Search

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of the multigene EndoPredict test in prospectively collected data of patients screened for the randomized, double-blind, phase III UNIRAD trial, which evaluated the addition of everolimus to adjuvant endocrine therapy in high-risk, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients were classified into low or high risk according to the EPclin score, consisting of a 12-gene molecular score combined with tumor size and nodal status. Association of the EPclin score with disease-free survival (DFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. The independent prognostic added value of EPclin score was tested in a multivariate Cox model after adjusting on tumor characteristics., Results: EndoPredict test results were available for 768 patients: 663 patients classified as EPclin high risk (EPCH) and 105 patients as EPclin low risk (EPCL). Median follow-up was 70 months (range 1-172 months). For the 429 EPCH randomized patients, there was no significant difference in DFS between treatment arms. The 60-month relapse rate for patients in the EPCL and EPCH groups was 0% and 7%, respectively. Hazard ratio (HR) supposing continuous EPclin score was 1.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-2.5, P < 0.0001]. This prognostic effect remained significant when assessed in a Cox model adjusting on tumor size, number of positive nodes and tumor grade (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.09-2.13, P = 0.0141). The 60-month DMFS for patients in the EPCL and EPCH groups was 100% and 94%, respectively (adjusted HR 8.10, 95% CI 1.1-59.1, P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: The results confirm the value of EPclin score as an independent prognostic parameter in node-positive, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer patients receiving standard adjuvant treatment. EPclin score can be used to identify patients at higher risk of recurrence who may warrant additional systemic treatments., Competing Interests: Disclosure FPL: advisor for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Genomic Health, GILEAD, GSK, Lilly, Menarini/Stemline, MSD, Myriad, Nanostring, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche; funding: MSD, Myriad, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo; travel/expenses: AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer. FD: advisor for Daichi, Seagen, Novartis, Gilead, Lilly, MSD; travel/expenses: Daichi, Novartis, Pfizer. PC: advisor for Pfizer, Lilly; travel/expenses: Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, BMS. JG: advisor for Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Pfizer; travel/expenses: Eisai Europe. MC: advisor for Novartis, Sandoz, Accord, Sanofi, Lilly, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo; consulting fees: Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Novartis, Servier, Daiichi Sankyo; travel//expenses: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche. ACHB: advisor for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Clovis Onco, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, MSD. SG: advisor for Eisai, Lilly; funding: Merck, AstraZeneca; travel/expenses: Lilly. PB: advisor for Ipsen, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Merck KGaA, Astellas, Novartis, Gilead, Bayer; travel/expenses: BMS, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, Astellas, MSD, Ipsen, Merck. AM: advisor for Pfizer; travel/expenses: AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, Lilly. MS: travel/expenses: Eisai Europe. MLT: consulting fees: Myriad Genetics. JB: funding: AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Puma Biotech, Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Clovis Onco; travel/expenses: Pfizer. FA: stock and other ownership interests: PEGASCY; funding: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Roche, Daiichi; travel/expenses: Novartis, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca. TB: advisor for Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, MSD; funding: Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer; travel/expenses: Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The objective of the CHEOPS trial was to assess the benefit of adding aromatase inhibitor (AI) to metronomic chemotherapy, oral vinorelbine, 50 mg, three times a week for pre-treated, HR + /HER2- metastatic breast cancer patients., Methods: In this multicentric phase II study, patients had to have progressed on AI and one or two lines of chemotherapy. They were randomized between oral vinorelbine (Arm A) and oral vinorelbine with non-steroidal AI (Arm B)., Results: 121 patients were included, 61 patients in Arm A and 60 patients in Arm B. The median age was 68 years. 109 patients had visceral metastases. They all had previously received an AI. The study had been prematurely stopped following the third death due to febrile neutropenia. Median PFS trend was found to be different with 2.3 months and 3.7 months in Arm A and Arm B, respectively (HR 0.73, 95%CI 0.50-1.06, p value = 0.0929). No statistical difference was shown in OS and better tumor response. 56 serious adverse events corresponding to 25 patients (21%) were reported (respectively, 12 (20%) versus 13 (22%) for arms A and B) (NS)., Conclusion: The addition of AI to oral vinorelbine over oral vinorelbine alone in aromatase inhibitor-resistant metastatic breast cancer was associated with a non-significant improvement of PFS. Several unexpected serious adverse events were reported. Metronomic oral vinorelbine schedule, at 50 mg three times a week, requires close biological monitoring. The question of hormonal treatment and chemotherapy combination remains open., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Everolimus, an oral inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin, improves progression-free survival in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) in postmenopausal women with aromatase inhibitor-resistant metastatic breast cancer. However, the benefit of adding everolimus to ET in the adjuvant setting in early breast cancer is unknown., Patients and Methods: In this randomized double-blind phase III study, women with high-risk, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative primary breast cancer were randomly assigned to everolimus or placebo for 2 years combined with standard ET. Stratification factors included ET agent, receipt of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy, progesterone receptor status, duration of ET before random assignment, and lymph node involvement. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01805271)., Results: Between June 2013 and March 2020, 1,278 patients were randomly allocated to receive everolimus or placebo. At the first interim analysis, the trial was stopped for futility and a full analysis undertaken once data snapshot complete. One hundred forty-seven patients have had a DFS event reported and at 3 years, DFS did not differ between patients who received ET plus everolimus (88% [95% CI, 85 to 91]) or ET plus placebo (89% [95% CI, 86 to 91; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.32; P = .77]). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were reported in 22.9% of patients (29.9% with everolimus v 15.9% with placebo, P < .001). 53.4% everolimus-treated patients permanently discontinued experimental treatment early compared with placebo-treated 22.3%., Conclusion: Among high-risk patients, everolimus added to adjuvant ET did not improve DFS. Tolerability was a concern, with more than half of patients stopping everolimus before study completion. Everolimus cannot be recommended in the adjuvant setting.

Breast cancer (BC) treatments induce vitamin D (VD) insufficiency and bone metabolism changes, resulting in osteoporosis and skeletal morbidity risk. We report the results of a bicentric phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04091178) on the safety and efficacy of high-dose oral VD supplementation for VD deficiency correction in 44 patients with early BC treated with adjuvant chemotherapies. Patients received one dose of 100,000 IU 25-OH VD every 3 weeks from day 1 of cycle 1 to day 1 of cycle 5. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving serum 25-OH VD concentration normalization on day 1 of cycle 6 (D1C6). Secondary endpoints were safety, VD and calcium parameters at baseline and during chemotherapy, and identification of predictive biomarkers of VD normalization on D1C6. On D1C6, 21 patients (47.7%, 95% CI: 33.0-62.8) achieved VD normalization. No VD-related clinical toxicity was reported. However, 13 patients (29.5%) presented asymptomatic grade 1 hypercalciuria, leading to interruption of the high-dose oral VD supplementation in 10, followed by a rapid reduction in serum VD concentration. No baseline clinical factor was predictive of VD normalization on D1C6. This high-dose VD supplementation appears safe and efficient in patients with early BC receiving adjuvant chemotherapy.

Background: Everolimus is an agent frequently associated with specific toxicities. Predictive markers of efficacy are needed to help define which patients could benefit from it. The goal of this exploratory study was to identify potential predictive biomarkers in the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) complex 1 (mTORC1) activation pathway using primary tumor samples collected during the phase II tamoxifen plus everolimus (TAMRAD) trial., Patients and Methods: Tumor tissues were collected retrospectively from the TAMRAD trial. Immunohistochemistry was carried out using specific antibodies directed toward proteins that result in mTORC1 activation [canonical phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (Akt)/mTOR or alternative pathways]. DNA was extracted from the tumor tissue; mutation screening in the PIK3CA gene (exons 9 and 20) and the KRAS gene (exons 2 and 3) was first carried out using Sanger direct sequencing, and then completed by next-generation sequencing for PIK3CA. An exploratory analysis of everolimus efficacy in terms of a time-to-progression (TTP) increase was carried out in each biomarker subgroup (high versus low expression referring to the median percentage of marked cells)., Results: A total of 55 primary tumor samples from the TAMRAD trial—25 from the tamoxifen-alone group and 30 from the tamoxifen/everolimus group—were evaluated for biomarkers. The subgroups most likely to have an improvement in TTP with tamoxifen/everolimus therapy, compared with tamoxifen alone, were patients with high p4EBP1, low 4EBP1, low liver kinase B1, low pAkt, and low PI3K. Among the 45 samples screened for mutation status, nine samples (20%; 95% CI 9.6-34.6) had a PIK3CA mutation. KRAS mutation was observed in one patient., Conclusions: A positive correlation between late effectors of mTORC1 activation, a positive correlation between Akt-independent mTORC1 activation, and an inverse correlation between canonical PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway and everolimus efficacy were observed in this exploratory analysis. However, these correlations need to be validated in larger studies before applying the findings to routine clinical practice., (© The Author 2014. 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: Cross-talk between signal transduction pathways likely contributes to hormone resistance in metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Everolimus, an oral inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin, has restored sensitivity in endocrine-resistance models and shown anticancer activity in early-phase mBC clinical trials. This analysis evaluated efficacy and safety of everolimus in combination with tamoxifen in patients with mBC resistant to aromatase inhibitors (AIs)., Patients and Methods: This open-label, phase II study randomly assigned postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, AI-resistant mBC to tamoxifen 20 mg/d plus everolimus 10 mg/d (n = 54) or tamoxifen 20 mg/d alone (n = 57). Randomization was stratified by primary and secondary hormone resistance. Primary end point was clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as the percentage of all patients with a complete or partial response or stable disease at 6 months. No formal statistical comparison between groups was planned., Results: The 6-month CBR was 61% (95% CI, 47 to 74) with tamoxifen plus everolimus and 42% (95% CI, 29 to 56) with tamoxifen alone. Time to progression (TTP) increased from 4.5 months with tamoxifen alone to 8.6 months with tamoxifen plus everolimus, corresponding to a 46% reduction in risk of progression with the combination (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.81). Risk of death was reduced by 55% with tamoxifen plus everolimus versus tamoxifen alone (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.81). The main toxicities associated with tamoxifen plus everolimus were fatigue (72% v 53% with tamoxifen alone), stomatitis (56% v 7%), rash (44% v 7%), anorexia (43% v 18%), and diarrhea (39% v 11%)., Conclusion: This study suggests that tamoxifen plus everolimus increased CBR, TTP, and overall survival compared with tamoxifen alone in postmenopausal women with AI-resistant mBC.