Search

Abstract Abemaciclib demonstrated clinical benefit in women affected by HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer (aBC). Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) can lead to reduced treatment efficacy or increased toxicity. This retro-prospective study aimed to evaluate outcomes, DDIs’ impact, and toxicities of abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy in a real-world setting. Patients from 12 referral Italian hospitals with HR+/HER2− aBC who received abemaciclib were included. Clinical data about comorbidities, concurrent medications, outcomes, and adverse events (AE) were collected. Drug-PIN® (Personalized Interactions Network) is a tool recognizing the role of multiple interactions between active and/or pro-drug forms combined with biochemical and demographic patient data. The software was used to define the Drug-PIN score and Drug-PIN tier (green, yellow, dark yellow, and red) for each patient. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of patients’ PFS or toxicity. One hundred seventy-three patients were included. 13% of patients had >75years. The overall response rate (ORR) was 63%. The general population’s median PFS (mPFS) was 22 months (mo), while mOS were not reached. Patients treated with abemaciclib in combination with AI and fulvestrant had a mPFS of 36 and 19 mo, respectively. The most common toxicities were diarrhea, asthenia, and neutropenia detected in 63%,49%, and 49% of patients. The number of concomitant medications and comorbidities were not associated with survival outcomes (22 vs 17 mo, p = 0.068, p = 0.99). Drug-PIN tier from dark yellow to red and Drug-PIN score >12 were associated with shorter PFS compared to no/low-risk DDIs and score

Abstract Background Breast cancer presents diverse molecular subtypes affecting treatment strategies. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer poses a challenge due to limited targeted therapies. Current neoadjuvant treatment primarily utilizes chemotherapy, with conflicting results regarding efficacy in patients with HER2-low breast cancer. Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) shows promise in HER2-low metastatic disease, and preliminary evidence suggests synergy with endocrine therapy. Objective This editorial explores the hypothesis that neoadjuvant T-DXd with or without endocrine therapy offers efficacy in the clinical management of HR+/HER2-low breast cancer. Methods We propose a phase II study with two treatment arms: T-DXd + letrozole and T-DXd alone. The primary endpoint is the radiological complete response rate. Secondary endpoints include pathological complete response rate, safety, event-free survival, and overall survival. Exploratory analyses will compare the arms to identify potential for optimizing treatment efficacy and minimizing side effects. Conclusions This study design allows for initial assessment of T-DXd with or without endocrine therapy in the treatment of HER2-low breast cancer. The findings may pave the way for personalized treatment strategies and inform future research, potentially leading to a chemotherapy-sparing approach.

Abstract Following the survival benefit demonstrated in the OlympiA trial, one year of adjuvant olaparib is now recommended for all patients with germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV) and high-risk, HER2-negative early breast cancer after chemotherapy. However, optimal identification of high-risk patients who may derive benefit from this genomically-directed therapy is debated. In this study, we sought to characterize the real-world proportion of gBRCA1/2 PV carriers eligible for adjuvant olaparib according to the OlympiA criteria, and to compare clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes between eligible and ineligible patients.

Objective This study evaluates the safety/efficacy of sabatolimab plus spartalizumab in patients with melanoma or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Design, setting and participants This is a phase 1–1b/2, open-label, multinational, multicentre study of patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma or NSCLC with ≥1 measurable lesion.Interventions Patients were given sabatolimab 800 mg every 4 weeks plus spartalizumab 400 mg every 4 weeks until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression and/or treatment discontinuation.Outcome measures The phase 2 primary outcome measure was overall response rate and secondary objectives included evaluation of the safety, tolerability, efficacy and pharmacokinetics of sabatolimab in combination with spartalizumab.Results 33 patients (melanoma n=16, NSCLC n=17) received sabatolimab plus spartalizumab. 31 (94%) experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE); 15 (46%) experienced grade 3/4 events. The most frequent grade ≥3 AEs for NSCLC were anaemia, dyspnoea and pneumonia (each n=2, 12%); for patients with melanoma, the most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were physical health deterioration, hypokalaemia, hypophosphataemia, pathological fracture and tumour invasion (each n=1; 6%). One (3%) patient discontinued treatment due to AE. Stable disease was seen in three patients with melanoma (19%) and six patients with NSCLC (35%). Median progression-free survival was 1.8 (90% CI 1.7 to 1.9) and 1.7 (90% CI 1.1 to 3.4) months for patients with melanoma and NSCLC, respectively. Patients with stable disease had higher expression levels of CD8, LAG3, programmed death-ligand 1 and anti-T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin-domain containing-3 at baseline. The pharmacokinetics profile of sabatolimab was consistent with the phase 1 study.Conclusions Sabatolimab plus spartalizumab was well tolerated in patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma or NSCLC who had progressed following antiprogrammed death-1/antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 treatment. Limited antitumour activity was observed. The tolerability of sabatolimab administration supports the potential to explore treatment with sabatolimab in various combination regimens and across a spectrum of tumour types.Trial registration number NCT02608268.

This manuscript describes the Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) international consensus guidelines updated at the last two ABC international consensus conferences (ABC 6 in 2021, virtual, and ABC 7 in 2023, in Lisbon, Portugal), organized by the ABC Global Alliance. It provides the main recommendations on how to best manage patients with advanced breast cancer (inoperable locally advanced or metastatic), of all breast cancer subtypes, as well as palliative and supportive care. These guidelines are based on available evidence or on expert opinion when a higher level of evidence is lacking. Each guideline is accompanied by the level of evidence (LoE), grade of recommendation (GoR) and percentage of consensus reached at the consensus conferences. Updated diagnostic and treatment algorithms are also provided. The guidelines represent the best management options for patients living with ABC globally, assuming accessibility to all available therapies. Their adaptation (i.e. resource-stratified guidelines) is often needed in settings where access to care is limited.

Introduction: Advancements in monoclonal antibodies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) have notably enhanced outcomes for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer patients. Despite the expanding treatment options and clinical complexities, determining the optimal sequence of HER2-targeted therapies remains partly uncertain, influenced by various factors. Methods: To refine HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer management, particularly regarding tucatinib's position, a Steering Committee of leading oncologists in breast cancer care devised a panel of statements via a Delphi approach, focusing on five key topics: general clinical management, therapeutic approaches for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases, treatment sequence, and tucatinib's safety and efficacy. Results: A total of 29 statements were deliberated, with strong consensus achieved for most. However, no consensus emerged regarding the management of brain progression alongside stable extracranial disease: 48 % advocated for switching to tucatinib, while 53 % favored a stereotactic brain radiotherapy (SBRT) approach if feasible. Conclusion: The unanimous consensus attained in this Delphi panel, particularly regarding tucatinib's efficacy and safety, underscores oncologists' recognition of its clinical significance based on existing trial data. These findings align closely with current literature, shedding light on areas necessitating further investigation, not thoroughly explored in prior studies. Moreover, the results underscore the scarcity of data on managing brain progression alongside stable extracranial disease, emphasizing the imperative for dedicated research to address these gaps and yield definitive insights.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Final overall survival (OS) in SOPHIA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02492711), a study of margetuximab versus trastuzumab, both with chemotherapy, in patients with previously treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced breast cancer, is reported with updated safety. Overall, 536 patients in the intention-to-treat population were randomly assigned to margetuximab (15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks; n = 266) plus chemotherapy or trastuzumab (6 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks after a loading dose of 8 mg/kg; n = 270) plus chemotherapy. Primary end points were progression-free survival, previously reported, and OS. Final OS analysis was triggered by 385 prespecified events. The median OS was 21.6 months (95% CI, 18.89 to 25.07) with margetuximab versus 21.9 months (95% CI, 18.69 to 24.18) with trastuzumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.17; P = .620). Preplanned, exploratory analysis of CD16A genotyping suggested a possible improvement in OS for margetuximab in CD16A-158FF patients versus trastuzumab (median OS, 23.6 v 19.2 months; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.00) and a possible improvement in OS for trastuzumab in CD16A-158VV patients versus margetuximab (median OS, 31.1 v 22.0 months; HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.01 to 3.12). Margetuximab safety was comparable with trastuzumab. Final overall OS analysis did not demonstrate margetuximab advantage over trastuzumab. Margetuximab studies in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer with different CD16A allelic variants are warranted.

BACKGROUND: This Phase 1b study (B2151002) evaluated the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor gedatolisib (PF-05212384) in combination with other anti-tumour agents in advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Patients with various malignancies were administered gedatolisib (90‒310 mg intravenously every week [QW]) plus docetaxel (arm A) or cisplatin (arm B) (each 75 mg/m2 intravenously Q3W) or dacomitinib (30 or 45 mg/day orally). The safety and tolerability of combination therapies were assessed during dose escalation; objective response (OR) and safety were assessed during dose expansion. RESULTS: Of 110 patients enrolled, 107 received gedatolisib combination treatment. Seven of 70 (10.0%) evaluable patients had dose-limiting toxicities; the most common was grade 3 oral mucositis (n = 3). Based upon reprioritisation of the sponsors portfolio, dose expansion focused on arm B, gedatolisib (180 mg QW) plus cisplatin in patients (N = 22) with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). OR (95% CI) was achieved in four of ten patients in first-line (overall response rate 40.0% [12.2-73.8%]) and four of 12 in second/third-line (33.3% [9.9-65.1%]) settings. One patient in each TNBC arm (10%, first-line; 8.3%, second/third-line) achieved a complete response. CONCLUSIONS: Gedatolisib combination therapy showed an acceptable tolerability profile, with clinical activity at the recommended Phase 2 dose in patients with TNBC. CLINICAL TRIAL: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01920061.

Background and Aims: Hypoalbuminemia, as defined by serum albumin (SA) levels ≤35 g/L, is associated to venous and arterial thrombosis in general population and in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease. It is unknown if SA ≤35 g/L is also associated to portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in cirrhosis. Methods: Cirrhotic patients enrolled in the Portal vein thrombosis Relevance On Liver cirrhosis: Italian Venous thrombotic Events Registry (PRO-LIVER) study (n = 753), were followed-up for 2 years to assess the risk of PVT, that was diagnosed by Doppler ultrasonography. Child-Pugh classes, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, presence of hepatocellular carcinoma and laboratory variables including SA, D-dimer, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) were measured at baseline. Results: SA ≤35 g/L was detected in 52% of patients. A logistic multivariate regression analysis showed that higher Child-Pugh class, hepatocellular carcinoma and thrombocytopenia were significantly associated to SA ≤35 g/L. In a subgroup of patients where data regarding hs-CRP and D-dimer were available, SA ≤35 g/L was inversely associated with hs-CRP and D-dimer. During the follow-up, a total of 61 patients experienced PVT. A Kaplan Meier survival analysis showed SA ≤35 g/L was associated to increased risk of PVT compared to SA >35 g/L (P = .005). A multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis showed that male sex, lower platelet count, and SA ≤35 g/L remained associated to PVT after adjusting for confounding factors. Conclusion: Cirrhotic patients with SA ≤35 g/L are at higher risk of experiencing PVT compared to those with SA >35 g/L and could be considered as potential candidates to anticoagulant prophylaxis for PVT prevention.

The move toward early detection and treatment of cancer presents challenges for value assessment using traditional endpoints. Current cancer management rarely considers the full economic and societal benefits of therapies. Our study used a modified Delphi process to develop principles for defining and assessing value of cancer therapies that aligns with the current trajectory of oncology research and reflects broader notions of value. 24 experts participated in consensus-building activities across 5 months (16 took part in structured interactions, including a survey, plenary sessions, interviews, and off-line discussions, while 8 participated in interviews). Discussion focused on: 1) which oncology-relevant endpoints should be used for assessing treatments for early-stage cancer and access decisions for early-stage treatments, and 2) the importance of additional value components and how these can be integrated in value assessments. The expert group reached consensus on 4 principles in relation to the first area (consider oncology-relevant endpoints other than overall survival; build evidence for endpoints that provide earlier indication of efficacy; develop evidence for the next generation of predictive measures; use managed entry agreements supported by ongoing evidence collection to address decision-maker evidence needs) and 3 principles in relation to the second (routinely use patient reported outcomes in value assessments; assess broad economic impact of new medicines; consider other value aspects of relevance to patients and society).

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are anticancer agents with the capacity to selectively deliver their payloads to cancer cells. Antibody–drug conjugates consist of a monoclonal antibody backbone connected by a linker to cytotoxic payloads. Antibody–drug conjugate effect occurs either by directly targeting cancer cells via membrane antigen or through “bystander effect.” Antibody–drug conjugates have demonstrated efficacy against various types of tumors, including breast cancer. Ado-trastuzumab emtansine is presently the only approved ADC for the treatment of breast cancer in the early setting, while several ADCs are now approved for metastatic breast cancer. Due to the transformative impact that several ADCs have reported in the setting of advanced breast cancer, researchers are now testing more of such compounds in the early setting, to portend benefits to patients through highly potent anticancer drugs. Ongoing trials hold the potential to transform treatment protocols for early breast cancer in the near future. These trials are aiming at evaluating different treatment modulation approaches, as informed by breast cancer risk of recurrence, including toward treatment de-escalation. Efforts are provided in ongoing clinical trials to identify the patients who will benefit most, to pursue paradigms of precision medicine with the novel ADCs. This review focuses on the potential role of ADCs in early breast cancer, providing an overview of the latest progress in their development and how they are implemented in ongoing clinical trials.

PURPOSEOpen-access publishing expanded opportunities to give visibility to research results but was accompanied by the proliferation of predatory journals (PJos) that offer expedited publishing but potentially compromise the integrity of research and peer review. To our knowledge, to date, there is no comprehensive global study on the impact of PJos in the field of oncology.MATERIALS AND METHODSA 29 question-based cross-sectional survey was developed to explore knowledge and practices of predatory publishing and analyzed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression.RESULTSFour hundred and twenty-six complete responses to the survey were reported. Almost half of the responders reported feeling pressure to publish from supervisors, institutions, and funding and regulatory agencies. The majority of authors were contacted by PJos through email solicitations (67.8%), with fewer using social networks (31%). In total, 13.4% of the responders confirmed past publications on PJo, convinced by fast editorial decision time, low article-processing charges, limited peer review, and for the promise of academic boost in short time. Over half of the participants were not aware of PJo detection tools. We developed a multivariable model to understand the determinants to publish in PJos, showing a significant correlation of practicing oncology in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and predatory publishing (odds ratio [OR], 2.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 4.03]; P = .04). Having previous experience in academic publishing was not protective (OR, 3.81 [95% CI, 1.06 to 13.62]; P = .03). Suggestions for interventions included educational workshops, increasing awareness through social networks, enhanced research funding in LMICs, surveillance by supervisors, and implementation of institutional actions against responsible parties.CONCLUSIONThe prevalence of predatory publishing poses an alarming problem in the field of oncology, globally. Our survey identified actionable risk factors that may contribute to vulnerability to PJos and inform guidance to enhance research capacity broadly.

Background: The management of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) relies on a multimodal approach. Neither instrumental work-up nor molecular biomarkers are currently available to identify a risk-adapted strategy. Objectives: We aim to investigate the role of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and its clearance at different timepoints during chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) and correlate them with clinical outcomes. Design: Between November 2014 and November 2019, we conducted a monocentric prospective observational study enrolling consecutive patients with LARC managed with neoadjuvant standard CRT (capecitabine and concomitant pelvic long-course radiotherapy), followed by consolidation capecitabine in selected cases and surgery. Methods: Blood samples for ctDNA were obtained at pre-planned timepoints. We evaluated the correlation of baseline variant allele frequency (VAF) with pathologic complete response (pCR) down-staging, node regression (pN0), event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: Among 112 screened patients, 61 were enrolled. In all, 38 (62%) had a positive ctDNA at baseline with VAF > 0 and 23 had negative ctDNA (VAF = 0). Among patients with negative ctDNA, 30% had a complete response, while only 13% of positive ctDNA patients had pCR [odds ratio (OR) 0.35 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.10–1.26), p = 0.11]. Similarly, 96% and 74% of pN0 were observed among negative and positive ctDNA patients, respectively [OR 0.13 (95% CI: 0.02–1.07), p = 0.058]. The presence of a baseline VAF > 0 was associated with a trend toward a lower EFS compared with VAF = 0 patients [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.30, 95% CI: 0.63–8.36, p = 0.21]. Within the limitations of small sample size, no difference in OS was observed according to the baseline ctDNA status (HR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.35–4.06, p = 0.79). Conclusion: Within the limitations of a reduced number of patients, patients with baseline negative ctDNA seem to show a higher probability of pN0 status and a trend toward improved EFS. Prospective translational studies are required to define the role of ctDNA analysis in the multimodal treatment of LARC.

Summary: Background: Abemaciclib is currently approved for the adjuvant treatment of high-risk, lymph node (LN)-positive, hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer (BC). In a real-world setting the clinicopathologic features of patients potentially eligible for adjuvant abemaciclib remain to be defined. There are conflicting data regarding the biological behavior and long-term outcomes across invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). In our study we retrospectively assessed the real-world data and long-term outcome of selected high-risk features ILC compared to IDC, according to the MonarchE trial inclusion criteria. Methods: We identified 15,071 patients who got surgery at the European Institute of Oncology for a first primary, non-metastatic, HR-positive, HER2-negative BC from 2000 to 2008. 11,981 (79.5%) patients had an IDC and 1524 (10.1%) an ILC. The remaining 1566 patients (10.4%) had either combined ductal and lobular breast cancer or another histological breast cancer subtype. According to the eligibility criteria of the MonarchE study, we identified two high-risk groups, based on high number of positive lymph nodes, large tumor size, or a high cellular proliferation as measured by tumor grade or biomarkers. Patients were matched by propensity score. Findings: A total of 2872 (21.3%) patients were selected as clinically high-risk, including 361/1524 ILC (23.7%) and 2511/11,981 IDC (21%). 322 high-risk ILC were matched with similar high-risk IDC. The median follow-up was 13.2 years for survival. In the matched set, invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) (log-rank P = 0.09) and overall survival (OS) (log-rank P = 0.48) were not statistically significantly different between the two histological groups. For IDC patients, the 5-year and 10-year IDFS rates (95% CI) were 77.7% (72.9–82.2) and 57.3% (51.7–63.1) respectively, compared to the 5-year and 10-year IDFS rates of ILC patients that were 75.5% (70.6–80.2) and 50.7% (45.0–56.6). The 5-year and 10-year distant relapse free survival (DRFS) rates were 80% (75.3–84.2) and 65.3% (59.8–70.7) in IDC cohort, compared to the 5-year and the 10-year DRFS rates of 78.7% (74.0–83.1) and 61.5% (55.9–67.1) in the ILC cohort. Such data match the recent outcomes efficacy results of the MonarchE control arm. More patients in the ILC (n = 17) than in the IDC group (n = 10) developed axillary recurrence. At multivariable analysis, stratified for specific clinical features, age

Abstract The molecular underpinnings of HER2-low and HER2-0 (IHC 0) breast tumors remain poorly defined. Using genomic findings from 1039 patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer undergoing next-generation sequencing from 7/2013-12/2020, we compare results between HER2-low (n = 487, 47%) and HER2-0 tumors (n = 552, 53%). A significantly higher number of ERBB2 alleles (median copy count: 2.05) are observed among HER2-low tumors compared to HER2-0 (median copy count: 1.79; P = 2.36e-6), with HER2-0 tumors harboring a higher rate of ERBB2 hemideletions (31.1% vs. 14.5%). No other genomic alteration reaches significance after accounting for multiple hypothesis testing, and no significant differences in tumor mutational burden are observed between HER2-low and HER2-0 tumors (median: 7.26 mutations/megabase vs. 7.60 mutations/megabase, p = 0.24). Here, we show that the genomic landscape of HER2-low and HER2-0 tumors does not differ significantly, apart from a higher ERBB2 copy count among HER2-low tumors, and a higher rate of ERBB2 hemideletions in HER2-0 tumors.