Search

Darbepoetin alfa (DA) is an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) approved for treating chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). Safety concerns have prompted changes to the ESA-product information, which now recommends initiating ESAs at hemoglobin (Hb) levels < 10 g/dL (US) or ≤ 10 g/dL (EU). The present exploratory analysis of a DA trial examined how baseline-Hb levels at ESA initiation affect transfusion rates, Hb response, and safety outcomes in CIA patients. Data were retrospectively analyzed from a phase 3 trial of CIA patients randomised to 500 mcg DA every 3 weeks (Q3 W) or to 2.25 mcg/kg DA weekly (QW) for 15 weeks. In the current analysis, data were reanalyzed by baseline-Hb categories of <9 g/dL (n = 126), 9 to <10 g/dL (n = 225), and ≥ 10 g/dL (n = 354). The Q3 W and QW groups were combined. Transfusion rates were highest in the <9 g/dL baseline-Hb group in all time periods examined. The Kaplan-Meier percentage (95% CI) of patients achieving Hb ≥ 10 g/dL was 68% (59, 78) and 88% (82, 92) in the <9 g/dL and 9 to <10 g/dL baseline-Hb groups, respectively. With lower baseline-Hb, incidence of a ≥ 1 g/dL-Hb rise in 14 days progressively decreased. Incidence of venous thromboembolic events was similar in all baseline-Hb groups and similar between patients with or without a ≥ 1 g/dL-Hb rise in 14 days. Overall, transfusion risk increased and Hb response decreased at lower baseline-Hb levels in this exploratory analysis. When following ESA-product information to initiate ESAs at Hb ≤ 10 g/dL, the greatest benefit may be achieved when initiating close to 10 g/dL. Prospective studies are needed to further examine this hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this study is to provide relevant and accurate information on prevalence and treatment patterns of anaemia in Belgian cancer patients.Methods: The Anaemia Day 2008 survey was a single visit, multi-centre, non-interventional study in adult cancer patients under systemic therapy (chemotherapy, hormonal, immunological and/or targeted therapy) and/or radiotherapy. Efforts were made to enroll the maximum number of patients seen in each centre that day. Patients signed an informed consent and relevant data were collected from their files, i.e. disease and disease stage, cancer therapy and anti-anaemic treatment, including transfusions and the use of erythropoietin stimulating agents (ESA). A blood count of each included patient was performed. Haemoglobin (Hb) values (grams per decilitre) were classified into four categories to assess the severity of anaemia, as defined by WHO: no anaemia: Hb ≥ 12 g/dL; mild 10 ≤ Hb ≤ 11.9 g/dL; moderate 8 ≤ Hb ≤ 9.9 g/dL; severe Hb < 8 g/dL. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out with anaemia as the dependent variable.Results: A total of 1,403 eligible patients aged 63 ± 13 years (mean age ± SD) were enrolled in 106 oncology or haematology centres. The mean Hb level (± SD) was 11.6 g/dL (± 1.8 g/dL) and the prevalence of anaemia (Hb < 12 g/dL) was 55.7% (95% CI, 53.1-58.3%), respectively, 35.9% mild, 17.8% moderate and 2.1% severe anaemia. Anaemia was more frequent in females than in males, and in patients with haematological malignancies (73.4%) than in those with solid tumours (51.4%; p < 0.001). Anaemia prevalence was higher in hospitalised patients (75.5%) compared to those seen in one-day-clinic (54.3%) or in consultation (33.9%; p < 0.001), and in patients treated with chemotherapy (61.3%) compared to those receiving radiotherapy (34.4%) or hormonal therapy (19.5%; p < 0.001). There was a clear correlation between severity of anaemia and WHO performance status (p < 0.001). Among anaemic patients, 53.1% received no treatment (mean Hb 10.8 ± 0.9 g/dL). Among the anaemic patients who received therapy for their anaemia (mean Hb 9.7 ± 1.1 g/dL), the most frequent treatments were RBC transfusions (42%), ESA (34.6%), transfusions + ESA (12%), ESA + iron (7.9%) and iron alone (3.5%). Comparison to the ECAS survey shows that there has been no major change in attitude towards anaemia management in the last decade.Conclusion: This survey shows that cancer-related anaemia is still frequently observed in cancer patients. Even if in our study ESA were used more frequently than about 10 years ago, still a large amount of anaemic patients who could be treated for anaemia according to EORTC guidelines, were not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AIM: Trastuzumab (T), a humanised monoclonal antibody against HER-2, is active in HER-2-positive MBC patients. However, nearly 60% of the patients do not benefit from T, stressing the need for additional predictive markers. The following markers could be implicated in response to T: (1) the magnitude of Her-2 gene amplification; (2) the co-expression of the other HER family receptors, possibly responsible for HER-2 trans-activation; (3) the activated status of HER-2; (4) the activated status of downstream effectors as mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs), p38 and p27. METHODS: Medical files of patients with MBC treated with T either as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy (CT) were reviewed. HER family members (EGFR, HER-2, HER-3, HER-4), the phosphorylated forms of EGFR (p-EGFR), HER-2 (p-HER-2) and of the downstream effectors were evaluated in the archival tumours. The correlation between clinical outcome and the expression of these markers was investigated. RESULTS: (1) Increasing values of Her-2 amplification were associated with a higher probability of achieving an objective response; (2) no statistical significant correlation between the expression of the HER family receptors was found; (3) p-HER-2 was predictive of response in patients treated with T+CT; (4) a statistically significant correlation between p-ERK 1/2, p-p38 and p-HER-2 emerged, pointing to the activated vertical pathway p-HER-2-->p-MAPKs. CONCLUSIONS: p-HER-2 and the magnitude of Her-2 amplification were predictive of response to T and their role deserves to be analysed in larger and more homogenous T-treated populations such as those from large phase III trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The study was undertaken to assess the association between certification and volume of breast centres on the one hand and survival on the other in patients with invasive breast cancer (IBC)., Methods: The study comprises a cohort of 46,035 patients diagnosed with IBC between 2014 and 2018, selected from the nation-wide Belgian Cancer Registry (BCR) database, which was linked with health insurance, hospital discharge and vital status data. Overall and relative survival probabilities were obtained with Kaplan-Meier method and an actuarial approach based on Ederer II, respectively. The associations between centre certification/volume and relative survival were assessed using Poisson models, adjusted for potential confounders., Results: Five years after the diagnosis of IBC, the observed and relative survival probabilities for the cohort were 83.4 % (95 %CI: [83.1, 83.8]) and 93.3 % (95 %CI: [92.9, 93.7]), respectively. After adjustment for age and combined tumour stage, the risk to die from BC was 44 % higher (EHR: 1.44, 95 %CI: [1.24, 1.66]) for patients treated in a low-volume centre and 30 % higher (EHR: 1.30, 95 %CI: [1.14, 1.48]) for patients treated in a medium-volume centre, compared to high-volume centres. Likewise, the risk to die from BC was 30 % higher (EHR: 1.30, 95 %CI: [1.15, 1.48], p < 0.001) for patients treated in a non-certified centre (representing 23.8 % of the cohort), compared to patients treated in a coordinating breast clinic., Conclusion: This population-based study reveals that BC survival is higher when patients are treated in certified and high-volume breast clinics., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Circadian rhythms regulate cellular physiology and could influence the efficacy of endocrine therapy (ET) in breast cancer (BC). We prospectively tested this hypothesis within the UNIRAD adjuvant phase III trial (NCT01805271)., Methods: 1278 patients with high-risk hormonal receptor positive (HR+)/HER2 negative (HER2-) primary BC were randomly assigned to adjuvant ET with placebo or everolimus. Patients prospectively reported in a diary the daily timing of ET intake among four 6-h slots (06:00-11:59 (morning), 12:00-17:59 (afternoon), 18:00-23:59 (evening), or 24:00-05:59 (nighttime). The association between ET timing and disease-free survival (DFS) was a prespecified secondary endpoint of the trial and the results of this observational study are reported here., Findings: ET timing was recorded by 855 patients (67.2%). Patients declaring morning (n = 465, 54.4%) or afternoon (n = 45, 5.4%) ET intake were older than those declaring evening (n = 339, 39.6%) or nighttime (n = 5, 0.6%) intake. With a median follow-up of 46.7 months, 118 patients had a local (n = 30) or metastasis relapse (n = 84), and 41 patients died. ET intake timing was not associated with DFS in the whole population (HR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.53-1.12]). The association between ET intake timing and DFS according to the stratification factors revealed interactions with ET agent (tamoxifen versus Aromatase inhibitors (AI) with an increased DFS in the group of evening/nighttime versus morning/afternoon tamoxifen intake (HR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.22-0.85]), while no association was found for AI intake (HR = 1.07, 95% CI [0.68-1.69]). The interaction between ET intake timing and ET agent remained in multivariable analysis (HR = 0.38 [0.16-0.91])., Interpretation: Tamoxifen intake in the evening/nighttime could be recommended in patients with high-risk HR+/HER2- BC while awaiting for results from further ET timing studies., Funding: UNIRAD was Supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health PHRC 2012 and received funding from La Ligue contre le Cancer, Cancer Research-UK, Myriad Genetics, and Novartis., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The authors declared no competing interest with this study. Dr Giacchetti declared travel expenses from MSD and Novartis to SABCS 2022 meeting and ASCO 2023 meeting where these data were presented (SABCS 2022 Abstract 1,305,036; ASCO 2023 Abstract 412,092)., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tucatinib and trastuzumab in patients with previously treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic biliary tract cancer (mBTC)., Methods: SGNTUC-019 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04579380) is an open-label phase II basket study evaluating the efficacy and safety of tucatinib and trastuzumab in patients with HER2-altered solid tumors. In the biliary tract cancer cohort, patients had previously treated HER2 overexpressing or amplified (HER2+) tumors (identified with local testing) with no prior HER2-directed therapy. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (cORR) per investigator assessment. Patients were treated on a 21-day cycle with tucatinib (300 mg orally twice daily) and trastuzumab (8 mg/kg intravenously followed by 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks)., Results: Thirty patients were enrolled. As of data cutoff (January 30, 2023), the median duration of follow-up was 10.8 months. The cORR was 46.7% (90% CI, 30.8 to 63.0), with a disease control rate of 76.7% (90% CI, 60.6 to 88.5). The median duration of response and progression-free survival were 6.0 months (90% CI, 5.5 to 6.9) and 5.5 months (90% CI, 3.9 to 8.1), respectively. At data cutoff, 15 patients (50.0%) had died, and the estimated 12-month overall survival rate was 53.6% (90% CI, 36.8 to 67.8). The two most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were pyrexia (43.3%) and diarrhea (40.0%). Grade ≥3 TEAEs were reported in 18 patients (60.0%), with the most common being cholangitis, decreased appetite, and nausea (all 10.0%), which were generally not treatment related. TEAEs led to treatment regimen discontinuation in one patient, and there were no deaths due to TEAEs., Conclusion: Tucatinib combined with trastuzumab had clinically significant antitumor activity and was well tolerated in patients with previously treated HER2+ mBTC.

Background: The Belgian Precision initiative aims to maximize the implementation of tumor-agnostic next-generation sequencing in patients with advanced cancer and enhance access to molecularly guided treatment options. Academic tumor-agnostic basket phase II studies are part of this initiative. The current investigator-driven trial aimed to investigate the efficacy of olaparib in advanced cancers with a (likely) pathogenic mutation (germline or somatic) in a gene that plays a role in homologous recombination (HR)., Patients and Methods: This open-label, multi-cohort, phase II study examines the efficacy of olaparib in patients with an HR gene mutation in their tumor and disease progression on standard of care. Patients with a somatic or germline mutation in the same gene define a cohort. For each cohort, a Simon minimax two-stage design was used. If a response was observed in the first 13 patients, 14 additional patients were included. Here, we report the results on four completed cohorts: patients with a BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2 or ATM mutation., Results: The overall objective response rate across different tumor types was 11% in the BRCA1-mutated (n = 27) and 21% in the BRCA2-mutated (n = 27) cohorts. Partial responses were seen in pancreatic cancer, gallbladder cancer, endocrine carcinoma of the pancreas and parathyroid cancer. One patient with a BRCA2 germline-mutated colon cancer has an ongoing complete response with 19+ months on treatment. Median progression-free survival in responding patients was 14+ months (5-34+ months). The clinical benefit rate was 63% in the BRCA1-mutated and 46% in the BRCA2-mutated cohorts. No clinical activity was observed in the ATM (n = 13) and CHEK2 (n = 14) cohorts., Conclusion: Olaparib showed efficacy in different cancer types harboring somatic or germline mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes but not in ATM and CHEK2. Patients with any cancer type harboring BRCA1/2 mutations should have access to olaparib., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Chemo-immunotherapy is the first-line standard of care for patients with PD-L1 positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). SYNERGY (NCT03616886) is a dose-finding phase I and a randomized phase II, open-label trial evaluating if targeting the immunosuppressive adenosine pathway can enhance the antitumor activity of chemo-immunotherapy. The phase I part included 6 patients with untreated locally-advanced or mTNBC to determine the safety and recommended phase II dose of the anti-CD73 antibody oleclumab in combination with the anti-PD-L1 durvalumab and 12 cycles of weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel. In the phase II part, 127 women were randomized 1:1 to receive chemo-immunotherapy, with (arm A) or without (arm B) oleclumab. The primary endpoint was the clinical benefit rate at week 24, defined as stable disease, partial or complete response per RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate, duration of response, survival outcomes (progression-free survival and overall survival), and safety. The trial did not meet its primary endpoint, as the 24-week clinical benefit rate was not significantly improved by adding oleclumab (43% vs. 44%, p = 0.61). Exploratory median progression-free survival was 5.9 months in arm A as compared to 7.0 months in arm B (p = 0.90). The safety profile was manageable in both arms., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: We aimed to determine the pattern of isolated local recurrences (ILR) in women with stage II-III hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 breast cancer (HR + /HER2-BC) after 10-year follow-up., Methods: UNICANCER-PACS 01 and PACS 04 trials included 5,008 women with T1-T3 and N1-N3 to evaluate the efficacy of different anthracycline ± taxanes-containing regimens after modified mastectomy or lumpectomy plus axillary lymph node dissection. We analyzed the data from 2,932 women with HR + /HER2- BC to evaluate the cumulative incidence of ILR and describe the factors associated with ILR., Results: After a median follow-up of 9.1 years (95% CI 9.0-9.2 years), the cumulative incidence of ILR increased steadily between 1 and 10 years from 0.2% to 2.5%. The multivariable analysis showed that older age (subhazard ratios [sHR] = 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.99) and mastectomy (sHR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.86) were associated with lower risk of ILR, and no adjuvant endocrine therapy (sHR = 2.73, 95% CI 1.32 7-5.67) with increased risk of ILR., Conclusion: In this population of high-risk patients with localized HR + /HER2- BC, the risk of ILR was low but remained constant over 10 years. Younger age at diagnosis, breast-conserving surgery, and adjuvant endocrine therapy were independent risk factors of ILR., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

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.

Background: In advanced oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, acquired resistance to aromatase inhibitors frequently stems from ESR1-mutated subclones, which might be sensitive to fulvestrant. The PADA-1 trial aimed to show the efficacy of an early change in therapy on the basis of a rising ESR1 mutation in blood (bESR1 mut ), while assessing the global safety of combination fulvestrant and palbociclib., Methods: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial in 83 hospitals in France. Women aged at least 18 years with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were recruited and monitored for rising bESR1 mut during first-line aromatase inhibitor (2·5 mg letrozole, 1 mg anastrozole, or 25 mg exemestane, orally once per day, taken continuously) and palbociclib (125 mg orally once per day on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) therapy. Patients with newly present or increased bESR1 mut in circulating tumour DNA and no synchronous disease progression were randomly assigned (1:1) to continue with the same therapy or to switch to fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscularly on day 1 of each 28-day cycle and on day 15 of cycle 1) and palbociclib (dosing unchanged). The randomisation sequence was generated within an interactive web response system using a minimisation method (with an 80% random factor); patients were stratified according to visceral involvement (present or absent) and the time from inclusion to bESR1 mut detection (<12 months or ≥12 months). The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival from random assignment, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all randomly assigned patients), and grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events in all patients. The trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03079011), and is now complete., Findings: From March 22, 2017, to Jan 31, 2019, 1017 patients were included, of whom 279 (27%) developed a rising bESR1 mut and 172 (17%) were randomly assigned to treatment: 88 to switching to fulvestrant and palbociclib and 84 patients to continuing aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib. At database lock on July 31, 2021, randomly assigned patients had a median follow-up of 35·3 months (IQR 29·2-41·4) from inclusion and 26·0 months (13·8-34·3) from random assignment. Median progression-free survival from random assignment was 11·9 months (95% CI 9·1-13·6) in the fulvestrant and palbociclib group versus 5·7 months (3·9-7·5) in the aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib group (stratified HR 0·61, 0·43-0·86; p=0·0040). The most frequent grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events were neutropenia (715 [70·3%] of 1017 patients), lymphopenia (66 [6·5%]), and thrombocytopenia (20 [2·0%]). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in step 2 were neutropenia (35 [41·7%] of 84 patients in the aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib group vs 39 [44·3%] of 88 patients in the fulvestrant and palbociclib group) and lymphopenia (three [3·6%] vs four [4·5%]). 31 (3·1%) patients had grade 3 or worse serious adverse events related to treatment in the overall population. Three (1·7%) of 172 patients randomly assigned had one serious adverse event in step 2: one (1·2%) grade 4 neutropenia and one (1·2%) grade 3 fatigue among 84 patients in the aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib group, and one (1·1%) grade 4 neutropenia among 88 patients in the fulvestrant and palbociclib group. One death by pulmonary embolism in step 1 was declared as being treatment related., Interpretation: PADA-1 is the first prospective randomised trial showing that the early therapeutic targeting of bESR1 mut results in significant clinical benefit. Additionally, the original design explored in PADA-1 might help with tackling acquired resistance with new drugs in future trials., Funding: Pfizer., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests F-CB reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi, Radius, Seagen, AstraZeneca, General Electric, Menarini/Stemline, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Merck, Pfizer, Prolynx, Rain Therapeutics, and Roche; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, General Electric, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Menarini/Stemline, Novartis, Pfizer, Rain Therapeutics, and Sanofi; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Lilly, Menarini/Stemline, Pfizer, Rain Therapeutics, and Sanofi; support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and Roche; and applied for an international patent (application number PCT/EP2019/056445), filed on March 14, 2019, named: method for identifying one or more mutations in a hotspot mutation sequence. A-CH-B reports, outside the submitted work, consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Merck Sharpe & Dohme; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, AstraZeneca, Daiichi, GSK, Seagen, and Gilead; support for attending meetings or travel from Novartis, Pfizer, and Daiichi; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MSD, AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Pfizer, Novartis, GSK, Seagen, Gilead, and Eisai. TB reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and SeaGen; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Lilly, SeaGen, Roche, Novartis, and Pfizer. J-YP reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Servier and Menarini; consulting fees from Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and MSD; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, MSD, Seagen, Novartis, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, and Amgen; support for attending meetings or travel from Roche and AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Sanofi and Novartis. TdlMR reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, Pfizer, and Seagen; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Tesaro, GSK, and Seagen; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from GSK. RS reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from AstraZeneca; consulting fees from GSK; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Novartis, GSK, Clovis, and AstraZeneca; and support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, Roche, GSK, and Bristol Myers Squibb. J-SF reports, outside the submitted work, consulting fees from Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seagen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seagen; and support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seagen. SL reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Novartis, Eisai, and BMS; consulting fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Roche, BMS, Daiichi, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Roche, BMS, Daiichi, Seagen, and Pierre Fabre; payment for expert testimony from Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Roche, BMS, Daiichi, and Seagen; support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, BMS, Daiichi, and Seagen; and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from BMS. CL reports, outside the submitted work, consulting fees from MSD, Daiichi, Roche, and AstraZeneca; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Lilly; support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, Pfizer, Sandoz, Lilly, and AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Roche, AstraZeneca, and Lilly. AL reports, outside the submitted work, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, MSD, and Clovis; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, MSD, and Clovis; and leadership or fiduciary role in other board for GINECO group. JG reports, outside the submitted work, support for attending meetings or travel from Lilly and Daiichi; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Daiichi and Pfizer. HV reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Daiichi, and Pfizer; and support for attending meetings or travel from Eisai, GSK, MSD, and Novartis. CG-T reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from Pfizer; consulting fees from Pfizer; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astrazeneca, Pfizer and Novartis; and support for attending meetings or travel from MSD, Mylan, and Pfizer. BP reports, outside the submitted work, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Myriad, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Puma; support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, and MSD; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo. FA reports, outside the submitted work, reports grants or contracts from Roche, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly; and consulting fees from Gilead, Guardant Health, MedImmune, and Relay Therapeutics. LA reports, outside the submitted work, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, and BMS; and support for attending meetings or travel from Roche. JL reports a Pfizer grant to his institution for carrying out this study. SD reports, outside the submitted work, grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche Genentech, Lilly, Puma, Myriad, Orion, Amgen, Sanofi, MSD, BMS, Seagen, and Taiho; consulting fees from Isis/Servier, Cellectis, Pierre Fabre, and General Electric; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Seagen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, Daiichi, and Lilly; support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Roche Genentech; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Orion, and Rappta. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

PRECISION is an initiative from the Belgian Society of Medical Oncology (BSMO) in collaboration with several stakeholders, encompassing four programs that aim to boost genomic and clinical knowledge with the ultimate goal to offer patients with metastatic solid tumors molecularly guided treatments. The PRECISION 1 study has led to the creation of a clinico-genomic database. The Belgian Approach for Local Laboratory Extensive Tumor Testing (BALLETT) and GeNeo studies will increase the number of patients with advanced cancer that have comprehensive genotyping of their cancer. The PRECISION 2 project consists of investigator-initiated phase II studies aiming to provide access to a targeted drug for patients whose tumors harbor actionable mutations in case the matched drug is not available through reimbursement or clinical trials in Belgium., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is the most common histologic subtype of breast cancer after invasive ductal carcinoma (i.e., no special type [NST]). ILC differs from NST in clinical presentation, site-specific metastases and response to conventional therapies. Loss of E-cadherin protein expression, due to alterations in its encoding gene CDH1, is the most frequent oncogenic event in ILC. Synthetic lethality approaches have shown promising antitumor effects of ROS1 inhibitors in models of E-cadherin-defective breast cancer in in vivo studies and provide the rationale for testing their clinical activity in patients with ILC. Entrectinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting TRK, ROS1 and ALK tyrosine kinases. Here, the authors present ROSALINE (NCT04551495), a phase II study testing neoadjuvant entrectinib and endocrine therapy in women with estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative early ILC.

The clinical actionability of circulating tumor DNA requires sensitive detection methods with a short turnaround time. In the PADA-1 phase 3 trial (NCT03079011), metastatic breast cancer patients treated with an aromatase inhibitor and palbociclib were screened every 2 months for activating ESR1 mutations in blood ( bESR1 mut ). We report the feasibility of the droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) and cross-validation with next-generation sequencing (NGS). bESR1 mut testing was centralized in two platforms using the same ddPCR assay. Results were reported as copies/mL of plasma and mutant allele frequency (MAF). We analyzed 200 positive ddPCR samples with an NGS assay (0.5-1% sensitivity). Overall, 12,552 blood samples were collected from 1017 patients from 83 centers. Among the 12,525 available samples with ddPCR results, 11,533 (92%) were bESR1 mut -negative. A total of 267 patients newly displayed bESR1 mut (26% patients/2% samples) with a median copy number of 14/mL (range: 4-1225) and a median MAF of 0.83% (0.11-35), 648 samples (20% patients/5% samples) displayed persistent bESR1 mut , and 77 (<1%) samples encountered a technical failure. The median turnaround time from blood drawing to result notification was 13 days (Q1:9; Q3:21 days). Among 200 ddPCR-positive samples tested, NGS detected bESR1 mut in 168 (84%); 25 of the 32 cases missed by NGS had low MAF and/or low coverage. In these 200 samples, bESR1 mut MAF by both techniques had an excellent intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC = 0.93; 95% CI [0.85; 0.97]). These results from a large-scale trial support the feasibility and accuracy of real-time bESR1 mut tracking by ddPCR, opening new opportunities for therapeutic interventions.

Introduction: The combination of a CDK4/6 inhibitor with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) has recently become the gold standard for AI-sensitive first line treatment of oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer. However, most patients receiving this combination will ultimately progress and require further therapies.Several studies have demonstrated that the onset of a ESR1 gene mutation lead to AIs resistance in the advanced setting. ESR1 mutations can be detected in circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) using a digital PCR assay. Our study aims to prove the clinical efficacy of periodic monitoring for emerging or rise of ESR1 mutations in ctDNA to trigger an early change from AI plus palbociclib to fulvestrant plus palbociclib treatment while assessing global safety., Methods: PADA-1 is a randomised, open-label, multicentric, phase III trial conducted in patients receiving AI and palbociclib as first line therapy for metastatic ER +HER2- breast cancer. 1000 patients will be included and treated with palbociclib in combination with an AI. Patients will be screened for circulating blood ESR1 mutation detection at regular intervals. Patients for whom a rising circulating ESR1 mutation is detected without tumour progression (up to N=200) will be randomised (1:1) between (1) Arm A: no modification of therapy; and (2) Arm B: palbociclib in combination with fulvestrant, a selective ER down-regulator. At tumour progression, an optional crossover will be offered to patients randomised in arm A. The coprimary endpoints are (1) Grade ≥3 haematological toxicities and their associations with baseline characteristics and (2) progression-free survival in randomised patients., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been approved by the French medicines agency (ANSM) and by an ethics committee (ref 01/17&#95;1 CPP Ouest-IV Nantes) in January 2017. The trial results will be published in academic conference presentations and international peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Numbers: EudraCT: 2016-004360-18; NCT03079011., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SD: reports grants and non-financial support from Pfizer, grants from Novartis, grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants and non-financial support from Roche Genentech, grants from Lilly, grants from Puma, grants from Myriad, grants from Orion, grants from Amgen, grants from Sanofi, grants from Genomic Health, grants from GE, grants from Servier, grants from MSD, grants from BMS, grants from Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work. A-CH-B: reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Daiichi, personal fees from Clovis, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Roche outside the submitted work. TB: reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, personal fees from Seagen, outside the submitted work. TDLMR: reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, grants and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche Genentech, grants and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from TESARO-GSK, personal fees from CLOVIS ONCOLOGY, personal fees from MYLAN, outside the submitted work. FA: reports grants from Roche, grants from AstraZeneca, grants from Daiichi Sankyo, grants from Pfizer, grants from Novartis, grants from Lilly, outside the submitted work. LA: report personal fees from Roche, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees fromBMS, outside the submitted work. FC: reports grants from AstraZeneca, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck Serono, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, outside the submitted work. F-CB: reports grants from PFIZER, during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from PFIZER, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from NOVARTIS, personal fees from LILLY, personal fees and non-financial support from ROCHE, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees from AMGEN, personal fees from SANOFI, personal fees from Radius, grants and personal fees from Seagen, granst from Prolynx outside the submitted work; In addition, F-CB has a patent ctDNA detection by ddPCR pending., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) is indicated as second-line treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic or unresectable locally advanced breast cancer, after progression on trastuzumab and a taxane-based chemotherapy. We wished to determine if the line of treatment in which T-DM1 is administered has an impact on progression-free survival (PFS) and in particular, if prior treatment with capecitabine/lapatinib or pertuzumab modifies PFS of further treatment with T-DM1., Patients and Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective study in 3 Belgian institutions. We evaluated PFS with T-DM1 in patients treated for HER2 positive metastatic or locally advanced unresectable breast cancer between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2016., Results: We included 51 patients. The median PFS was 9.01 months. The line of treatment in which T-DM1 (1st line, 2nd line, 3rd line or 4+ lines) was administered had no influence on PFS (hazard ratio 0.979, CI95: 0.835-1.143). There was no significant difference in PFS whether or not patients had received prior treatment with capecitabine/lapatinib (9.17 vs 5.56 months, p-value 0.875). But, patients who received pertuzumab before T-DM1 tended to exhibit a shorter PFS (3.55 months for T-DM1 after pertuzumab vs 9.50 months for T-DM1 without pretreatment with pertuzumab), even if this difference was not statistically significant (p-value 0.144)., Conclusion: Unlike with conventional chemotherapy, the line of treatment in which T-DM1 is administered does not influence PFS in our cohort of patients with advanced HER2-positive breast cancer., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Monalizumab is a monoclonal antibody targeting the inhibitory natural killer group 2A (NKG2A) receptor localised on natural killer (NK) and T cells. Its ligand, the human leukocyte antigen E (HLA-E), is overexpressed in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). By targeting the HLA-E-NKG2A pathway, monalizumab may enhance NK and T cell activity., Experimental Design: The UPSTREAM trial is a biomarker-driven umbrella trial studying targeted therapies and immunotherapies in patients with recurrent/metastatic (R/M) SCCHN progressing after platinum therapy. The immunotherapy 1 (I1) cohort was a phase II, single-arm substudy evaluating monalizumab (10 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of a 14-day cycle). The primary end-point was the objective response (OR) rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1) over the first 16 weeks. A two-stage Simon design was used (H1 15%, H0 3%, α 8%, power 90%) with pre-planned interruption of accrual if no OR was observed after the first 25 patients., Results: Twenty-six eligible patients were enrolled. Seventeen (65%) patients had received ≥2 previous lines of systemic treatment, and 15 (58%) patients were PD(-L)1 inhibitor pretreated. No OR was observed. Stable disease was observed in 6 patients (23%) with a median duration of 3.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.7-NE). The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 1.7 months (95% CI: 1.5-1.8) and 6.7 months (95% CI: 3.0-9.6), respectively. The most frequent treatment-related adverse event was grade I/II fatigue (19%)., Conclusions: Monalizumab monotherapy has limited activity in R/M SCCHN. The I1 cohort did not meet its primary objective. Monalizumab combined with durvalumab is under investigation within UPSTREAM., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: R.G. declares a role in an advisory board without compensation for Innate Pharma and travelling compensation from Amgen and Astellas. E.S-B. has received consulting fees for advisory boards and travelling from BMS and MSD. A.D. has received consulting fees or honorarium from MSD, BMS and Merck and accommodation and travelling expenses for meetings from BMS, Merck and AstraZeneca. C.E. has received consulting fees for advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Innate Pharma and Merck Serono. S.H. declares a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, MSD Oncology, BMS and Sanofi and travelling expenses for meetings from Roche and MSD Oncology. A.K. received fees for consulting, advisory, speaker's roles and/or research funding from PUMA BioTechnology, AstraZeneca, Merck, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Avvinity Therapeutics. J-P.M. declares a role as an advisory board member or speaker with honoraria (managed by his institution) in Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Innate, Merck Serono, Boehringer, BMS, Novartis, Janssen, Incyte, Cue Biopharma, ALX Oncology, iTEOS and eTheRNA; travel expenses from Amgen, BMS, Pfizer and MSD; a role in the data safety monitoring board with honoraria in PsiOxus and an uncompensated advisory role in MSD. The other authors declare no potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This open-label, multicenter, phase IB/II study evaluated sapanisertib, a dual inhibitor of mTOR kinase complexes 1/2, plus exemestane or fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR + )/HER2-negative (HER2 - ) advanced/metastatic breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had previously progressed on everolimus with exemestane/fulvestrant and received ≤3 (phase IB) or ≤1 (phase II) prior chemotherapy regimens. Patients received sapanisertib 3 to 5 mg every day (phase IB), or 4 mg every day (phase II) with exemestane 25 mg every day or fulvestrant 500 mg monthly in 28-day cycles. Phase II enrolled parallel cohorts based on prior response to everolimus. The primary objective of phase II was to evaluate antitumor activity by clinical benefit rate at 16 weeks (CBR-16)., Results: Overall, 118 patients enrolled in phase IB ( n = 24) and II ( n = 94). Five patients in phase IB experienced dose-limiting toxicities, at sapanisertib doses of 5 mg every day ( n = 4) and 4 mg every day ( n = 1); sapanisertib 4 mg every day was the MTD in combination with exemestane or fulvestrant. In phase II, in everolimus-sensitive versus everolimus-resistant cohorts, CBR-16 was 45% versus 23%, and overall response rate was 8% versus 2%, respectively. The most common adverse events were nausea (52%), fatigue (47%), diarrhea (37%), and hyperglycemia (33%); rash occurred in 17% of patients. Molecular analysis suggested positive association between AKT1 mutation status and best treatment response (complete + partial response; P = 0.0262)., Conclusions: Sapanisertib plus exemestane or fulvestrant was well tolerated and exhibited clinical benefit in postmenopausal women with pretreated everolimus-sensitive or everolimus-resistant breast cancer., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Treatment of patients with cancer in hospitals or clinics is resource-intensive and imposes a burden on patients. 'Flexible care' is a term that can be used to describe treatment administered outside the oncology ward, oncological outpatient clinic or office-based oncologist setting. Programmes that reduce travel burden by bringing cancer treatment to the patient's home, workplace or closer to the patient's home, in the form of satellite clinics or mobile cancer units, expand treatment capacity and are well received. Clinical trial data show that, compared with intravenous administration, subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of trastuzumab is preferred by patients with breast cancer (BC), saves healthcare professionals' (HCPs) time, reduces drug preparation and administration time and reduces direct and indirect costs. As such, s.c. trastuzumab is well suited to flexible care. The results of a Belgian study (BELIS) show that home administration of s.c. trastuzumab is feasible and preferred by patients with BC. Numerous programmes and pilot studies in Europe show that s.c. trastuzumab can be administered effectively in the patient's home, in primary care settings or local hospitals. Such programmes require planning, training, careful patient selection and technology to link patients, caregivers and specialists in oncology clinics. Once these elements are in place, flexible care offers patients with BC a choice of how treatment may be delivered and lead to improved quality of life, while reducing pressure on HCPs and hospitals. The concept of flexible care is particularly relevant amid the COVID-19 pandemic where guidelines have been developed encouraging remote care., Competing Interests: Disclosure All authors received support for third-party writing assistance for this manuscript from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland. AW reports commercial contract research from G1 Therapeutics, Inc., during the conduct of the study; personal fees and contract research from Roche; personal fees, a joint working agreement and contract research from Novartis, personal fees, a joint working agreement and contract research from Pfizer; personal fees and contract research from Daiichi Sankyo; contract research from Seattle Genetics; personal fees and contract research from Eli Lilly; personal fees and travel assistance from MSD; personal fees from Athenex; personal fees and contract research from AstraZeneca; personal fees from Andrew Wardley Limited; is a director of the Manchester Cancer Academy; is a director of Outreach Research & Innovation Group Limited; has received personal fees from Gerson Lehman Group, Guidepoint Global, Coleman Expert Network, Helios, and Healthcare America, outside the submitted work; and is Medical Director of NIHR Manchester Clinical Research Facility at The Christie Hospital, Chair of the NCRI Breast Research Group, Strategy Director for Association of Cancer Physicians, a committee member of the UK Breast Cancer Group and is a committee member of the NHS England Chemotherapy Clinical Reference Group. J-LC reports acting as a consultant or advisor for Pfizer, Roche, Eli Lilly, Daiichi and Novartis; receiving research grants from Amgen and Roche; receiving reimbursement for travel and accommodation expenses from Pfizer and Roche; and acting as a member of a speaker's bureau for Roche. LE reports no other conflicts of interest. CPM reports employment by, and stocks in, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. TBC reports employment by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and is a patent holder for PHESGO. JF reports employment by, and stocks in, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. MP reports grants and personal fees from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech (honoraria), Inc., outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multigene panels are routinely used to assess for predisposing germline mutations in families at high breast cancer risk. The number of variants of unknown significance thereby identified increases with the number of sequenced genes. We aimed to determine whether tumor sequencing can help refine the analysis of germline variants based on second somatic genetic events in the same gene., Methods: Whole-exome sequencing (WES) was performed on whole blood DNA from 70 unrelated breast cancer patients referred for genetic testing and without a BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, or CHEK2 mutation. Rare variants were retained in a list of 735 genes. WES was performed on matched tumor DNA to identify somatic second hits (copy number alterations (CNAs) or mutations) in the same genes. Distinct methods (among which immunohistochemistry, mutational signatures, homologous recombination deficiency, and tumor mutation burden analyses) were used to further study the role of the variants in tumor development, as appropriate., Results: Sixty-eight patients (97%) carried at least one germline variant (4.7 ± 2.0 variants per patient). Of the 329 variants, 55 (17%) presented a second hit in paired tumor tissue. Of these, 53 were CNAs, resulting in tumor enrichment (28 variants) or depletion (25 variants) of the germline variant. Eleven patients received variant disclosure, with clinical measures for five of them. Seven variants in breast cancer-predisposing genes were considered not implicated in oncogenesis. One patient presented significant tumor enrichment of a germline variant in the oncogene ERBB2, in vitro expression of which caused downstream signaling pathway activation., Conclusion: Tumor sequencing is a powerful approach to refine variant interpretation in cancer-predisposing genes in high-risk breast cancer patients. In this series, the strategy provided clinically relevant information for 11 out of 70 patients (16%), adapted to the considered gene and the familial clinical phenotype.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a heterogeneous group of breast cancer and is characterized by aggressiveness and poor prognosis. MicroRNA represents a new class of biomarkers, and accumulating evidence indicates that microRNAs contribute to tumorigenesis and cancer metastasis. It has been described that miR-210 is highly expressed in TNBC, and its overexpression had been linked to poor prognosis. In a previous work, we showed that in TNBC miR-210 is expressed in tumor cells and also in the tumor microenvironment (TME), particularly in inflammatory CD45-LCA positive cells. However, the exact identity of these cells remained unknown. In this study, we performed in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry using validated antibodies for the different specific immune cell markers on adjacent sections of 23 TNBC infiltrated with immune cells. We found that miR-210 expressing cells in the TME were stained positive with CD79a, a B-cell lineage marker. These tumor-infiltrating cells were negative for CD20 and Ki-67 but positive for MUM1 and CD38 and also expressed immunoglobulins, indicating that they are immunoglobulin-producing plasma cells (PCs). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating miR-210 expression in tumor-infiltrating PCs.