Search

Background: The PENELOPE-B study demonstrated that the addition of 1-year post-neoadjuvant palbociclib to endocrine therapy (ET) in patients with high-risk early breast cancer (BC) did not improve invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) compared to placebo. Here, we report results for premenopausal women., Patients and Methods: Patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative BC at high risk of relapse [defined as no pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and a clinical, pathological stage, estrogen receptor, grading (CPS-EG) score ≥3 or 2/ypN+] were randomized to receive 13 cycles of palbociclib or placebo + standard ET. Ovarian function (OF) was evaluated by centrally assessed estradiol, follicle-stimulating hormone and anti-Müllerian hormone serum levels., Results: Overall, 616 of 1250 randomized patients were premenopausal; of these, 30.0% were <40 years of age, 47.4% had four or more metastatic lymph nodes, and 58.2% had a CPS-EG score ≥3. 66.1% of patients were treated with tamoxifen alone, and 32.9% received ovarian function suppression (OFS) in addition to either tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor (AI). After a median follow-up of 42.8 months (97.2% completeness) no difference in iDFS between palbociclib and placebo was observed [hazard ratio = 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.30, P = 0.737]. The estimated 3-year iDFS rate was marginally higher in the palbociclib arm (80.6% versus 78.3%). Three year iDFS was higher in patients receiving AI than tamoxifen plus OFS or tamoxifen alone (86.0% versus 78.6% versus 78.0%). Patients receiving tamoxifen plus OFS showed a favorable iDFS with palbociclib (83.0% versus 74.1%, hazard ratio = 0.52, 95% CI 0.27-1.02, P = 0.057). Hematologic adverse events were more frequent with palbociclib (76.1% versus 1.9% grade 3-4, P < 0.001). Palbociclib seems not to negatively impact the OF throughout the treatment period., Conclusions: In premenopausal women, who received tamoxifen plus OFS as ET, the addition of palbociclib to ET results in a favorable iDFS. The safety profile seems favorable and in contrast to chemotherapy palbociclib does not impact OF throughout the treatment period., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Caveolin-1 and -2 (CAV1/2) dysregulation are implicated in driving cancer progression and may predict response to nab-paclitaxel. We explored the prognostic and predictive potential of CAV1/2 expression for patients with early-stage HER2-negative breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant paclitaxel-based chemotherapy regimens, followed by epirubicin and cyclophosphamide., Experimental Design: We correlated tumor CAV1/2 RNA expression with pathologic complete response (pCR), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) in the GeparSepto trial, which randomized patients to neoadjuvant paclitaxel- versus nab-paclitaxel-based chemotherapy., Results: RNA sequencing data were available for 279 patients, of which 74 (26.5%) were hormone receptor (HR)-negative, thus triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Patients treated with nab-paclitaxel with high CAV1/2 had higher probability of obtaining a pCR [CAV1 OR, 4.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.70-14.22; P = 0.003; CAV2 OR, 5.39; 95% CI, 1.76-16.47; P = 0.003] as compared with patients with high CAV1/2 treated with solvent-based paclitaxel (CAV1 OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.11-0.95; P = 0.040; CAV2 OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.12-1.13; P = 0.082). High CAV1 expression was significantly associated with worse DFS and OS in paclitaxel-treated patients (DFS HR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.08-4.87; P = 0.030; OS HR, 4.97; 95% CI, 1.73-14.31; P = 0.003). High CAV2 was associated with worse DFS and OS in all patients (DFS HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.23-3.63; P = 0.006; OS HR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.22-5.17; P = 0.013), in paclitaxel-treated patients (DFS HR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.12-5.43; P = 0.025; OS HR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.48-12.09; P = 0.007) and in patients with TNBC (DFS HR, 4.68; 95% CI, 1.48-14.85; P = 0.009; OS HR, 10.43; 95% CI, 1.22-89.28; P = 0.032)., Conclusions: Our findings indicate high CAV1/2 expression is associated with worse DFS and OS in paclitaxel-treated patients. Conversely, in nab-paclitaxel-treated patients, high CAV1/2 expression is associated with increased pCR and no significant detriment to DFS or OS compared with low CAV1/2 expression., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Synchronous bilateral breast cancer (sBBC) occurs after both breasts have been affected by the same germline genetics and environmental exposures. Little evidence exists regarding immune infiltration and response to treatment in sBBCs. Here we show that the impact of the subtype of breast cancer on levels of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs, n = 277) and on pathologic complete response (pCR) rates (n = 140) differed according to the concordant or discordant subtype of breast cancer of the contralateral tumor: luminal breast tumors with a discordant contralateral tumor had higher TIL levels and higher pCR rates than those with a concordant contralateral tumor. Tumor sequencing revealed that left and right tumors (n = 20) were independent regarding somatic mutations, copy number alterations and clonal phylogeny, whereas primary tumor and residual disease were closely related both from the somatic mutation and from the transcriptomic point of view. Our study indicates that tumor-intrinsic characteristics may have a role in the association of tumor immunity and pCR and demonstrates that the characteristics of the contralateral tumor are also associated with immune infiltration and response to treatment., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Extreme events such as hailstorms are a cause for concern in agriculture, leading to both economic and food supply losses. Traditional damage estimation techniques have recently been called into question since damages have rarely been quantified at the large-field scale. Damage-estimation methods used by field inspectors are complex and sometimes subjective and hardly account for damage spatial variability. In this work, a normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)-based parametric method was applied using both unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and Sentinel-2 sensors to estimate the leaf area index (LAI) of maize ( Zea mays L.) resulting from simulated hail damage. These methods were then compared to the LAI values generated from the Sentinel-2 Biophysical Processor. A two-year experiment (2020-2021) was conducted during the maize cropping season, with hail events simulated during a range of maize developmental stages (the 8th-leaf, flowering, milky and dough stages) using a 0-40% defoliation gradient of damage intensities performed with the aid of specifically designed prototype machines. The results showed that both sensors were able to accurately estimate LAI in a nonstandard damaged canopy while requiring only the calibration of the extinction coefficient k ( ϑ ) in the case of parametric estimations. In this case, the calibration was performed using 2020 data, providing k ( ϑ ) values of 0.59 for Sentinel-2 and 0.37 for the UAV sensor. The validation was performed on 2021 data, and showed that the UAV sensor had the best accuracy (R 2 of 0.86, root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 0.71). The k ( ϑ ) value proved to be sensor-specific, accounting for the NDVI retrieval differences likely caused by the different spatial operational scales of the two sensors. NDVI proved effective in parametrically estimating maize LAI under damaged canopy conditions at different defoliation degrees. The parametric method matched the Sentinel-2 biophysical process-generated LAI well, leading to less underestimations and more accurate LAI retrieval., Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11119-023-09993-9., Competing Interests: Conflict of interestsThe authors declare no conflict of interests., (© The Author(s) 2023.)

Background: Stomatitis is one of the main reasons to discontinue everolimus in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). To decrease stomatitis and subsequently early treatment discontinuations or dose reductions, the DESIREE trial investigated the use of a stepwise dose-escalation schedule of everolimus (EVE esc)., Patients and Methods: DESIREE is a phase II, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with HR+/HER2- mBC and progression/relapse after nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor treatment. Patients were randomised to EVE esc (2.5 mg/day, week 1; 5 mg/day, week 2; 7.5 mg/day, week 3; 10 mg/day, weeks 4-24) or everolimus 10 mg/day (EVE 10mg) for 24 weeks plus exemestane. The primary endpoint was the incidence of stomatitis episodes grade ≥2 within 12 weeks of treatment. The secondary endpoints included toxicity, relative total dose intensity (RTDI) and quality of life (QoL)., Results: A total of 160 patients were randomised and 156 started treatment (EVE esc: 80; EVE 10mg: 76). The median age of patients was 64 years (range 33-85), 56.3% patients in the EVE esc arm versus 42.1% in the EVE 10mg arm had liver metastasis (P = 0.081) and 62.5% versus 51.3% received over one metastatic therapy line (P = 0.196). Within 12 weeks, the incidence of stomatitis episodes grade ≥2 was significantly lower in the EVE esc arm compared with the EVE 10mg arm (28.8% versus 46.1%; odds ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.24-0.92; P = 0.026). Toxicity was in line with the known safety profile without new safety concerns. The median RTDI was 91.1% in the EVE esc arm versus 80.0% in the EVE 10mg arm (P = 0.329). Discontinuation rate in the first 3 weeks was 6.3% versus 15.8%, respectively (P = 0.073). QoL was comparable between the two treatment arms., Conclusions: A dose-escalation schema of everolimus over 3 weeks can be successfully used to reduce the incidence of high-grade stomatitis in the first 12 weeks of treatment in patients with HR+/HER2- mBC., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02387099; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02387099., Competing Interests: Disclosure VM reports personal fees from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seagen, GSK, Gilead; personal fees from Genomic Health, Gilead, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Clin Sol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, GSK, Gilead, other from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech, outside the submitted work. MS reports grants or contracts to the Institution from AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Eisai, German Breast Group, Genentech, Novartis, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pfizer and Roche; patents planned, issued or pending: EP 2951317 B1 and EP 2390370 B1; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen; receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services from Roche. MR reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Novartis, Pfizer; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Novartis, Pfizer. TD reports consulting fees from Novartis Adboard, iOMEDICO adboard. TL reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Amgen, Roche, Clovis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, GSK, Gilead, AstraZeneca; support for attending meetings and/or travel from MSD, Celgene, Clovis, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen, MSD, Roche, Tesaro, Pfizer, Lilly, Myriad, Eisai, GSK, Daiichi Sankyo. KL reports payment for participation on Advisory Board from Seagen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, MSD, Eisai; payment or honoraria for lectures from Novartis, Genomic Health, Roche, Lilly. MT reports trial funding, payment to the institution from Exact Sciences, Endomag; consulting fees or Advisory board from Agendia, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Becton/Dickinson, ClearCut, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Grünenthal, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Neodynamics, Onkowissen, Organon, Pfizer, Pfm medical, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Seagen, Sirius Pintuition, Sysmex; payment or honoraria for lectures, manuscript writing from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Art tempi, ClearCut, Clovis, Connect Medica, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Hexal, Exact Sciences, Eickeler, Onkowissen, Sysmex, Vifor, Viatris, I-Med-Institute, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm medical, Roche, Seagen, Servier; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, Art tempi, AstraZeneca, Clearcut, Clovis, Connect medica, Daiichi Sankyo, Exact Sciences, I-Med-Institute, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm medical, Neodynamics, Seagen; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid from AWOgyn. MvM reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Genomic Health, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Molecular Health, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Lilly. SL reports honoraria for Advisory board, lectures and research grant paid to the institution from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer, Roche; advisory board and research grant paid to the institution from AbbVie, BMS (Celgene), Gilead; honoraria for advisory board paid to the institution from Amgen, EirGenix, GSK, Lilly, Merck KGaA, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi; honoraria for Advisory board and medical writing paid to the institution, and nonfinancial support from Seagen; patent issued and royalties (Digital Ki67 Evaluator) VM Scope GmbH paid to the institution; patents pending: EP14153692.0 (immunosignature in TNBC), EP21152186.9 (signature for CDK4/6 inhibitor), EP19808852.8. (GeparNUEVO) paid to the institution; patent issued: EP15702464.7 (Predicting response to an anti-HER2 containing therapy) paid to the institution. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported. Data sharing, (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is a promising strategy in early breast cancer, but the optimal duration of therapy is currently unknown. In the GeparNuevo (NCT02685059) trial, addition of durvalumab to NACT as previously reported led to a moderate increase in pathological complete response (pCR) rate by an absolute 9% (P = 0.287)., Patients and Methods: Patients with cT1b-cT4a-d triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) received durvalumab 1.5 g or placebo every 4 weeks added to nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 weekly for 12 weeks, followed by durvalumab/placebo every 4 weeks plus epirubicin/cyclophosphamide every 2 weeks followed by surgery. Durvalumab was not continued after surgery. The primary objective was pCR. Secondary endpoints included invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: A total of 174 patients were randomised between June 2016 and October 2017. After a median follow-up of 43.7 months, 34 events had occurred. Despite a non-significant increase in the pCR rate, significant differences were observed for 3-year iDFS, DDFS and OS: iDFS was 85.6% with durvalumab versus 77.2% with placebo [hazard ratio (HR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.97, stratified log-rank P = 0.036]; DDFS 91.7% versus 78.4% (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.74, P = 0.005); OS 95.2% versus 83.5% (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08-0.72, P = 0.006). pCR patients had 3-year iDFS of 95.5% with durvalumab and 86.1% without (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-1.06). In the non-pCR cohort 3-year iDFS was 76.3% versus 69.7% (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29-1.54). Multivariable analysis confirmed a durvalumab effect independent of the pCR effect. No new safety signals occurred., Conclusions: Durvalumab added to NACT in TNBC significantly improved survival despite a modest pCR increase and no adjuvant component of durvalumab. Additional studies are needed to clarify the optimal duration and sequence of checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of early TNBC., Competing Interests: Role of funding sources The funders had no role in the collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, and had no access to the study data. The study statisticians (JR, VN) had access to the raw data. The report was reviewed by all authors. The sponsor (GBG Forschungs GmbH) has developed the study design and written the study protocol in collaboration with the members of the neoadjuvant sub-board of the German Breast Group (GBG) and AGO-B. The corresponding author had full access to all data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. Disclosure MU reports personal fees and non-financial support from AbbVie, Amgen GmbH, AstraZeneca, Celgene GmbH, Daiji Sankyo, Eisai GmbH, Lilly Int., Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer GmbH, Roche, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Teva, Novartis, Clovis Oncology; personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Lilly Deutschland, Pierre Fabre, Seattle Genetics, Seagen, outside the submitted work. AS reports grants from Celgene, Roche, AbbVie; personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly, Pfizer; other from Roche, outside the submitted work. CD reports grants from European Commission H2020, German Cancer Aid Translational Oncology, German Breast Group, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Novartis, Roche, MSD Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Molecular Health, Merck, grants from Myriad; other from Sividon Diagnostics, outside the submitted work; has a patent VMScope digital pathology software with royalties paid, a patent WO2020109570A1-cancer immunotherapy pending, and a patent WO2015114146A1 and WO2010076322A1-therapy response issued. SL reports grants and other from AbbVie, non-financial support and other from Amgen, grants and other from AstraZeneca, other from Bayer, other from BMS, grants and other from Celgene, personal fees from Chugai, grants, non-financial support and other from Daiichi Sankyo, other from EirGenix, other from GSK, grants, non-financial support and other from Immunomedics/Gilead, other from Lilly, other from Merck, grants, non-financial support and other from Novartis, grants, non-financial support and other from Pfizer, other from Pierre Fabre, other from Prime/Medscape, non-financial support and other from Puma, grants, non-financial support and other from Roche, other from Samsung, non-financial support and other from Seagen, outside the submitted work; has a patent EP14153692.0 pending, a patent EP21152186.9 pending, a patent EP15702464.7 issued, a patent EP19808852.8 pending and a patent Digital Ki67 Evaluator with royalties paid. PAF reports personal fees from Novartis, grants from BioNTech, personal fees from Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eisai, MSD, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Roche, Hexal, Agendia; grants from Cepheid, during the conduct of the study. JH reports personal fees and other from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Novartis, Lilly; personal fees and other from Roche, personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, Seagen, Gilead; grants and personal fees from Hexal; other from Daiichi, outside the submitted work. KR reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, outside the submitted work. TL reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, personal fees from Tesaro, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Clovis, non-financial support from Clegene, personal fees from Lilly, Myriad, GSK, Esai, outside the submitted work. JUB reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, Molecular Health, Seagen, outside the submitted work. CH reports personal fees for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Lilly and Pfizer. PS reports personal fees, non-financial support and other from AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead; grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other from Celgene; grants from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest. Data sharing, (Copyright © 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a new antibody-drug conjugate directed against the cell-surface antigen Trop-2. Characteristics of the linker connecting the payload SN-38 to the antibody allows SG to kill tumor cells expressing Trop-2 and also the adjacent tumor cells (bystander effect). SG showed efficacy and safety in several epithelial tumors. The phase III ASCENT trial led to the approval of SG (10 mg/kg, d1,8 q3w) in patients with advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have received ≥2 prior systemic therapies, including ≥1 for metastatic disease. The phase III TROPiCS-02 trial in heavily pretreated advanced hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer has recently shown an improvement in progression-free survival for patients treated with SG compared to single-agent chemotherapy. The phase III post-neoadjuvant SASCIA study in early high-risk TNBC and HR-positive breast cancer is currently recruiting patients.

CDK4/6 inhibitors have an established role in the treatment of hormone receptor positive HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. All studies conducted in metastatic breast cancer showed a benefit in delaying progression when added to standard endocrine therapy, regardless of therapy line, pretreatment, menopausal status, site of metastasis, CDK4/6 inhibitor used and associated endocrine therapy. A benefit in overall survival has also been demonstrated. In early breast cancer, only the MonarchE study has shown an improved invasive disease-free survival with abemaciclib taken for 2 years, whereas the Penelope-B did not meet the primary endpoint and the PALLAS study was terminated early for futility. Studies conducted in the neoadjuvant setting might help to explain the discordant results., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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

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

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

Purpose: We evaluated mRNA signatures to predict response to neoadjuvant PD-L1 inhibition in combination with chemotherapy in early triple-negative breast cancer., Experimental Design: Targeted mRNA sequencing of 2,559 transcripts was performed in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples from 162 patients of the GeparNuevo trial. We focused on validation of four predefined gene signatures and differential gene expression analyses for new predictive markers., Results: Two signatures [GeparSixto signature (G6-Sig) and IFN signature (IFN-Sig)] were predictive for treatment response in a multivariate model including treatment arm [G6-Sig: OR, 1.558; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.130-2.182; P = 0.008 and IFN-Sig: OR, 1.695; 95% CI, 1.234-2.376; P = 0.002), while the CYT metric predicted pathologic complete response (pCR) in the durvalumab arm, and the proliferation-associated gene signature in the placebo arm. Expression of PD-L1 mRNA was associated with better response in both arms, indicating that increased levels of PD-L1 are a general predictor of neoadjuvant therapy response. In an exploratory analysis, we identified seven genes that were higher expressed in responders in the durvalumab arm, but not the placebo arm: HLA-A, HLA-B, TAP1, GBP1, CXCL10, STAT1 , and CD38 . These genes were associated with cellular antigen processing and presentation and IFN signaling., Conclusions: Immune-associated signatures are associated with pCR after chemotherapy, but might be of limited use for the prediction of response to additional immune checkpoint blockade. Gene expressions related to antigen presentation and IFN signaling might be interesting candidates for further evaluation., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Importance: The extent of changes in estradiol levels in male patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer receiving standard endocrine therapies is unknown. The sexual function and quality of life related to those changes have not been adequately evaluated., Objective: To assess the changes in estradiol levels in male patients with breast cancer after 3 months of therapy., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, phase 2 randomized clinical trial assessed 56 male patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Patients were recruited from 24 breast units across Germany between October 2012 and May 2017. The last patient completed 6 months of treatment in December 2017. The analysis data set was locked on August 24, 2018, and analysis was completed on December 19, 2018., Interventions: Patients were randomized to 1 of 3 arms: tamoxifen alone or tamoxifen plus gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue (GnRHa) or aromatase inhibitor (AI) plus GnRHa for 6 months., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the change in estradiol levels from baseline to 3 months. Secondary end points were changes of estradiol levels after 6 months, changes of additional hormonal parameters, adverse effects, sexual function, and quality of life after 3 and 6 months., Results: In this phase 2 randomized clinical trial, a total of 52 of 56 male patients with a median (range) age of 61.5 (37-83) years started treatment. A total of 3 patients discontinued study treatment prematurely, 1 in each arm. A total of 50 patients were evaluable for the primary end point. After 3 months the patients' median estradiol levels increased by 67% (a change of +17.0 ng/L) with tamoxifen, decreased by 85% (-23.0 ng/L) with tamoxifen plus GnRHa, and decreased by 72% (-18.5 ng/L) with AI plus GnRHa (P < .001). After 6 months, median estradiol levels increased by 41% (a change of +12 ng/L) with tamoxifen, decreased by 61% (-19.5 ng/L) with tamoxifen plus GnRHa, and decreased by 64% (-17.0 ng/L) with AI plus GnRHa (P < .001). Sexual function and quality of life decreased when GnRHa was added but were unchanged with tamoxifen alone., Conclusions and Relevance: This phase 2 randomized clinical trial found that AI or tamoxifen plus GnRHa vs tamoxifen alone led to a sustained decrease of estradiol levels. The decreased hormonal parameters were associated with impaired sexual function and quality of life., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01638247.

Background: BRCA1 and BRCA2 play a central role in DNA repair. Therefore, patients harbouring germline (g) BRCA1/2 mutations (m) treated with chemotherapy might be at higher risk of haematological toxicities., Methods: Patients from German Breast Group (GBG) and Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie-breast group studies with early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and known gBRCA1/2m status treated with anthracycline-taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy were analysed. Primary objective was the rate of neutropenia grade (G)III-IV in cycle 1 (C1). Secondary objectives included effects on overall and other haematological toxicities GIII-IV in C1, cumulative haematological toxicity across all cycles, relative total dose intensity, and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis. Haematological toxicities under taxanes, carboplatin, and cyclophosphamide were explored., Results: Two hundred nine of 1171 (17.8%) evaluated patients had gBRCA1/2m. In C1, 37.4% gBRCA1/2m versus 35.7% wild-type patients had neutropenia GIII-IV (P = 0.683). For C1, gBRCA1/2m predicted neither for neutropenia GIII-IV (odds ratio [OR]: 1.26, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.87-1.82, P = 0.226) nor for other haematological toxicities GIII-IV (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.64-1.31, P = 0.625) in multivariable regression models. Analyses of cumulative toxicities across all cycles yielded similar results except thrombocytopaenia GIII-IV, which was increased in gBRCA1m patients. In patients treated with taxanes, the rate of haematological toxicities GIII-IV was higher in gBRCA1/2m compared with wild-type (59.5% versus 43.1%; p < 0.001). No difference was seen under cyclophosphamide or platinum-containing chemotherapies., Conclusions: gBRCA1/2m was not associated with higher risk of overall severe haematological toxicities in the first cycle or cumulatively across all cycles under standard chemotherapy for TNBC. Under taxane, patients with gBRCA1/2m might have a higher risk of haematological toxicities GIII-IV, requiring further research., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following conflicts of interest: A.S. reports receiving grants from Celgene, Roche, AbbVie; personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly, and others from Roche, outside the submitted work; C.H. reports receiving personal fees from Roche, Novartis, Lilliy, MSD, Astra Zeneca, and Pfizer; C.J. reports personal fees from Roche, AsraZeneca, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, and Amgen; F.J.C. reports receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca; receiving grants from GRAIL, others from Qiagen and Ambry Genetics, outside the submitted work; H.T. reports receiving personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, and Lilly, outside the submitted work; J.H. reports receiving grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Eisai, MSD, and Abbvie, personal fees and other from Pfizer and Roche, other from Daichii; receiving grants, personal fees and other from Celgene; receiving grants and personal fees from Hexal, outside the submitted work; J.U.B. reports receiving personal fees from AMGEN, ASTRA Zeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SonoScape, and Sysmex, outside the submitted work; K.L. reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, Lilly, personal fees from Novartis and Genomic Health, outside the submitted work; K.R. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Tesaro and Pfizer, outside the submitted work; M.U. reports personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, Amgen GmbH, Eisai GmbH, Daiji Sankyo, Celgene GmbH, MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Roche Pharma AG, Odonate, TEVA Pharmaceuticals Ind Ltd., Sanofi Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Pfizer GmbH, Astra Zeneca and Lilly Int., Novartis, Clovis Oncology, and Myriad Genetics; personal fees from BMS, Lilly Deutschland, PUMA Biotechnology, Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work; P.A.F. reports receiving personal fees from Novartis, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, and Seattle Genetics, Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Astra Zeneca, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme; grants from Biontech, Cepheid. R.S. reports receiving grants from Cologne Furtune; S.L. reports receiving grants and other from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Amgen and Celgene during the conduct of the study; grants and non-financial support from Immunomedics; other from Seattle Genetics, PriME/Medscape, Lilly, Samsung, Eirgenix, BMS, Puma, MSD; personal fees from Chugai; grants from Teva and Vifor; outside the submitted work; In addition, S.L. has a patent EP14153692.0 pending. T.L. reports non-financial support from Pharma Mar, Celgene and Daiichi-Sankyo; personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Clovis; personal fees from Amgen, Novartis, Teva, Tesaro, outside the submitted work; V.M. reports speaker honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Roche, TEVA, and consultancy honoraria from Roche, Amgen, Tesaro and Myelo Therapeutic; No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Concerns about ammonia (NH 3 ) losses from nitrogen (N) mineral fertilizers have forced policymakers to set emission reduction commitments across Europe. Although best available techniques (BATs) have been recommended, large uncertainties still exist due to poorly targeted site-specific approaches that might compromise their effectiveness. Here we proposed and tested a conceptual framework designed to identify most effective BATs that reduce NH 3 at the site-specific level. The study was conducted in the Veneto region, northeast Italy. After the mapping of NH 3 emission potential areas, BATs and business-as-usual N fertilization scenarios were assessed using a modified version of the DNDC agroecosystem model and compared with urea broadcast distribution under different pedo-climatic conditions. The most promising practices were further tested in a field experiment using a wind tunnel combined with a FTIR gas analyzer. Results showed that closed-slot injection reduced NH 3 emissions with any type of mineral or organic fertilizers. Injected application, with ammonium nitrate or organic fertilizers, reduced NH 3 loss in maize by 75% and 96%, respectively, and in winter wheat by 87% and 98%, compared to surface broadcast. Injection was the most promising technology to support, being already available to farmers. However, some increase in nitrate leaching was observed, mostly in case of winter wheat (+24% for AN injection; +89% for organic fertilizers). By contrast, urea incorporation with hoeing, the most common technique used by farmers in spring crops, did not show satisfactory results, because the partial burial of urea caused strong NH 3 emissions that were even higher compared to surface broadcast. Recommended NH 3 reduction techniques should be tailored to local pedo-climatic and management conditions, and evaluated, in a holistic approach, considering all N fluxes in the environment., (Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Approximately 10-15% of all breast tumors are triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). TNBC have a higher risk of relapse and distant metastases compared to other subtypes. The optimal systemic management of TNBC according to national and international guidelines is discussed herein., Summary: Anthracycline/taxane-based chemotherapy for patients with TNBC either in the neoadjuvant (NACT) or the adjuvant setting is considered standard of care. Exceptions are small tumors and a low-risk histology, in which chemotherapy can be spared. Dose-dense therapy is more effective in preventing recurrence and increasing survival. The use of nab-paclitaxel instead of a solvent-based taxane can lead to higher pathological complete response (pCR) rates and better outcomes. Platinum agents are effective in increasing pCR when added to anthracycline/taxane-based chemotherapy at the cost of increased toxicity. Long-term outcome data are lacking. In patients without a pCR, capecitabine leads to improved outcomes., Key Messages: The standard treatment approach of TNBC is anthracycline/taxane-based chemotherapy, preferably within the NACT setting. Dose-dense schedules as well as platinum should be considered in the NACT setting. For patients without a pCR, capecitabine is an option to improve the outcome. The role of nab-paclitaxel is under debate. In case of immunogenic tumors, checkpoint inhibitors are promising new agents that merit further investigation., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2020 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Importance: The GeparOcto randomized clinical trial compared the efficacy of 2 neoadjuvant breast cancer (BC) treatment regimens: sequential intense dose-dense epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide (iddEPC) vs weekly paclitaxel and nonpegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PM) in patients with different biological BC subtypes. Patients with triple-negative BC (TNBC) randomized to the PM arm received additional carboplatin (PMCb). Overall, no difference in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates was observed between study arms. It remained elusive whether the germline variant status of BRCA1/2 and further BC predisposition genes are associated with treatment outcome., Objective: To determine treatment outcome for BC according to germline variant status., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective biomarker study is a secondary analysis of the GeparOcto multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial conducted between December 2014 and June 2016. Genetic analyses assessing for variants in BRCA1/2 and 16 other BC predisposition genes in 914 of 945 women were performed at the Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Cologne, Germany, from August 2017 through December 2018., Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of patients who achieved pCR (ypT0/is ypN0 definition) after neoadjuvant treatment according to germline variant status., Results: In the study sample of 914 women with different BC subtypes with a mean (range) age at BC diagnosis of 48 (21-76) years, overall higher pCR rates were observed in patients with BRCA1/2 variants than in patients without (60.4% vs 46.7%; odds ratio [OR], 1.74; 95% CI, 1.13-2.68; P = .01); variants in non-BRCA1/2 BC predisposition genes were not associated with therapy response. Patients with TNBC with BRCA1/2 variants achieved highest pCR rates. In the TNBC subgroup, a positive BRCA1/2 variant status was associated with therapy response in both the PMCb arm (74.3% vs 47.0% without BRCA1/2 variant; OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.44-7.39; P = .005) and the iddEPC arm (64.7% vs 45.0%; OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.04-4.84; P = .04). A positive BRCA1/2 variant status was also associated with elevated pCR rates in patients with ERBB2-negative, hormone receptor-positive BC (31.8% vs 11.9%; OR, 3.44; 95% CI, 1.22-9.72; P = .02)., Conclusions and Relevance: Effective chemotherapy for BRCA1/2-mutated TNBC is commonly suggested to be platinum based. With a pCR rate of 64.7%, iddEPC may also be effective in these patients, though further prospective studies are needed. The elevated pCR rate in BRCA1/2-mutated ERBB2-negative, hormone receptor-positive BC suggests that germline BRCA1/2 testing should be considered prior to treatment start., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02125344.

Background: Information on deaths occurring during oncological clinical trials has never been systematically assessed. Here, we examine the incidence of death and the profile of patients who died during randomized clinical breast cancer (BC) trials., Methods: Information on fatal events during German Breast Group (GBG) led BC trials was prospectively captured. Data were derived from the trial databases and death narratives. All deaths were evaluated for possible causes, underlying conditions, treatment relatedness, time point and rate of autopsies., Results: From 12/1996 to 01/2017, 23,387 patients were treated within 32 trials. Of those 88 (0.4%) died on therapy within 17 trials. Median age was 64 [range 35-84] years, 63.2% of patients had a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m 2 ; 65.9% 1-3 and 22.7% ≥ 4 comorbidities; 61.4% 1-2 cardiovascular risk factors (CRFs); 26.4% took > 3 drugs; 81.7% had ECOG 0; 50.0% stage III, 76.7% luminal BC. The main causes of death were infection (38.6%; of those, 82.3% sepsis, 17.6% pneumonia), heart failure (14.8%), and pulmonary embolism (13.6%). Fatal events mainly occurred within the first 4 therapy cycles (55.7%), in the investigational arm (66.7%) and under anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy (51.1%). A relationship with the treatment was declared in 27.3% of the cases. An autopsy was performed in 13.6% of patients., Conclusions: Death during study treatment was mainly related to infections, and patients with advanced disease, high BMI, underlying comorbidities, CRFs and concomitant medications. If considered for study participation these patients need careful monitoring due to their higher risk for death on study.

Purpose: The GeparSepto trial demonstrated that weekly nanoparticle albumin-bound (NAB)-paclitaxel significantly improves the pathologic complete remission rate compared with weekly solvent-based (sb) paclitaxel followed by epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with primary breast cancer (BC). Here, we report data on long-term outcomes., Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed primary BC were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to 12 times weekly NAB-paclitaxel 150 mg/m 2 (after study amendment, 125 mg/m 2 ) or weekly sb-paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 followed in both arms by four times epirubicin 90 mg/m 2 plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks. Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive BC received dual antibody treatment with trastuzumab (8 mg/kg loading dose followed by 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks) and pertuzumab (840 mg loading dose followed by 420 mg every 3 weeks) concurrently to chemotherapy and continued for 1 year., Results: A total of 1,206 patients started treatment, 606 with NAB-paclitaxel and 600 with sb-paclitaxel. After a median follow-up of 49.6 months (range, 0.5 to 64.0 months), 243 invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) events were reported (143 in the sb-paclitaxel and 100 in the NAB-paclitaxel arm). At 4 years, overall patients treated with NAB-paclitaxel had a significantly better iDFS compared with sb-paclitaxel (84.0% v 76.3%; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.86; P = .002), whereas overall survival did not significantly differ between the two treatment arms (89.7% v 87.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.16; P = .260). Long-term follow-up of the treatment-related peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN) showed a significant decrease of the median time to resolve PSN after NAB-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 compared with NAB-paclitaxel 150 mg/m 2 ., Conclusion: The significantly higher pathologic complete response rate with NAB-paclitaxel translated into a significantly improved iDFS in patients with early BC as compared with sb-paclitaxel. PSN improved much faster under NAB-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 compared with NAB-paclitaxel 150 mg/m 2 .

Background: Randomised trials comparing the efficacy of standard endocrine therapy (ET) versus experimental ET + bevacizumab (Bev) in 1st line hormone receptor-positive patients with metastatic breast cancer have thus far shown conflicting results., Patients and Methods: We pooled data from two similar phase III randomised trials of ET ± Bev (LEA and Cancer and Leukemia Group B 40503) to increase precision in estimating treatment effect. Primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR) and safety. Exploratory analyses were performed within subgroups defined by patients with recurrent disease, de novo disease, prior endocrine sensitivity or resistance and reported grades III-IV hypertension and proteinuria., Results: The pooled sample consisted of 749 patients randomised to ET or ET + Bev. Median PFS was 14.3 months for ET versus 19 months for ET + Bev (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.91; p < 0.01). ORR and CBR with ET and ET + Bev were 40 versus 61% (p < 0.01) and 64 versus 77% (p < 0.01), respectively. There was no difference in OS (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.77-1.18; p = 0.68). PFS was superior for ET + Bev for endocrine-sensitive patients (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.53-0.89; p = 0.004). Grade III-IV hypertension (2.2 versus 20.1%), proteinuria (0 versus 9.3%), cardiovascular (0.5 versus 4.2%) and liver events (0 versus 2.9%) were significantly higher for ET + Bev (all p < 0.01). Hypertension and proteinuria were not predictors of efficacy (interaction test p = 0.33)., Conclusion: The addition of Bev to ET increased PFS overall and in endocrine-sensitive patients but not OS at the expense of significant additional toxicity., Trials Registration: ClinicalTrial.Gov NCT00545077 and NCT00601900., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Combining immune-checkpoint inhibitors with chemotherapy yielded an increased response rates in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Therefore, we evaluated the addition of durvalumab to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in primary TNBC., Patients and Methods: GeparNuevo is a randomised phase II double-blind placebo-controlled study randomising patients with TNBC to durvalumab or placebo given every 4 weeks in addition to nab-paclitaxel followed by standard EC. In the window-phase durvalumab/placebo alone was given 2 weeks before start of nab-paclitaxel. Randomisation was stratified by stromal tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte (sTILs). Patients with primary cT1b-cT4a-d disease, centrally confirmed TNBC and sTILs were included. Primary objective was pathological complete response (pCR) (ypT0 ypN0)., Results: A total of 174 patients were randomised, 117 participated in the window-phase. Median age was 49.5 years (range 23-76); 47 patients (27%) were younger than 40 years; 113 (65%) had stage ≥IIA disease, 25 (14%) high sTILs, 138 of 158 (87%) were PD-L1-positive. pCR rate with durvalumab was 53.4% (95% CI 42.5% to 61.4%) versus placebo 44.2% (95% CI 33.5% to 55.3%; unadjusted continuity corrected χ2P = 0.287), corresponding to OR = 1.45 (95% CI 0.80-2.63, unadjusted Wald P = 0.224). Durvalumab effect was seen only in the window cohort (pCR 61.0% versus 41.4%, OR = 2.22, 95% CI 1.06-4.64, P = 0.035; interaction P = 0.048). In both arms, significantly increased pCR (P < 0.01) were observed with higher sTILs. There was a trend for increased pCR rates in PD-L1-positive tumours, which was significant for PD-L1-tumour cell in durvalumab (P = 0.045) and for PD-L1-immune cell in placebo arm (P = 0.040). The most common immune-related adverse events were thyroid dysfunction any grade in 47%., Conclusions: Our results suggest that the addition of durvalumab to anthracycline-/taxane-based NACT increases pCR rate particularly in patients treated with durvalumab alone before start of chemotherapy., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02685059., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) can be used for comprehensive investigation of molecular events in breast cancer. We evaluated the relevance of genomic alterations for response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in the GeparSepto trial., Experimental Design: Eight hundred fifty-one pretherapeutic formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) core biopsies from GeparSepto study were sequenced. The panel included 16 genes for mutational ( AKT1, BRAF, CDH1, EGFR, ERBB2, ESR1, FBXW7, FGFR2, HRAS, KRAS, NRAS, SF3B1, TP53, HNF1A, PIK3CA , and PTEN ) and 8 genes for copy-number alteration analysis ( CCND1, ERBB2, FGFR1, PAK1, PIK3CA, TOP2A, TP53 , and ZNF703 )., Results: The most common genomic alterations were mutations of TP53 (38.4%) and PIK3CA (21.5%), and 8 different amplifications ( TOP2A 34.9%; ERBB2 30.6%; ZNF703 30.1%; TP53 21.9%; PIK3CA 24.1%; CCND1 17.7%; PAK1 14.9%; FGFR 12.6%). All other alterations had a prevalence of less than 5%. The genetic heterogeneity in different breast cancer subtypes [lum/HER2neg vs. HER2pos vs. triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC)] was significantly linked to differences in NACT response. A significantly reduced pathologic complete response rate was observed in PIK3CA -mutated breast cancer [ PIK3CA mut: 23.0% vs. wild-type (wt) 38.8%, P < 0.0001] in particular in the HER2pos subcohort [multivariate OR = 0.43 (95% CI, 0.24-0.79), P = 0.006]. An increased response to nab-paclitaxel was observed only in PIK3CA wt breast cancer, with univariate significance for the complete cohort ( P = 0.009) and the TNBC ( P = 0.013) and multivariate significance in the HER2pos subcohort (test for interaction P = 0.0074)., Conclusions: High genetic heterogeneity was observed in different breast cancer subtypes. Our study shows that FFPE-based NGS can be used to identify markers of therapy resistance in clinical study cohorts. PIK3CA mutations could be a major mediator of therapy resistance in breast cancer., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

There is growing interest in the endocrine treatment (ET) of premenopausal women with hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). This review summarizes available data on endocrine therapy for this patient subset and aims to define the most appropriate treatment approach. The combination of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists plus tamoxifen seems effective and safe and is considered as being superior to either approach alone; still, single-agent therapy remains an acceptable treatment option. Due to their mechanism of action, aromatase inhibitors alone are not suitable for the treatment of premenopausal patients, but the combination with LHRH agonists may result in excellent disease control. Fulvestrant, in conjunction with LHRH agonists, also yields interesting results regarding clinical benefit rate and time to progression; currently, other orally available selective estrogen receptor downregulators are under clinical evaluation. Recently, targeted drugs have been added to ET in order to reverse endocrine resistance, but only limited information regarding their activity in premenopausal patients is available. The cyclin dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor palbociclib when combined with fulvestrant and LHRH agonists was shown to prolong progression-free survival over endocrine therapy alone in pretreated patients; similar results were obtained with the addition of abemacicilib or ribociclib to endocrine therapy. Currently, activity of the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus in combination with letrozole and goserelin is under assessment in premenopausal patients after progression on tamoxifen (MIRACLE trial)., Implications for Practice: This review provides clinicians with an overview on the available data regarding endocrine treatment of hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in premenopausal women and summarizes the treatment options available in routine clinical practice. Knowledge of an up-to-date therapeutic approach in women with premenopausal HR+ MBC will lead to better disease management, thereby improving disease control and quality of life while minimizing side effects., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2018.)

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate a modified EPclin test (mEPclin), a combination of EndoPredict (EP) score, post-neoadjuvant pathologic tumor size and nodal status, for predicting the risk of distance recurrence after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in patients with residual estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer. We also compared the prognostic power of the mEPclin with that of the CPS-EG score. Experimental Design: A total of 428 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor samples from GeparTrio and GeparQuattro studies were evaluated for mRNA expression of eight cancer-related and three reference genes. The mEPclin score was computed using a modified algorithm and predefined cut-off values were used to classify each patient at low or high risk. Primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). Results: A higher continuous mEPclin score was significantly associated with increased risk of relapse [HR, 2.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.86-2.51; P < 0.001] and death (HR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.90-2.75; P < 0.001). Similarly, patients classified at high risk by dichotomous mEPclin showed significantly poorer DFS and overall survival compared with those at low risk. In contrast with CPS-EG, the mEPclin remained significantly prognostic for DFS in multivariate analysis (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.73-2.63; P < 0.001). Combining CPS-EG and other clinicopathological variables with mEPclin yielded a significant improvement of the prognostic power for DFS versus without mEPclin (c-indices: 0.748 vs. 0.660; P < 0.001). Conclusions: The mEPclin score independently predicted the risk of distance recurrence and provided additional prognostic information to the CPS-EG score to assess more accurately the prognosis after NACT in the luminal non-pCR patient population. Therefore, this approach can be used to select patients for additional post-neoadjuvant therapies. Clin Cancer Res; 24(14); 3358-65. ©2018 AACR ., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Introduction: Recent studies showed the high and independent impact of age (<40 years) on pathologic complete response (pCR) and prognosis for patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Some physicians might not consider elderly patients (>65 years) for NACT due to poor prognosis or higher toxicity. The aim of this analysis is to help selecting appropriately elderly women who would benefit from NACT. Secondly, survival parameters are investigated in several histological subgroups., Methods: From 1998 to 2010, eight prospectively randomized German Breast Group (GBG) trials of anthracycline- and taxane-based NACT were performed and analyzed in this study., Results: Compared to the overall average, elderly women had significant larger tumors and more overall lymph node involvement. Histologically, they had more G2 tumors, more estrogen-receptor positive tumors. pCR (ypT0 ypN0) was strongly associated with age. The multivariable logistic regression analysis of clinical parameters showed that young age, clinical stage T4, invasive ductal cancer and poor differentiated breast cancer are predictive for high pCR. The multivariate analyses of molecular subgroups showed that age >65years is a predictor of significant lower pCR in HER2 - breast cancers. Nonetheless, HER2+ patients showed pCR rates as high - and HR+/HER2+ even higher - pCR rates compared to younger patients., Discussion: This study underlines the unfavorable impact of higher age on pCR, but it shows a realistic chance for pCR if NACT is applied - especially for HER2+ patients. Furthermore, elderly patients with non-TNBC showed a good prognosis (comparable to younger patients) regarding overall survival, even if they do not have pCR., Competing Interests: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Claus Hanusch: Speaker/Advisory Board: Roche, Amgen, Novartis, Cellgene. Sherko Kümmel: Honoraria: Roche, Amgen, Novartis, Teva, Daiichi-Sankyo, Celgene, Pfizer; Research Funding: Roche; Travel, Accomodations, Expenses: Roche, Teva. Peter A. Fasching: Honoraria: Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, Roche.

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

Background: Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are predictive for response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and HER2-positive breast cancer, but their role in luminal breast cancer and the effect of TILs on prognosis in all subtypes is less clear. Here, we assessed the relevance of TILs for chemotherapy response and prognosis in patients with TNBC, HER2-positive breast cancer, and luminal-HER2-negative breast cancer., Methods: Patients with primary breast cancer who were treated with neoadjuvant combination chemotherapy were included from six randomised trials done by the German Breast Cancer Group. Pretherapeutic core biopsies from 3771 patients included in these studies were assessed for the number of stromal TILs by standardised methods according to the guidelines of the International TIL working group. TILs were analysed both as a continuous parameter and in three predefined groups of low (0-10% immune cells in stromal tissue within the tumour), intermediate (11-59%), and high TILs (≥60%). We used these data in univariable and multivariable statistical models to assess the association between TIL concentration and pathological complete response in all patients, and between the amount of TILs and disease-free survival and overall survival in 2560 patients from five of the six clinical trial cohorts., Findings: In the luminal-HER2-negative breast cancer subtype, a pathological complete response (pCR) was achieved in 45 (6%) of 759 patients with low TILs, 48 (11%) of 435 with intermediate TILs, and 49 (28%) of 172 with high TILs. In the HER2-positive subtype, pCR was observed in 194 (32%) of 605 patients with low TILs, 198 (39%) of 512 with intermediate TILs, and 127 (48%) of 262 with high TILs. Finally, in the TNBC subtype, pCR was achieved in 80 (31%) of 260 patients with low TILs, 117 (31%) of 373 with intermediate TILs, and 136 (50%) of 273 with high TILs (p<0·0001 for each subtype, χ 2 test for trend). In the univariable analysis, a 10% increase in TILs was associated with longer disease-free survival in TNBC (hazard ratio [HR] 0·93 [95% CI 0·87-0·98], p=0·011) and HER2-positive breast cancer (0·94 [0·89-0·99], p=0·017), but not in luminal-HER2-negative tumours (1·02 [0·96-1·09], p=0·46). The increase in TILs was also associated with longer overall survival in TNBC (0·92 [0·86-0·99], p=0·032), but had no association in HER2-positive breast cancer (0·94 [0·86-1·02], p=0·11), and was associated with shorter overall survival in luminal-HER2-negative tumours (1·10 [1·02-1·19], p=0·011)., Interpretation: Increased TIL concentration predicted response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in all molecular subtypes assessed, and was also associated with a survival benefit in HER2-positive breast cancer and TNBC. By contrast, increased TILs were an adverse prognostic factor for survival in luminal-HER2-negative breast cancer, suggesting a different biology of the immunological infiltrate in this subtype. Our data support the hypothesis that breast cancer is immunogenic and might be targetable by immune-modulating therapies. In light of the results in luminal breast cancer, further research investigating the interaction of the immune system with different types of endocrine therapy is warranted., Funding: Deutsche Krebshilfe and European Commission., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The GeparSepto study demonstrated that the use of nab-paclitaxel instead of paclitaxel prior to anthracycline-based chemotherapy could lead to a significantly increased pCR rate, especially in the triple negative subpopulation. We report efficacy and safety for patients treated with two different doses of nab-paclitaxel in comparison to weekly solvent-formulated paclitaxel., Methods: Patients were treated for 12 weeks with either intravenous nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m 2 (nP150) weekly, after study amendment 125 mg/m 2 (nP125) weekly or solvent-based paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 (P80) weekly followed by epirubicin 90 mg/m 2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m 2 on day 1 for four 3-week cycles., Results: 229 patients received nP150, 377 nP125. Baseline characteristics were fairly balanced between these two sequential cohorts as well as compared to 601 patients receiving P80 except for hormone receptor status, HER2 status, and Ki67. Taxane treatment was discontinued in 26.8% (nP150), 16.6% (nP125), and 13.3% of (P80) patients, respectively. Median relative total dose intensity (mRTDI) based on 125 mg/m 2 for nP was 103% with nP150, 95% with nP125, 99% with P80 before and 98% with P80 after the amendment. PSN grade 3-4 was observed in 14.5% of patients with nP150, 8.1% of patients with nP125 (p = 0.018), and 2.7% of patients with P80. Overall pCR before the amendment was 33.6% after nP150 and 23.5% after P80 (OR 1.65 [95% CI 1.10-2.50]; p = 0.022); pCR after the amendment was 41.4% after nP125, and 32.4% after P80 (1.48 [95% CI 1.10-1.99]; p = 0.013)., Conclusions: Nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 was associated with a better safety profile and compliance without compromising the efficacy compared to nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m 2 .

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

Background: The PI3K/AKT pathway and phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) aberrations are common in breast cancer. We investigated the correlation between phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA), PTEN, p4EBP1 (phosphorylated E4 binding protein 1), and pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy., Experimental Design: We retrospectively evaluated PIK3CA, PTEN, and p4EBP1 protein expression in centrally HER2-positive patients (n = 181) who received epirubicin cyclophosphamide/trastuzumab followed by docetaxel/trastuzumab alone or concomitant/followed by capecitabine within the GeparQuattro study. PTEN was assessed using the automated quantitative immunofluorescence analysis and was analyzed as a dichotomic variable. p4EBP1 was assessed by immunohistochemistry and used as a continuous and dichotomic variable., Results: p4EBP1 was available from 137, PTEN from 108, and PIK3CA genotype from 83 patients. Overall, the pCR rate in PTEN-low tumors was 27.6%, and in PTEN-high tumors, it was 57.1% (P = 0.010). pCR rates were not statistically different between PIK3CA wild-type and mutant (35% vs. 22%) or p4EBP1 IRS ≤ 4 and IRS > 4 (39% vs. 33%). pCR rate was 57.1% (8/14) in PTEN-high/PIK3CA wild-type and decreased to 15.4% in PTEN-low/PIK3CA-mutant tumors (P = 0.023). In multivariable analysis adjusted for baseline parameters, PTEN independently predicted pCR in the following cohorts: overall [OR, 7.54; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.03-28.06; P = 0.003], PIK3CA wild-type (OR, 23.81; 95% CI, 1.75-324.05; P = 0.017), p4EBP1 IRS > 4 (OR, 11.53; 95% CI, 1.84-72.24; P = 0.009), and hormone receptor-positive (OR, 40.91; 95% CI, 2.93-570.44; P = 0.006). p4EBP1 was independently predictive for pCR in PIK3CA wild-type tumors (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.78; P = 0.025)., Conclusions: The study showed the potential role of PIK3CA genotype, PTEN, and p4EBP in predicting pCR after anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy and anti-HER2 treatment. Clin Cancer Res; 22(11); 2675-83. ©2016 AACR., (©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: The combination of trastuzumab and chemotherapy is currently considered the standard of care for patients with locally advanced/operable human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer. The potential correlation between the pathologic complete response (pCR) and the overexpression of heat shock protein 90 (Hsp90), Ki67, and the amplification of topoisomerase II-α (TOPO2A) was investigated in a series of patients who received neoadjuvant treatment., Methods: HER2-amplified patients who received neoadjuvant trastuzumab-docetaxel were gathered. Baseline and postsurgical Hsp90 immunoscore, Ki67 proliferation index, and TOPO2A amplification were determined together with classic clinical-pathologic predictors and correlated with pCR and imaging data., Results: A total of 24 patients were evaluated for response; pCR, clinical, and radiologic response were found in 4 patients (16.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-31.5), 9 patients (37.5%; 95% CI, 18.1-56.8), and 6 patients (25.0%; 95% CI, 7.6-42.3) patients, respectively. pCR was significantly higher in premenopausal (60.0% vs. 5.3%, P = .02) and negative hormonal receptor patients (50.0% vs. 5.6%, P = .03). A trend for patients with high Ki67 and TOPO2A/HER2 co-amplification was found (21.1% vs. none, P = .54; 50.0% vs. 12%, P = .16). pCR was significantly higher in patients with Hsp90 score 3+, in comparison with score 2+ and score 1+ (50.0% vs. 14.3% vs. none, P = .05). After treatment, a statistically significant lower Ki67 staining (30.0% vs. 17.5%, P = .005) and a trend for the decreased expression of high (score 3+) and moderate (score 2+) Hsp90 immunostaining (McNemar P = .25, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney P = .08) were found., Conclusions: Although underpowered, our data suggest that patients with HER2-positive breast cancer overexpressing Hsp90 should be investigated as a "newer" molecular subtype with a significantly higher chance of pCR when receiving anti-Her2 agents., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Neoadjuvant therapy for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) has recently generated growing interest given the more aggressive biologic characteristics of such subtype and the lack of approved targeted therapies. Systemic chemotherapy represents the mainstay of treatment for TNBC. Although neoadjuvant chemotherapy has consistently demonstrated higher response rates for TNBC compared to non-TNBC, and the pathological complete response predicts long-term outcome, most patient display residual disease with a higher risk of relapse. In order to improve the outcome of TNBC new chemotherapic combinations, including platinum agents, and different targeted agents such as antiangiogenetics, poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and other small molecule inhibitors are being evaluated in neoadjuvant setting. Currently, the research is ongoing to further characterize TNBC from a phenotypical and molecular perspective, in order to identify potential new target agents and to individualize the treatment. In this regard, the neoadjuvant setting may represent the best potential scenario to assess the activity and the sensitivity of novel agents.

Leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) is a severe complication in the natural history of malignancies that occurs in 4-15 % of patients (pts) with solid tumors. Clinical presentation, cerebrospinal fluid cytology (CSF), and gadolinium magnetic resonance imaging (gdMRI) of the brain and spine are the methods routinely used to diagnose LM. Treatment encompasses involved-field radiotherapy of bulky or symptomatic disease sites and chemotherapy; however, no standard therapy has been established yet. We collected and reviewed retrospectively the clinical, pathological, radiological findings as well as the outcomes of 50 consecutive patients with LM from solid tumors to determine whether the diagnostic modalities and therapeutic procedures affected the outcomes. The results of this study confirm the role of gdMRI in the diagnosis of LM in clinical practice and suggest that an aggressive treatment may improve survival in patients with this debilitating and increasingly frequent neurological complication.

The role of the dual HER2 inhibition, and the best chemotherapy backbone for neoadjuvant chemotherapy still represent an issue for clinical practice. A literature-based meta-analysis exploring single versus dual HER2 inhibition in terms of pathological complete response (pCR, breast plus axilla) rate and testing the interaction according to the chemotherapy (anthracyclines-taxanes or taxanes) was conducted. In addition, an event-based pooled analysis by extracting activity and safety events and deriving 95% confidence intervals (CI) was accomplished. Fourteen trials (4149 patients) were identified, with 6 trials (1820 patients) included in the meta-analysis and 31 arms (14 trials, 3580 patients) in the event-based pooled analysis. The dual HER2 inhibition significantly improves pCR rate, in the range of 16-19%, regardless of the chemotherapy backbone (relative risk 1.37, 95% CI 1.23-1.53, p<0.0001); pCR was significantly higher in the hormonal receptor negative population, regardless of the HER2 inhibition and type of chemotherapy. pCR and the rate of breast conserving surgery was higher when anthracyclines were added to taxanes, regardless of the HER2 inhibition. Severe neutropenia was higher with the addition of anthracyclines to taxanes, with an absolute difference of 19.7%, despite no differences in febrile neutropenia. While no significant differences according to the HER2 inhibition were found in terms of cardiotoxicity, a slightly difference for grade 3-4 (1.2%) against the addition of anthracyclines was calculated. The dual HER2 inhibition for the neoadjuvant treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer significantly increases pCR; the combination of anthracyclines, taxanes and anti-Her2 agents should be currently considered the standard of care., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Few data on Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast carcinomas have been reported for screen-detected breast carcinoma. Assessing the impact of a targeted intervention with anti-HER2 inhibitors on costs is required in order to plan for better strategies in screening programs. A total of 54,472 women were screened and 323 cases were found to be invasive cancer. We performed immunophenotypical-fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis. Among 153 evaluable breast carcinomas, tumours displayed a 3+ scoring status 3+ in 16 (10%), 2+ in 12 (8%), 1+ in 29 (19%) and 0 in 96 (63%) of cases, respectively. All 3+ HER2+ cases and 2/12 2+ (17%) cases exhibited HER2/neu gene amplification, the remaining cases did not. In contrast to the higher incidence reported at the population level, 20-30% HER2-positive cases for metastatic carcinomas, and only 11% of the screen-detected breast carcinomas displayed HER2/neu gene amplification. Breast cancer detection by screening programs hijacks the skyrocketing cost of the use of targeted therapy in HER2-positive carcinoma.

Purpose: Triple (ER-, PR-, HER2-) negative breast carcinoma lack targeted therapies, making this group of tumors difficult to treat. By definition, the lack of HER2 expression means a case scoring 0 or 1+ after immunophenotypical analysis and makes the patients avoiding therapeutical chances with anti-HER2 inhibitors. We sought to recruit from a group of triple negative breast carcinoma, patients eligible for effective personalized targeted therapy with anti-HER therapies on the basis of their HER2 gene status., Methods: 135 patients diagnosed with IHC triple negative breast carcinoma were studied. Whole tissue sections were used for in situ hybridization analysis., Results: 8/100 (8 %) of ductal-type triple negative breast carcinoma presented Her-2/neu gene amplification versus 2/35 (5.7 %) non-ductal triple negative breast carcinoma. Three cases showed a ratio 2.5. One case showed Her-2/neu heterogeneous gene amplification, ratio 2.3. The other six showed from 7 to 8 absolute Her-2/neu gene copy number. Two cases staged pT1c, and eight cases staged pT2. Eight cases graded G3 and two cases G2., Conclusion: (1) Eight percentage of ductal and 5.7 % non-ductal-type triple negative breast carcinoma present Her-2/neu gene amplification, (2) the standard diagnostic flowchart "do not FISH in 0-1+ (HER2-) breast carcinoma" should be replaced by "do FISH in triple (ER-, PR-, HER2-) negative breast carcinoma," to avoid loss of therapeutical chances in a cohort of such a patients, (3) we demonstrated the identification of a small but significant subset of patients targetable with anti-HER2 inhibitors, giving patients affected by (ex)triple negative breast carcinoma new personalized therapeutical chances.