Search

Background: Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) testing might provide a current assessment of the genomic profile of advanced cancer, without the need to repeat tumour biopsy. We aimed to assess the accuracy of ctDNA testing in advanced breast cancer and the ability of ctDNA testing to select patients for mutation-directed therapy., Methods: We did an open-label, multicohort, phase 2a, platform trial of ctDNA testing in 18 UK hospitals. Participants were women (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed advanced breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. Patients had completed at least one previous line of treatment for advanced breast cancer or relapsed within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were recruited into four parallel treatment cohorts matched to mutations identified in ctDNA: cohort A comprised patients with ESR1 mutations (treated with intramuscular extended-dose fulvestrant 500 mg); cohort B comprised patients with HER2 mutations (treated with oral neratinib 240 mg, and if oestrogen receptor-positive with intramuscular standard-dose fulvestrant); cohort C comprised patients with AKT1 mutations and oestrogen receptor-positive cancer (treated with oral capivasertib 400 mg plus intramuscular standard-dose fulvestrant); and cohort D comprised patients with AKT1 mutations and oestrogen receptor-negative cancer or PTEN mutation (treated with oral capivasertib 480 mg). Each cohort had a primary endpoint of confirmed objective response rate. For cohort A, 13 or more responses among 78 evaluable patients were required to infer activity and three or more among 16 were required for cohorts B, C, and D. Recruitment to all cohorts is complete and long-term follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03182634; the European Clinical Trials database, EudraCT2015-003735-36; and the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN16945804., Findings: Between Dec 21, 2016, and April 26, 2019, 1051 patients registered for the study, with ctDNA results available for 1034 patients. Agreement between ctDNA digital PCR and targeted sequencing was 96-99% (n=800, kappa 0·89-0·93). Sensitivity of digital PCR ctDNA testing for mutations identified in tissue sequencing was 93% (95% CI 83-98) overall and 98% (87-100) with contemporaneous biopsies. In all cohorts, combined median follow-up was 14·4 months (IQR 7·0-23·7). Cohorts B and C met or exceeded the target number of responses, with five (25% [95% CI 9-49]) of 20 patients in cohort B and four (22% [6-48]) of 18 patients in cohort C having a response. Cohorts A and D did not reach the target number of responses, with six (8% [95% CI 3-17]) of 74 in cohort A and two (11% [1-33]) of 19 patients in cohort D having a response. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were raised gamma-glutamyltransferase (13 [16%] of 80 patients; cohort A); diarrhoea (four [25%] of 20; cohort B); fatigue (four [22%] of 18; cohort C); and rash (five [26%] of 19; cohort D). 17 serious adverse reactions occurred in 11 patients, and there was one treatment-related death caused by grade 4 dyspnoea (in cohort C)., Interpretation: ctDNA testing offers accurate, rapid genotyping that enables the selection of mutation-directed therapies for patients with breast cancer, with sufficient clinical validity for adoption into routine clinical practice. Our results demonstrate clinically relevant activity of targeted therapies against rare HER2 and AKT1 mutations, confirming these mutations could be targetable for breast cancer treatment., Funding: Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, and Puma Biotechnology., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: CDK4/6 inhibitors are used to treat estrogen receptor (ER)-positive metastatic breast cancer (BC) in combination with endocrine therapy. PALLET is a phase II randomized trial that evaluated the effects of combination palbociclib plus letrozole as neoadjuvant therapy., Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal women with ER-positive primary BC and tumors greater than or equal to 2.0 cm were randomly assigned 3:2:2:2 to letrozole (2.5 mg/d) for 14 weeks (A); letrozole for 2 weeks, then palbociclib plus letrozole to 14 weeks (B); palbociclib for 2 weeks, then palbociclib plus letrozole to 14 weeks (C); or palbociclib plus letrozole for 14 weeks. Palbociclib 125 mg/d was administered orally on a 21-days-on, 7-days-off schedule. Core-cut biopsies were taken at baseline and 2 and 14 weeks. Coprimary end points for letrozole versus palbociclib plus letrozole groups (A v B + C + D) were change in Ki-67 (protein encoded by the  MKI67 gene; immunohistochemistry) between baseline and 14 weeks and clinical response (ordinal and ultrasound) after 14 weeks. Complete cell-cycle arrest was defined as Ki-67 less than or equal to 2.7%. Apoptosis was characterized by cleaved poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase., Results: Three hundred seven patients were recruited. Clinical response was not significantly different between palbociclib plus letrozole and letrozole groups ( P = .20; complete response + partial response, 54.3% v 49.5%), and progressive disease was 3.2% versus 5.4%, respectively. Median log-fold change in Ki-67 was greater with palbociclib plus letrozole compared with letrozole (-4.1 v -2.2; P < .001) in the 190 evaluable patients (61.9%), corresponding to a geometric mean change of -97.4% versus -88.5%. More patients on palbociclib plus letrozole achieved complete cell-cycle arrest (90% v 59%; P < .001). Median log-fold change (suppression) of cleaved poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase was greater with palbociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole (-0.80 v -0.42; P < .001). More patients had grade 3 or greater toxicity on palbociclib plus letrozole (49.8% v 17.0%; P < .001) mainly because of asymptomatic neutropenia., Conclusion: Adding palbociclib to letrozole significantly enhanced the suppression of malignant cell proliferation (Ki-67) in primary ER-positive BC, but did not increase the clinical response rate over 14 weeks, which was possibly related to a concurrent reduction in apoptosis.

Purpose The Intergroup Exemestane Study, an investigator-led study of 4,724 postmenopausal patients with early breast cancer (clinical trial information: ISRCTN11883920), has previously demonstrated that a switch from adjuvant endocrine therapy after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen to exemestane was associated with clinically relevant improvements in efficacy. Here, we report the final efficacy analyses of this cohort. Patients and Methods Patients who remained disease free after 2 to 3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen were randomly assigned to continue tamoxifen or switch to exemestane to complete a total of 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. Given the large number of non-breast cancer-related deaths now reported, breast cancer-free survival (BCFS), with censorship of intercurrent deaths, was the primary survival end point of interest. Analyses focus on patients with estrogen receptor-positive or unknown tumors (n = 4,599). Results At the time of the data snapshot, median follow-up was 120 months. In the population that was estrogen receptor positive or had unknown estrogen receptor status, 1,111 BCFS events were observed with 508 (22.1%) of 2,294 patients in the exemestane group and 603 (26.2%) of 2,305 patients in the tamoxifen group. The data corresponded to an absolute difference (between exemestane and tamoxifen) at 10 years of 4.0% (95% CI, 1.2% to 6.7%), and the hazard ratio (HR) of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.92) favored exemestane. This difference remained in multivariable analysis that was adjusted for nodal status, prior use of hormone replacement therapy, and prior chemotherapy (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.90; P < .001). A modest improvement in overall survival was seen with exemestane; the absolute difference (between exemestane and tamoxifen) at 10 years in the population that was estrogen receptor positive or had unknown estrogen receptor status was 2.1% (95% CI, -0.5% to 4.6%), and the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.01; P = .08). For the intention-to-treat population, the absolute difference was 1.6% (95% CI, -0.9% to 4.1%); the HR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.80 to 1.03, P = .15). No statistically significant difference was observed in the proportion of patients who reported a fracture event in the post-treatment period. Conclusion The Intergroup Exemestane Study and contemporaneous studies have established that a strategy of switching to an aromatase inhibitor after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen can lead to sustained benefits in terms of reduction of disease recurrence and breast cancer mortality.

Purpose: To conduct meta-analyses of randomized trials of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) compared with tamoxifen either as initial monotherapy (cohort 1) or after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen (cohort 2)., Materials and Methods: Data submitted to the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group were used in separate meta-analyses of two cohorts. Primary analyses involve postmenopausal women with tumors reported to be estrogen receptor positive. Log-rank P values are two-sided., Results: Cohort 1 comprised 9,856 patients with a mean of 5.8 years of follow-up. At 5 years, AI therapy was associated with an absolute 2.9% (SE = 0.7%) decrease in recurrence (9.6% for AI v 12.6% for tamoxifen; 2P < .00001) and a nonsignificant absolute 1.1% (SE = 0.5%) decrease in breast cancer mortality (4.8% for AI v 5.9% for tamoxifen; 2P = .1). Cohort 2 comprised 9,015 patients with a mean of 3.9 years of follow-up. At 3 years from treatment divergence (ie, approximately 5 years after starting hormonal treatment), AI therapy was associated with an absolute 3.1% (SE = 0.6%) decrease in recurrence (5.0% for AI v 8.1% for tamoxifen since divergence; 2P < .00001) and an absolute 0.7% (SE = 0.3%) decrease in breast cancer mortality (1.7% for AI v 2.4% for tamoxifen since divergence; 2P = .02). There was no convincing heterogeneity in the proportional recurrence reduction with respect to age, nodal status, tumor grade, or progesterone receptor status and no indication of an increase in nonbreast deaths with AIs in either cohort. CONCLUSION AIs produce significantly lower recurrence rates compared with tamoxifen, either as initial monotherapy or after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen. Additional follow-up will provide clearer information on long-term survival.

Background: Tamoxifen preserves bone in postmenopausal women, but non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors accelerate bone loss and increase fracture risk. We aimed to study the effect on bone health in a subgroup of women included in the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES), a large randomised trial that compared the switch to the steroidal aromatase inhibitor exemestane with continuation of tamoxifen in the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer., Methods: Results were analysed from 206 evaluable patients from the IES, in which postmenopausal women with histologically confirmed and completely resected unilateral breast cancer (that was oestrogen-receptor positive or of unknown status), who were disease-free after 2-3 years of treatment with tamoxifen were randomised to continue oral tamoxifen 20 mg/day or switch to oral exemestane 25 mg/day to complete a total of 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. The primary endpoint was change in bone-mineral density (BMD) assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Changes in biochemical markers of bone turnover were also analysed in this substudy, and the incidence of fractures in the entire study reported. The IES is registered on the Current Controlled Trials website ., Findings: Within 6 months of switching to exemestane, BMD was lowered by 0.051 g/cm(3) (2.7%; 95% CI 2.0-3.4; p<0.0001) at the lumbar spine and 0.025 g/cm(3) (1.4%; 0.8-1.9; p<0.0001) at the hip compared with baseline. BMD decreases were only 1.0% (0.4-1.7; p=0.002) and 0.8% (0.3-1.4; p=0.003) in year 2 at the lumbar spine and hip, respectively. No patient with BMD in the normal range at trial entry developed osteoporosis. Bone resorption and formation markers increased at all time points in women receiving exemestane (p<0.001). With a median follow-up in all IES participants (n=4274) of 58 months, 162 (7%) and 115 (5%) patients in the exemestane and tamoxifen groups, respectively, had fractures (odds ratio 1.45 [1.13-1.87]; p=0.003)., Interpretation: These results indicate that the increase in survival shown previously with the IES switch strategy is achieved at the expense of some detriment to skeletal health, so the risk-benefit ratio to women needs to be individually assessed.

Purpose: To compare and describe the quality of life (QOL) of women allocated to tamoxifen or exemestane within the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES)., Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer who were disease free after 2 to 3 years were randomly assigned to switch from tamoxifen to exemestane or continue with tamoxifen until 5 years of treatment were completed. A subset of IES centers participated in a QOL substudy. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) and endocrine subscale (ES) were administered before random assignment and at predefined follow-up times. The primary end point was the FACT-B composite Trial Outcome Index (TOI). Secondary end points included total FACT-B+ES score, total ES score, and severity of individual endocrine symptoms. This analysis reports QOL up to 24 months., Results: Five hundred eighty-two patients from eight countries were enrolled onto the substudy. Completion and return of questionnaires was excellent, with 85% available for analysis. QOL was generally good and stable over 2 years, with no clinically meaningful differences found between groups in TOI or ES. Prevalence of severe endocrine symptoms at trial entry was high for vasomotor complaints and sexual problems, which persisted for both groups during the study. No significant differences between groups were seen for any endocrine symptoms apart from vaginal discharge, which was more pronounced with tamoxifen (P < .001)., Conclusion: The switch from tamoxifen to exemestane neither increased nor decreased endocrine symptoms present after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen; the switch also did not initiate significant reports of new symptoms. Results indicate that the clinical benefits of exemestane over tamoxifen are achieved without significant detrimental effect on QOL.

Background: Tamoxifen, taken for five years, is the standard adjuvant treatment for postmenopausal women with primary, estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Despite this treatment, however, some patients have a relapse., Methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial to test whether, after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy, switching to exemestane was more effective than continuing tamoxifen therapy for the remainder of the five years of treatment. The primary end point was disease-free survival., Results: Of the 4742 patients enrolled, 2362 were randomly assigned to switch to exemestane, and 2380 to continue to receive tamoxifen. After a median follow-up of 30.6 months, 449 first events (local or metastatic recurrence, contralateral breast cancer, or death) were reported--183 in the exemestane group and 266 in the tamoxifen group. The unadjusted hazard ratio in the exemestane group as compared with the tamoxifen group was 0.68 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.56 to 0.82; P<0.001 by the log-rank test), representing a 32 percent reduction in risk and corresponding to an absolute benefit in terms of disease-free survival of 4.7 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 2.6 to 6.8) at three years after randomization. Overall survival was not significantly different in the two groups, with 93 deaths occurring in the exemestane group and 106 in the tamoxifen group. Severe toxic effects of exemestane were rare. Contralateral breast cancer occurred in 20 patients in the tamoxifen group and 9 in the exemestane group (P=0.04)., Conclusions: Exemestane therapy after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy significantly improved disease-free survival as compared with the standard five years of tamoxifen treatment., (Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society)