (58.5%) and leukopenia (39.0%). The combination of eribulin and lapatinib showed an acceptable safety profile with less toxicity observed in the eribulin 1.23 mg/m day 1+8 group. This might be an alternative regimen when other treatment options are exhausted. Therefore, further clinical studies are warranted.

In BOLERO-2, adding everolimus to exemestane resulted in a twofold increase in median progression-free survival (PFS) vs exemestane in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (aBC) after progression on a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI). Here, we report on the open-label, single-arm, phase IIIB 4EVER trial (NCT01626222). This trial evaluated the clinical effectiveness of everolimus plus exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- aBC who had progressed on or after an NSAI, but with no restrictions on the time of progression after NSAI, prior chemotherapy for advanced disease or previous exemestane. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR; i.e. the percentage of patients with a best overall response of complete or partial response per RECIST 1.1) within the first 24 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints included PFS, overall survival, safety and health-related quality of life. Between June 2012 and November 2013, 299 patients were enrolled at 82 German centers: 281 patients were evaluable for efficacy and 299 for safety. The ORR was 8.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.8-12.9%). Median PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI: 5.4-6.0 months). The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events were stomatitis (8.4%), general physical health deterioration (6.7%), dyspnea (4.7%) and anemia (4.3%). The ORR in 4EVER was lower than in BOLERO-2, likely due to inclusion of patients with more advanced disease and extensive pretreatment. These data confirm the clinical benefits and known safety profile of everolimus plus exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- aBC., (© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA) is a distressing side effect for women with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Scalp cooling is a method aiming to prevent CIA, but its efficacy is not well defined. Randomized trials until recently and at the time this trial was designed have been lacking., Methods: Patients undergoing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (EBC) were randomized to scalp cooling (CAP) or observation (NoCAP). All patients received 18-24 weeks of anthracycline- and/or taxane-based chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was patient-reported rate of alopecia according to a modified version of the Dean Scale. Hair preservation was defined as hair loss ≤ grade 2 (≤ 50%). Secondary endpoints were rate of alopecia determined by medical staff, rate of wig/scarf use, tolerability as well as quality of life (QoL)., Results: Seventy-nine patients were randomized. Hair preservation was observed in 39.3% of patients in the CAP arm versus 0% in the NoCAP arm (p < 0.001). Wig/scarf use was significantly less frequent in the CAP group (40.7% vs 95.5% outside home before cycle 3, p < 0.001). The drop-out rate was 31.7% and 34.2% in the CAP and NoCAP arm, respectively. Main reasons for drop-out were hair loss, adverse events (CAP), and randomization into control arm. We observed no differences in efficacy between anthracycline-based and non-anthracycline-based regimens. QoL did not differ between the study arms., Conclusions: This trial adds to the evidence that scalp cooling effectively prevents CIA in a meaningful number of patients. This option should be made available for patients undergoing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy for EBC.

Purpose To investigate the safety and clinical activity of comprehensive human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) family receptor inhibition using lumretuzumab (anti-HER3) and pertuzumab (anti-HER2) in combination with paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods This phase Ib study enrolled 35 MBC patients (first line or higher) with HER3-positive and HER2-low (immunohistochemistry 1+ to 2+ and in-situ hybridization negative) tumors. Patients received lumretuzumab (1000 mg in Cohort 1; 500 mg in Cohorts 2 and 3) plus pertuzumab (840 mg loading dose [LD] followed by 420 mg in Cohorts 1 and 2; 420 mg without LD in Cohort 3) every 3 weeks, plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m 2 weekly in all cohorts). Patients in Cohort 3 received prophylactic loperamide treatment. Results Diarrhea grade 3 was a dose-limiting toxicity of Cohort 1 defining the maximum tolerated dose of lumretuzumab when given in combination with pertuzumab and paclitaxel at 500 mg every three weeks. Grade 3 diarrhea decreased from 50% (Cohort 2) to 30.8% (Cohort 3) with prophylactic loperamide administration and omission of the pertuzumab LD, nonetheless, all patients still experienced diarrhea. In first-line MBC patients, the objective response rate in Cohorts 2 and 3 was 55% and 38.5%, respectively. No relationship between HER2 and HER3 expression or somatic mutations and clinical response was observed. Conclusions Combination treatment with lumretuzumab, pertuzumab and paclitaxel was associated with a high incidence of diarrhea. Despite the efforts to alter dosing, the therapeutic window remained too narrow to warrant further clinical development., Trial Registration: on ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier NCT01918254 first registered on 3rd July 2013.

Combining sorafenib and eribulin mesylate may provide synergistic antitumor activities with limited overlapping toxicities. This phase 1b, open-label, dose-escalation study evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics, maximum tolerated dose/recommended phase 2 dose (MTD/RP2D), and preliminary efficacy of sorafenib plus standard-dose eribulin mesylate in patients with advanced, metastatic, or refractory tumors. Patients received sorafenib 200 mg twice daily (BID; n = 5), 600 mg/day (n = 8), and 400 mg BID (MTD; n = 27). Dose-limiting toxicities were increased alanine aminotransferase and acute coronary syndrome (both grade 3) in the 400-mg BID dose-escalation and expansion cohorts, respectively. No significant increase in mean QTcF duration was observed with eribulin plus sorafenib versus eribulin alone; there were no drug-drug interactions. Five patients achieved partial response; 16 achieved stable disease. The combination of sorafenib and eribulin mesylate presented no unexpected safety concerns and no significant impact on QT/QTc intervals or drug-drug interactions. Sorafenib 400 mg BID plus standard-dose eribulin is the RP2D.

Purpose: Hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer (BC) shows a poor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). New treatment targets like the Cyclin D1-CDK4/CDK6 complex are promising adjuvant/post-neoadjuvant therapeutic strategies. Evaluating Cyclin D1 overexpression in residual tumor could recognize those patients that benefit most from such post-neoadjuvant treatment. In this study, we determined Cyclin D1 expression in residual BC after NACT. Secondary aims were to correlate Cyclin D1 expression levels with clinicopathological parameters and to assess its prognostic value after NACT., Methods: We retrospectively assessed the nuclear expression of Cyclin D1 on tissue microarrays with residual tumor from 284 patients treated in the neoadjuvant GeparTrio (n = 186) and GeparQuattro (n = 98) trials. Evaluation was performed with a standardized immunoreactive score (IRS) after selecting a cut-off value., Results: A high expression level (IRS ≥ 6) of Cyclin D1 was found in 37.3% of the assessed specimens. An increased Cyclin D1 expression was observed in HR-positive tumors, compared to HR-negative tumors (p = 0.02). Low Cyclin D1 levels correlated with clinical tumor stage 1-3 (p = 0.03). Among patients with HR-positive/Her2-negative tumors and high Cyclin D1 expression, a better disease-free survival (DFS) was graphically suggested, but not significant (p = 0.21)., Conclusion: Our study demonstrates a measurable nuclear expression of Cyclin D1 in post-neoadjuvant residual tumor tissue of HR-positive BC. Cyclin D1 expression was not prognostic for DFS after NACT. Our results and defined cut-off suggest that the marker can be used to stratify tumors according to protein expression levels. Based on this, a prospective evaluation is currently performed in the ongoing Penelope-B trial.

Purpose: The BRCA1-like profile identifies tumors with a defect in homologous recombination due to inactivation of BRCA1. This profile has been shown to predict which stage III breast cancer patients benefit from myeloablative, DNA double-strand-break-inducing chemotherapy. We tested the predictive potential of the BRCA1-like profile for adjuvant non-myeloablative, intensified dose-dense chemotherapy in the GAIN trial., Methods: Lymph node positive breast cancer patients were randomized to 3 × 3 dose-dense cycles of intensified epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide (ETC) or 4 cycles concurrent epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by 10 cycles of weekly paclitaxel combined with 4 cycles capecitabine (EC-TX). Only triple negative breast cancer patients (TNBC) for whom tissue was available were included in these planned analyses. BRCA1-like or non-BRCA1-like copy number profiles were derived from low coverage sequencing data., Results: 119 out of 163 TNBC patients (73%) had a BRCA1-like profile. After median follow-up of 83 months, disease free survival (DFS) was not significantly different between BRCA1-like and non-BRCA1-like patients [adjusted hazard ratio (adj.HR) 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.86], neither was overall survival (OS; adj.HR 1.26; 95% CI 0.58-2.71). When split by BRCA1-like status, DFS and OS were not significantly different between treatments. However, EC-TX seemed to result in a trend to an improvement in DFS in patients with a BRCA1-like tumor, while the reverse accounted for ETC treatment in patients with a non-BRCA1-like tumor (p for interaction = 0.094)., Conclusions: The BRCA1-like profile is not associated with survival benefit for a non-myeloablative, intensified regimen in this study population. Considering the limited cohort size, capecitabine might have additional benefit for TNBC patients.

Background: During the last decade, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) of early breast cancer (EBC) evolved from a therapy intended to enable operability to a standard treatment option aiming for increasing cure rates equivalent to adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT). In parallel, improvements in the quality control of breast cancer care have been established in specialized breast care units., Patients and Methods: This study analyzed chemotherapy usage in patients with EBC treated at the Heidelberg University Breast Unit between January 2003 and December 2014., Results: Overall, 5703 patients were included in the analysis of whom 2222 (39 %) received chemotherapy, 817 (37 %) as NACT, and 1405 (63 %) as ACT. The chemotherapy usage declined from 48 % in 2003 to 34 % in 2014 of the cohort. Further, the proportion of NACT raised from 42 to 65 % irrespective of tumor subtype. In addition, frequency of pathologic complete response (pCR) defined as no tumor residues in breast and axilla (ypT0 ypN0) at surgery following NACT increased from 12 % in 2003 to 35 % in 2014. The greatest effect was observed in HER2+ breast cancer with an increase in patients achieving pCR from 24 to 68 %., Conclusions: The results mirror the refined indication for chemotherapy in EBC and its preferred usage as NACT in Germany. The increase in pCR rate over time suggests improvement in outcome accomplished by a multidisciplinary decision-making process and stringent measures for quality control., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interests (e.g., employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, or grants, or other funding with regard to this study) for any of the authors. Ethics approval and consent to participate The study was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Heidelberg and in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Because the study was deemed as without risk, including only anonymized analysis of routinely collected data, the ethics committee of the University of Heidelberg did not request approval for consent.

Background: In routine clinical practice, chemotherapy doses are frequently capped at a body surface area (BSA) of 2.0 m 2 or adjusted to an ideal weight for obese patients due to safety reasons., Materials and Methods: Between August 2004 and July 2008, a total of 3023 patients were enrolled in the GAIN study, a randomized phase III adjuvant trial, comparing two types of dose-dense (dd) regimen [epirubicin, docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (iddETC) versus epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (EC) followed by docetaxel (T) plus capecitabine (X)]. We retrospectively evaluated a total of 555 patients with a BMI of ≥30 for safety and outcome., Results: Eighteen percent of all patients were obese: 31% of those received chemotherapy according to an unadjusted BSA. For the remaining patients, BSA was adjusted to ideal weight or was capped at 2.0 m 2 . A total of 15% of obese patients receiving full (unadjusted) dose of chemotherapy versus 6% of obese patients with an adjusted BSA experienced febrile neutropenia (P = 0.003) and 9% versus 3% high-grade thrombopenia (P = 0.002). Overall, 17% versus 10% had a thromboembolic event (P = 0.017), which was high grade in 13% versus 6%, respectively (P = 0.019), and 3% versus 0.3% high-grade hot flushes (P = 0.013). Dizziness (5% versus 11%; P = 0.016), diarrhea (19% versus 27%; P = 0.033) and an increase in serum creatinine (7% versus 14%; P = 0.019) were higher in the adjusted group. However, no differences in disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were observed between non-obese patients, obese patients receiving full-dose chemotherapy or according to an adjusted BSA [5-year DFS 81% (confidence interval 79% to 83%) versus 82% (75% to 87%) versus 81% (76% to 84%); P = 0.761; 5-year OS 90% (88% to 91%) versus 86% (80% to 91%) versus 88% (84% to 91%); P = 0.143]., Conclusion: Obese patients receiving dd chemotherapy according to their real BSA have a higher risk of developing severe toxicities without influencing survival. Therefore, a dose adjustment of intense dd chemotherapy should be carried out to avoid life-threatening complications., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: The AGO-OVAR 2.29/ENGOT-ov14/PENELOPE prospectively randomized phase III trial evaluated the addition of pertuzumab to chemotherapy in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian carcinoma with low tumor human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3) mRNA expression. We report the results of the primary efficacy analysis., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had ovarian carcinoma that progressed during or within 6 months of completing four or more platinum cycles, centrally tested low tumor HER3 mRNA expression (concentration ratio ≤ 2.81 by quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction on cobas z480 [Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA]), and no more than two prior lines of chemotherapy. After investigators' selection of the chemotherapy backbone (single-agent topotecan, weekly paclitaxel, or gemcitabine), patients were randomly assigned to also receive either placebo or pertuzumab (840-mg loading dose followed by 420 mg every 3 weeks). Stratification factors were selected chemotherapy, prior antiangiogenic therapy, and platinum-free interval. The primary end point was independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Additional end points included overall survival, investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate, safety, patient-reported outcomes, and translational research., Results: Overall, 156 patients were randomly assigned. Adding pertuzumab to chemotherapy did not significantly improve independent review committee-assessed PFS for the primary analysis (stratified hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.11; P = .14; median PFS, 4.3 months for pertuzumab plus chemotherapy v 2.6 months for placebo plus chemotherapy). Sensitivity analyses and secondary efficacy end point results were consistent with the primary analysis. The effect on PFS favoring pertuzumab was more pronounced in the gemcitabine and paclitaxel cohorts. No new safety signals were seen., Conclusion: Although the primary objective was not met, subgroup analyses showed trends in PFS favoring pertuzumab in the gemcitabine and paclitaxel cohorts, meriting further exploration of pertuzumab in ovarian cancer., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Objective: In platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, adding pertuzumab to gemcitabine improved progression-free survival in the subgroup with low tumor HER3 messenger RNA expression. The 2-part PENELOPE trial (NCT01684878) is prospectively investigating pertuzumab plus chemotherapy in this population., Patients and Methods: Part 1 evaluated pertuzumab plus either topotecan or paclitaxel. Patients with platinum-refractory or platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer and low HER3 messenger RNA expression (concentration ratio ≤2.81 by central quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing on Cobas z480) received intravenous pertuzumab (840 mg loading dose then 420 mg every 3 weeks) with the investigator's choice of topotecan (1.25 mg/m days 1-5 every 3 weeks) or weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was to assess safety and tolerability., Results: Fifty patients were treated in part 1 (22 topotecan; 28 paclitaxel). In both cohorts, disease progression was the most common primary reason for discontinuing pertuzumab, and the most common all-grade adverse events (AEs) were fatigue/asthenia, anemia, and diarrhea. The most common grade ≥3 AEs were anemia (36%), neutropenia (27%), and fatigue/asthenia (18%) for topotecan, and peripheral sensory neuropathy (14%) and anemia (11%) for paclitaxel. Two patients receiving paclitaxel-pertuzumab died from AEs (abdominal infection; unexplained death). Median progression-free survival was 4.1 months (95% confidence interval, 1.9-6.1) with topotecan-pertuzumab and 4.2 months (95% confidence interval, 3.5-6.0) with paclitaxel-pertuzumab., Conclusions: Based on part 1 tolerability, the Independent Data Monitoring Committee had no objection to PENELOPE proceeding to part 2, a double-blind randomized comparison of chemotherapy (topotecan, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine) plus pertuzumab or placebo.

Background: Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) correlates with overall survival (OS) in primary breast cancer. A recently described staging system based on pre-treatment clinical stage (CS), final pathological stage (PS), estrogen receptor (ER) status and nuclear grade (NG) leads to a refined estimation of prognosis in unselected patients. Its performance in luminal type breast cancers has not been determined. This study investigates the clinical utility of this CPS+EG score when restricted to hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) patients and compares the results to a cohort of unselected patients., Methods: The CPS+EG score was calculated for 6637 unselected patients and 2454 patients with HR+/HER2- tumours who received anthracycline/taxane-based NACT within 8 prospective German trials., Results: Five-year disease-free survival (DFS) and OS were 75.6% and 84.1% for the unselected cohort and 80.6% and 87.8% for the HR+/HER2- subgroup, respectively. The CPS+EG system distinguished different prognostic groups with 5-year DFS ranging from 0% to 91%. The CPS+EG system leads to an improved categorisation of patients by outcome compared to CS, PS, ER or NG alone. When applying the CPS+EG score to the HR+/HER2- subgroup, a shift to lower scores was observed compared to the overall population, but 5-year DFS and OS for the individual scores were identical to that observed in the overall population., Conclusions: In HR+/HER2- patients, the CPS+EG staging system retains its ability to facilitate a refined stratification of patients according to outcome. It can help to select candidates for post-neoadjuvant clinical trials in luminal breast cancer., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although greater than 40% of breast cancers occur in patients aged ≥65 years, these individuals are frequently undertreated. Taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy is considered the treatment of choice but to the authors' knowledge has only limited evidence in elderly patients., Methods: Patients aged ≥65 years with a Charlson comorbidity index ≤2 and pT1/2 pN0/1 disease and either human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive, hormone receptor-negative, grade 3 (according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3.0]), high uPA/PAI-1 or any stage pT3/4 pN2/3 breast cancer were randomized to receive 4 cycles of adjuvant epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (EC) (epirubicin at a dose of 90 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide at a dose of 600 mg/m(2) intravenously [iv] on day 1 every 3 22 days) or 6 cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) (cyclophosphamide at a dose of 500 mg/m(2), methotrexate at a dose of 40 mg/m(2), and 5-fluorouracil at a dose of 600 mg/m(2) iv on days 1 plus 8 every 29 days) versus 6 cycles of nab-paclitaxel and capecitabine (nPX) (nab-paclitaxel at a dose of 100 mg/m(2) iv on days 1, 8, and 15 every 21 days with 1 week of rest every 6 weeks plus capecitabine at a dose of 2000 mg/m(2) orally on days 1-14 every 21 days). Primary endpoints were treatment discontinuations and overall frequency of adverse events., Results: Thirteen of 198 patients (6.6%) discontinued EC/CMF and 69 of 193 patients (35.8%) discontinued nPX (P<.001) with 1 and 5 deaths observed during treatment, respectively. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were more frequent among patients treated with EC/CMF (90.9%) than among those treated with nPX (64.8%) (P<.001), with hematological toxicities being more frequent with EC/CMF (88.4% vs 22.3%; P<.001), but nonhematological toxicities (hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, mucositis, fatigue, sensory neuropathy, thromboembolisms, and metabolic disorders) being more frequent with nPX (58.5% vs 18.7%; P<.001). None of the geriatric scores (Charlson comorbidity index, Vulnerable Elders Survey [VES-13], Instrumental Activities of Daily Living [IADL], and G8) independently predicted grade 3 to 5 toxic events or treatment discontinuations. No differences in survival between the treatment groups were observed after 22.8 months., Conclusions: Compared with EC/CMF, treatment with nPX led to more treatment discontinuations and nonhematological toxicities in elderly patients with moderate or high-risk breast cancer., (© 2015 American Cancer Society.)

We previously reported primary endpoints of two consecutive phase I/II trials, evaluating different schedules of neoadjuvant epirubicin (E), gemcitabine (G) and docetaxel (Doc) for primary breast cancer (PBC). Here, we report mature survival data and prognostic factors. One hundred fifty-one patients were recruited into two consecutive phase I/II trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for T2-4 N0-2 M0 PBC. Patients received six cycles of G/E/Doc every 3 weeks with G repeated on d8 (GEDoc, n = 84) or five cycles of G/E followed by four cycles of Doc all given every two weeks (GEsDoc, n = 67). Prognostic factors were investigated using univariate and multivariate analyses. No survival differences by treatment were found. Among reported predictive factors for pathologic complete response (pCR), oestrogen receptor (ER) status was the only relevant factor in the multivariate analysis. Unexpectedly, pCR resulted in poorer survival (univariate HR for overall survival [OS] 3.11, p = 0.007). Multivariate analyses identified molecular subtype and tumour size as the most relevant prognostic factors for OS. HER2-receptor status and the CPS-EG score (Mittendorf et al., J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1956-62), based on clinical and pathological stage, ER-status and tumour grade, were particularly relevant in disease-free survival. Our findings cast doubt on the reliability of pCR as single marker for prognosis of this unselected breast cancer cohort, with an abundance of luminal subtypes. These results underline the significance of additional molecular characteristics for breast cancer survival., (Copyright © 2013 UICC.)

Overexpression of CD24 is an independent prognostic factor for breast cancer. Recently, two polymorphisms in the CD24 gene were linked to disease risk and progression in autoimmune diseases. Here, we evaluated the clinical relevance of these polymorphisms with respect to their potential to predict a pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) for primary breast cancer (PBC), one of the strongest prognostic factors in this setting. A total of 257 patients were randomized to either doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) or doxorubicin/pemetrexed (AP), both followed by docetaxel (Doc) as NCT for T2-4 N0-2 M0 PBC as part of an international, multicenter, randomized phase II trial. CD24 polymorphisms were analyzed on germ line DNA and correlated with clinicopathologic variables and pCR. No significant associations were found between either of the polymorphisms and any of the clinicopathologic variables. In a multivariate analysis, CD24 Val/Val genotype was the only significant predictor of pCR (OR: 4.97; P = 0.003). The predictive potential was significant in both treatment arms and in the hormone receptor-positive subgroup. There was no correlation between CD24 3'UTR (TG/Del) genotype and pCR. We did not observe any association between CD24 genotype and CD24 protein expression or in vitro chemosensitivity, but there was a significant correlation between CD24 Val/Val and intratumoral lymphocyte aggregates. In conclusion, CD24 Ala/Val SNP is a strong and independent predictor of pCR after NCT for PBC and may affect immune functions rather than tumor characteristics. Further evaluation of the CD24 function and validation of its predictive potential are clearly warranted.

Background: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) before surgery is a standard option for patients with early breast cancer (EBC) that allows in vivo chemosensitivity testing. Given the promising activity of pemetrexed plus doxorubicin in metastatic breast cancer, it was reasonable to evaluate the utility of this combination as part of an NST regimen in EBC., Patients and Methods: Patients with untreated operable T2-T4a-c N0-2 M0 breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive either four cycles of pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) plus doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks (q3w) followed by four cycles of docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) q3w (AP-D) or four cycles of doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) q3w followed by four cycles of docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) q3w (AC-D). Surgery was carried out within 2 months after last chemotherapy. Primary end point was pathological complete response (pCR) rate in the breast. Secondary end points included clinical response rate, rate of histologically negative axillary lymph nodes, toxicity, and disease-free survival., Results: From September 2005 to August 2007, 257 patients were randomly allocated to 17 sites. Median age was 48 and 49 years for AP-D and AC-D, respectively. Overall pCR rates were 16.5% for AP-D and 20.2% for AC-D. With AP-D, pCR rate was 17.8% for hormone receptor (HR)-negative patients and 15.9% for HR-positive patients. With AC-D, pCR rates were 42.9% and 7.8% for HR-negative and HR-positive patients, respectively. Clinical response rates were 59.5% in the AP-D group and 68.1% in the AC-D group. The rate of histologically negative axillary lymph nodes was 53% in both groups. Both treatments were well tolerated. Median disease-free survival is currently not mature., Conclusions: AP-D and AC-D are well tolerated and active as NST in EBC. Of note, AC-D had a higher pCR rate in HR-negative tumors, whereas AP-D had more activity if HRs were expressed.

Background: A single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the FGFR4 gene is associated with poor prognosis in solid tumors. A recent study presented the first evidence that FGFR4 Arg388 could predict resistance to adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. The present study evaluates the potential of this SNP to predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) for primary breast cancer (PBC)., Methods: As part of a randomized phase II trial, 257 patients received either doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC) or doxorubicin-pemetrexed (AP) followed by docetaxel (Doc; Taxotere) as NCT for T2-4/N0-2/M0 PBC. FGFR4 genotype analyzed on germline DNA was correlated with clinicopathologic variables, clinical response, and pathological complete response (pCR) using univariate and multivariate analyses., Results: Only axillary lymph node status was associated with FGFR4 Arg388 [odds ratio (OR) 1.82, P = 0.03]. Joint analysis of both treatment arms revealed a correlation of FGFR4 Arg388 with clinical response (OR 2.14, P = 0.03) but not with pCR. In the AC-Doc arm, however, FGFR4 Arg388 was a strong predictor of pCR in the multivariate analysis (OR 3.79, P = 0.03). A significant interaction between FGFR4 genotype and treatment (P = 0.01) was found, indicating a therapy-specific effect., Conclusion: We provide the evidence that FGFR4 388Arg is an independent predictor of pCR following AC-Doc as NCT in PBC.

Background: Combining the Bcl-2 down-regulator oblimersen with cytotoxic treatment leads to synergistic antitumor effects in preclinical trials. This multicentric phase I study was carried out to evaluate maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety and preliminary efficacy of oblimersen in combination with docetaxel, adriamycin and cyclophosphamide as neo-adjuvant systemic treatment (NST) in primary breast cancer (PBC)., Methods: Previously untreated patients with PBC T2-4a-c N0-3 M0 received one cycle of docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), adriamycin 50 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2) administered on day 5 combined with escalating doses of oblimersen as a 24-h continuous infusion on days 1-7 followed by five cycles of combination of docetaxel, adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (TAC) without oblimersen every 3 weeks. Prophylactic antibiotic therapy and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration were used in all six cycles. Blood serum samples were taken throughout the treatment period for pharmacokinetic analysis., Results: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled (median age, 50 years; ductal-invasive histology, 68%; tumorsize 2-5 cm, 61%; grade 3, 43%; hormone receptor negative, 36%; Her2 positive 18%) and received oblimersen in a dose of 3 mg/kg/day (cohort I, nine patients), 5 mg/kg/day (cohort II, nine patients) and 7 mg/kg/day (cohort III, 10 patients) respectively. No dose-limiting toxicity occurred. Following oblimersen combined with TAC, the most severe toxicity was neutropenia [National Cancer Institute-Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC) grades 1-2/3/4] which developed in 0/0/56% of patients (cohort I), 11/0/56% of patients (cohort II) and 20/20/50% of patients (cohort III). No febrile neutropenia occurred. Most common adverse events (all NCI-CTC grade < or = 2) were fatigue, nausea, alopecia, headache and flue-like symptoms observed in 78% (cohort I), 89% (cohort II) and 90% (cohort III) of patients. With increasing dose of oblimersen, a higher incidence of grade IV leukopenia and neutropenia was noted. At the MTD of 7 mg/kg/day of oblimersen, serious adverse events occurred in 40% of the patients., Conclusion: Oblimersen up to a dose of 7 mg/kg/day administered as a 24-h infusion on days 1-7 can be safely administered in combination with standard TAC on day 5 as NST in patients with PBC. The safety and preliminary efficacy warrants further evaluation of oblimersen in combination with every cycle of the TAC regimen in a randomized trial.

Background: Microarray gene expression profiling has indicated that complex molecular gene expression signatures might be predictive of outcome after systemic treatment for early breast cancer. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) with its assessment of pathologic complete response (pCR), so far the best surrogate parameter for cure, provides a unique opportunity to rapidly identify such molecular predictors., Patients and Methods: Currently, an international, randomized phase II study of 2 sequential regimens as NST is being conducted in patients with primary invasive breast cancer T2-4a-c N0-2 M0. Patients receive 4 cycles of doxorubicin/pemetrexed, followed by 4 cycles of docetaxel (AP-Doc) or 4 cycles of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide, followed by 4 cycles of docetaxel (AC-Doc). Tumor, tissue, blood, and serum are collected at baseline and, if available, after 4 cycles of chemotherapy, and at surgery. The clinical objectives are to assess pCR rate, tumor response, rate of histologically negative axillary lymph nodes, disease-free survival, and safety after NST with AP-Doc or AC-Doc. Translational research objectives include the identification of differentially expressed genes predictive for the achievement of pCR after either treatment regimen., Results: As of January 2007, 178 of the 256 patients planned for this study had been enrolled at 12 European centers. The recommendation after a planned interim safety and efficacy analysis was to continue with the trial as planned., Conclusion: We anticipate this study will provide a better understanding of the treatment options with pemetrexed in primary breast cancer and give insight into the practical robustness of the new marker sets in response prediction.